MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[malcheski]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[malcheski]

Zita with the support act

 

[Buget]

View attachment 1920162
Zita with the support act

Even with 20 good reasons, they would be a few short of being correct….

 

[gbear]

Adrian Anderson auditioning for the Fringe now

View attachment 1920155

You got to be shitting me!

 

[Festerz]

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

These guys are on crack

 

[malcheski]

Apart from, you know - new rules in the off-season and a literal example of what penalties will be the week before.

 

[Buget]

These guys are on crack

The Saints guy doesn’t get it. It doesn’t matter what has happened in previous seasons. So an 8 week ban isn’t excessive but past standards, as there is only 1 past standard (SPP)

I would also argue that the community standards on these action has been pretty consistent, just the AFL hasn’t been listening.

And that 1 incident can change community standards. Such as the “sliding into low legs” rule. 1 incident, change in standards, a new rule…

 

[Festerz]

View attachment 1920182


Apart from, you know - new rules in the off-season and a literal example of what penalties will be the week before.

Anderson doing no favours to his club using the Back to the Future defence here.

 

[Festerz]

Hooray for common sense! (and consistency).

Took a while for them to drop but the dangly bits being shown by the AFL on this tragic issue of brain trauma are mighty impressive.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And now Adrian Anderson makes David King cry.

View attachment 1920147

Gaff would get 12+ now.

Barry Hall in 2008 got 790 pts ie 7.9 games suspension after tribunal chairman John Hassett "strongly" suggested to the tribunal that the Sydney Swans' key forward should receive a discount for pleading guilty, Hall's contrition probably saved him a rare double-figure suspension.

And that is despite his so called good record, despite where the punch in the guts to Matt Macguire in the 2005 PF got off on a technicality because his lawyer successfully argued punching someone 100m from where the ball is, is considered still in play and a downgrade in the charge so only a financial sanction.

So Hall go 7 games with 90pts carried forward but the starting point was 1050 pts before the 25% discount. When Gaff was in front of the tribunal the argument was Hall effectively got 8 so Gaff should. Yes he was contrite but there was no 25% discount in 2018 when Gaff punched Brayshaw and busted his jaw.

The world has changed plenty since 2018, especially the threat of suing, so a Barry Hall 8 and an Andrew Gaff 8 is irrelevant.

The AFL still hasn't made public its 2024 Tribunal Guidelines book, but in the SPP case it referred to the changes from 2023 and reported by Fox Sports

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

www.foxsports.com.au

An amendment to the Tribunal rules for 2024 reads: “In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions).”

 

[bomberclifford]

Hooray for common sense! (and consistency). Took a while for them to drop but the dangly bits of the AFL on this matter are mighty impressive.



View attachment 1920192

Have to say, I’m surprised and impressed at this. Still doesn’t resolve the Maynard let off but we’re moving in the right direction.

 

[Festerz]

Have to say, I’m surprised and impressed at this. Still doesn’t resolve the Maynard let off but we’re moving in the right direction.

Yep. Now let's see how the Tribunal handles it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Have to say, I’m surprised and impressed at this. Still doesn’t resolve the Maynard let off but we’re moving in the right direction.

AFL counsel argues one way in the Maynard case
Tribunal thinks differently and lets him off. That's not the AFL letting him off.

Cripps case in 2022
AFL counsel argues one way,
Tribunal agrees and gives him games. Cripps appeals
Appeals Board - they say Tribunal and in particular Gleeson's instructions as Tribunal chair, was wrong, Cripps gets off, wins Brownlow.

I don't understand why people blame the AFL for every decision. The AFL's position is represented by its counsel, not the decisions handed down by the tribunal or appeals board.

It would be the same as saying the lower court and the highest appeal court is run by the government and the decision represents the government's and police's opinion. The MRO is the same as the cops and the AFL counsel is the same as the DPP / crown prosecutor.

That might be how it work's in Putin's Russia, but not in a proper democracy with the separation of powers.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Tribunal is deliberating

 

[RossFC]

That comment about it being comparable to the SPP incident, should get an extra week (9) just for that.

 

[JimmyBC]

Tribunal is deliberating

Get ya hot chocolate & slippers

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Get ya hot chocolate & slippers

Am I Angus Young?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

They're back. Gieschen just polishing off his chocolate mousse.

 

[Janus]

7 matches, like I thought it would be.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

7 matches. Wonder what the tribunal's weak-arsed reasoning will be for knocking off a game?

It was a clear cut case.

 

[Festerz]

7 matches. Wonder what the tribunal's weak-arsed reasoning will be for knocking off a game?

Getting him back to face Norf again in Round 8

 

[agmsy]

7 matches, like I thought it would be.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

AFL counsel wants 8, is remorseful, so give him a bit of a discount, make it 7 games. Standard for 2024 has been set, lets see if they stick to it.

Lets see why the panel gave him 1 week less than Woods wanted.

 

[Scodges]

7 weeks, gutless AFL. That was minimum 8.
AFL wanted 4 for pep & they got it, they wanted 8 for this pos, did that one game disappear ?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com