Now that that's done with, what will Clarko's penalty be - that's what the world is dying to know...
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
Let’s see what happens when it’s a ‘star’.
We now have evidence that the Port tax at the tribunal is 1 game.
Anderson's convincing defence got him one less game.
AFLs turning into the WWE
Back for the north game
'Bwaaah he's got a chair'
Back for the north game
'Bwaaah he's got a chair'
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,609
Saint’s penalty revealed after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-week ban too long — Tribunal Wrap
Saint cops giant ban after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-weeks is too long — Tribunal Wrap
www.foxsports.com.au
(Long) reasons from Tribunal:
The rough conduct was extremely careless. Webster did not intend to commit a reportable offence, but we find that he did form an intention, albeit at the last minute, to bump Simpkin.
His execution of the bump was at the highest end of careless. He approached Simpkin at speed, he knew Simpkin was vulnerable and not in a position to protect himself, both his feet left the ground, removing any real prospect of not making high contact with Simpkin.
The force with which he struck Simpkin’s head was very high, as demonstrated by the manner in which Simpkin’s head recoiled.
Rough conduct warrants a significant sanction. The AFL submits the appropriate sanction is eight matches. Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
The Powell-Pepper rough conduct was serious, but this was worse. Considerably worse.
Powell-Pepper approached a pack of players who were moving in a rapid and unpredictable manner. His carelessness was approaching such a situation at speed, which resulted in him bumping.
In this matter, it was the approach of a single player with a clear line of vision and the ability to readily anticipate what the player with the ball was about to do.
With Powell-Pepper there was no positive finding that he elected to bump. Here, we make such a finding.
We are not satisfied that Webster could not have avoided all contact entirely, or certainly any forceful contact. He could have attempted to smother and conceded this in evidence.
This was a classic case of avoidable head high contact.
The 2024 version, the tribunal guidelines includes this new provision: “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).”
There is no reason to assume community standards evolve slowly or in a linear fashion. The need to avoid head-high impact, the need to minimise the risk of concussion has never been more acute.
There is an urgency about the need to continue to do what is reasonably necessary to attempt to change what is admittedly rare instances of player behaviour.
A sanction of eight matches is very significant. It’s double imposed on Powell-Pepper. For reasons we have stated, there are differences between the incidents.
The assessment of relative culpability is not precise. It is not mechanical.
This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless.
We are not imposing a sanction on the basis that Webster intended to commit the reportable offence. It is not without significance, Webster pleaded guilty to all aspects, assisted by impressive character evidence from highly regarded individuals. He gave evidence, answered all questions asked of him, made no excuses for his conduct, which he himself described as unacceptable.
In all the circumstances we consider the appropriate sanction is seven matches.
Throw yourself at the mercy of the tribunal and you get a week off what the AFL wanted it seems.
But I'm stuffed if I know how it really works. If SPP and his counsel didn't say how many weeks he should get then would he have been given 1 less week than the 4 the AFL counsel requested???
Last edited:
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 81,707
- 201,650
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,611
Saint’s penalty revealed after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-week ban too long — Tribunal Wrap
Saint cops giant ban after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-weeks is too long — Tribunal Wrap
(Long) reasons from Tribunal:
The rough conduct was extremely careless. Webster did not intend to commit a reportable offence, but we find that he did form an intention, albeit at the last minute, to bump Simpkin.
His execution of the bump was at the highest end of careless. He approached Simpkin at speed, he knew Simpkin was vulnerable and not in a position to protect himself, both his feet left the ground, removing any real prospect of not making high contact with Simpkin.
The force with which he struck Simpkin’s head was very high, as demonstrated by the manner in which Simpkin’s head recoiled.
Rough conduct warrants a significant sanction. The AFL submits the appropriate sanction is eight matches. Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
The Powell-Pepper rough conduct was serious, but this was worse. Considerably worse.
Powell-Pepper approached a pack of players who were moving in a rapid and unpredictable manner. His carelessness was approaching such a situation at speed, which resulted in him bumping.
In this matter, it was the approach of a single player with a clear line of vision and the ability to readily anticipate what the player with the ball was about to do.
With Powell-Pepper there was no positive finding that he elected to bump. Here, we make such a finding.
We are not satisfied that Webster could not have avoided all contact entirely, or certainly any forceful contact. He could have attempted to smother and conceded this in evidence.
This was a classic case of avoidable head high contact.
The 2024 version, the tribunal guidelines includes this new provision: “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).”
There is no reason to assume community standards evolve slowly or in a linear fashion. The need to avoid head-high impact, the need to minimise the risk of concussion has never been more acute.
There is an urgency about the need to continue to do what is reasonably necessary to attempt to change what is admittedly rare instances of player behaviour.
