Yep, it a week.
But they gave him two.
MRP / Trib. The MRP/Tribunal Thread - 2024 Edition
- Thread starter HoneyBadger35
- Start date
- Tagged users None
But they gave him two.
Flarn Rarn
Team Captain
- Jun 17, 2021
- 535
- 1,575
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If we want to get it down to 1 we have to argue it's not worth any weeks at all, but that if it was, 1 would be it.
Then the AFL splits the difference and gives everybody a result they're unhappy with and call it a day.
Then the AFL splits the difference and gives everybody a result they're unhappy with and call it a day.
Ace McKane
Team Captain
Anyone saying ‘this is the exact action they’re trying to remove from the game’ doesn't understand the issue here.
There are two different tackling scenarios here, and it seems the AFL themselves can’t differentiate between them:
1. This example. Ball carrier decides to take on the tackler by running through him and loses. Ball carrier continues with his momentum through the tackler, leaving the tackler’s options very limited. You run into a bigger and stronger player who is going to stick a tackle, but not necessarily have the ability to control where it takes the two of them.
Harley still had to come to a complete stop to even have a chance of completing that tackle whilst Wilson took him on, tried as much of a fend off as he could muster and continued on. Wilson had all the momentum there. He put himself in that situation by choosing to take the game on.
There was genuinely no other option for Harley there other than to let him have a free run up the wing with no contest. I would not be telling him to approach it any differently next time.
2. Ball carrier takes possession, little to no prior opportunity (not in every case though), is tackled with his arms pinned and slung to the ground with a deliberate second action from the tackler.
This is clearly dangerous, not a situation the ball carrier has put himself into and leaves him zero chance of any ability to protect himself. I’m not a fan, it’s not correct any this action should be punished. If Harley did this, yep no worries, cop your ban, you learn from it and approach it differently next time.
There needs to be a clear line between these acts. The AFL needs to punish the actions that put players in uncontrollable positions which cause head injury, not the football actions that players put themselves in and certainly not the outcome. There needs to be some onus on the tackled player to protect themselves too. It's the same with anything - chicken wing tackle, other head high contact, contact below the knees etc.
There are two different tackling scenarios here, and it seems the AFL themselves can’t differentiate between them:
1. This example. Ball carrier decides to take on the tackler by running through him and loses. Ball carrier continues with his momentum through the tackler, leaving the tackler’s options very limited. You run into a bigger and stronger player who is going to stick a tackle, but not necessarily have the ability to control where it takes the two of them.
Harley still had to come to a complete stop to even have a chance of completing that tackle whilst Wilson took him on, tried as much of a fend off as he could muster and continued on. Wilson had all the momentum there. He put himself in that situation by choosing to take the game on.
There was genuinely no other option for Harley there other than to let him have a free run up the wing with no contest. I would not be telling him to approach it any differently next time.
2. Ball carrier takes possession, little to no prior opportunity (not in every case though), is tackled with his arms pinned and slung to the ground with a deliberate second action from the tackler.
This is clearly dangerous, not a situation the ball carrier has put himself into and leaves him zero chance of any ability to protect himself. I’m not a fan, it’s not correct any this action should be punished. If Harley did this, yep no worries, cop your ban, you learn from it and approach it differently next time.
There needs to be a clear line between these acts. The AFL needs to punish the actions that put players in uncontrollable positions which cause head injury, not the football actions that players put themselves in and certainly not the outcome. There needs to be some onus on the tackled player to protect themselves too. It's the same with anything - chicken wing tackle, other head high contact, contact below the knees etc.
It was.harley should've just done this (its a 0 week action):
You've missing the memo this year.
Yes you are lost it tomorrow.
I still feel like the whole thing is a result of the inboard step, that sets the whole motion up (with forward momentum now on his right shoulder).
The way he removes his bottom hand from the back of the jumper and finished with an open chest, falling on his right shoulder indicates intent to get him over the line. I don't think there's a downward sling, just gravity, nor is there two motions.
However, I was expecting 1 week because the AFL are incompetent and fully expect it to be reduced.
The way he removes his bottom hand from the back of the jumper and finished with an open chest, falling on his right shoulder indicates intent to get him over the line. I don't think there's a downward sling, just gravity, nor is there two motions.
However, I was expecting 1 week because the AFL are incompetent and fully expect it to be reduced.
HoneyBadger35
They're not going to pick him, Mitch.
- Aug 11, 2011
- 28,483
- 80,791
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #161
We got Rioli off the rough conduct charge against Rowell in R1, 2022.
Kelly at the end of 2022 was one game upheld.
Our only challenge last year got Bailey Williams off a rough conduct charge, one week down to none.
Barrass earlier this year had his one game upheld.
Our record at the tribunal is pretty good, not sure where DGQC got the reputation from.
Bender_
X
It's the same as what I do with my kids when they ask what's for dinner; I tell them nothing and they think they're going hungry for the night. Then when I serve them up a big bowl of imitation gruel they're stoked with what they got.
It'll get reduced to 1 and the AFL will make themselves look like the good guys.
It'll get reduced to 1 and the AFL will make themselves look like the good guys.
My standard reply to that question is shit on a stick.
I think it is starting to lose its impact now, the little buggers have worked out that I have no more desire to eat shit on a stick than they do so the jig is up.
However in this case, I think we will probably get shit on a stick.
much less cook...
timeforanother22
Team Captain
- Jan 21, 2022
- 501
- 1,151
- AFL Club
- West Coast
When they ask me I say “Nothing.”
“But we had nothing yesterday?”
“I know, I made enough for two days.”
Obviously privileged as a kid though. We were told shit on toast.
“But we had nothing yesterday?”
“I know, I made enough for two days.”
Obviously privileged as a kid though. We were told shit on toast.
They obviously think low impact is a stretch.
You can thank the West Coast staff member in the background who puts her hand to her mouth like she’s just witnessed a murder. Can guarantee the AFL’s counsel will make a passing mention of that in the hearing tomorrow RE: severity of the tackle.
Last edited:
Seems relevant.
Nonsense.
She was covering her mouth in awe of Harley reid tackling and gaining a free kick for holding the ball.
She and we would assumed it was holding the ball and would be filthy it was overturned.
Tongue firmly in my cheek. But this is the AFL. Despite being facetious don’t be surprised if David Zita tweets about it tomorrow.
Toxic Tackle
- Nov 18, 2017
- 2,162
- 5,722
- AFL Club
- West Coast
For non-Victorian clubs the day Michael Christian has to make a judgement on their club appears to be the worst call they can remember.
For Michael Christian it is a Tuesday.
TY24
It's Hewett, not Hewitt
- Mar 21, 2017
- 10,864
- 23,078
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Arsenal, Scorchers, Scuderia Ferrari
I think it was when he tried to use a Bunnings lawn chair as part of the defence to get Gov off in the GC hubs