A sanction of eight matches is very significant. It’s double imposed on Powell-Pepper. For reasons we have stated, there are differences between the incidents.
The assessment of relative culpability is not precise. It is not mechanical.
This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless.
We are not imposing a sanction on the basis that Webster intended to commit the reportable offence. It is not without significance, Webster pleaded guilty to all aspects, assisted by impressive character evidence from highly regarded individuals. He gave evidence, answered all questions asked of him, made no excuses for his conduct, which he himself described as unacceptable.
In all the circumstances we consider the appropriate sanction is seven matches.
Reading that made me think he should have been given 10 games.
tribey
ʎǝlʞuᴉH ʞɔɐS
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Stuff like this baffles me.
It’s top flight Australian Rules football. Most ‘packs’ are approached at speed.
So SPP’s character is of lower repute or he showed less contrition on twitter?Saint’s penalty revealed after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-week ban too long — Tribunal Wrap
Saint cops giant ban after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-weeks is too long — Tribunal Wrap
(Long) reasons from Tribunal:
The rough conduct was extremely careless. Webster did not intend to commit a reportable offence, but we find that he did form an intention, albeit at the last minute, to bump Simpkin.
His execution of the bump was at the highest end of careless. He approached Simpkin at speed, he knew Simpkin was vulnerable and not in a position to protect himself, both his feet left the ground, removing any real prospect of not making high contact with Simpkin.
The force with which he struck Simpkin’s head was very high, as demonstrated by the manner in which Simpkin’s head recoiled.
Rough conduct warrants a significant sanction. The AFL submits the appropriate sanction is eight matches. Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
The Powell-Pepper rough conduct was serious, but this was worse. Considerably worse.
Powell-Pepper approached a pack of players who were moving in a rapid and unpredictable manner. His carelessness was approaching such a situation at speed, which resulted in him bumping.
In this matter, it was the approach of a single player with a clear line of vision and the ability to readily anticipate what the player with the ball was about to do.
With Powell-Pepper there was no positive finding that he elected to bump. Here, we make such a finding.
We are not satisfied that Webster could not have avoided all contact entirely, or certainly any forceful contact. He could have attempted to smother and conceded this in evidence.
This was a classic case of avoidable head high contact.
The 2024 version, the tribunal guidelines includes this new provision: “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).”
There is no reason to assume community standards evolve slowly or in a linear fashion. The need to avoid head-high impact, the need to minimise the risk of concussion has never been more acute.
There is an urgency about the need to continue to do what is reasonably necessary to attempt to change what is admittedly rare instances of player behaviour.
A sanction of eight matches is very significant. It’s double imposed on Powell-Pepper. For reasons we have stated, there are differences between the incidents.
The assessment of relative culpability is not precise. It is not mechanical.
This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless.
We are not imposing a sanction on the basis that Webster intended to commit the reportable offence. It is not without significance, Webster pleaded guilty to all aspects, assisted by impressive character evidence from highly regarded individuals. He gave evidence, answered all questions asked of him, made no excuses for his conduct, which he himself described as unacceptable.
In all the circumstances we consider the appropriate sanction is seven matches.
Throw yourself at the mercy of the tribunal and you get a week off what the AFL wanted it seems.
But I'm stuffed if I know how it really works. If SPP and his counsel didn't say how many weeks he should get then would he have been given 1 less week than the 4 the AFL counsel requested???
Regardless, this clearly sets the bounds for careless suspension. Low culpability concussion = 4 weeks. High culpability = 7 weeks. I’m sure there will be plenty of haggling in the middle as the season progresses.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,614
I wasn't sure about this bit in the reasoning of the decision.
Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
But found this bit.
Anderson (Saints) is asked what an appropriate sanction is. He says somewhere in the vicinity of Sam Powell-Pepper's ban (four matches).
The man who helped make the big adjustment to the tribunal system by introducing the points and matrix offences at start of 2005,and understands how to play the game. Like a good lawyer, and an AFL official, ok ex AFL official, don't answer the question directly with a black and white answer, just leave it grey and open ended.
Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
But found this bit.
Anderson (Saints) is asked what an appropriate sanction is. He says somewhere in the vicinity of Sam Powell-Pepper's ban (four matches).
The man who helped make the big adjustment to the tribunal system by introducing the points and matrix offences at start of 2005,and understands how to play the game. Like a good lawyer, and an AFL official, ok ex AFL official, don't answer the question directly with a black and white answer, just leave it grey and open ended.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 81,707
- 201,650
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,616
I’m actually with Clarko on this, I’d be happy if our coach said the same thing.Clarko, penalty?
That’s the problem with todays footy not enough passion shown, it’s all very clinical with a lot of words saying nothing.
- Jul 1, 2014
- 8,057
- 9,168
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls Man Utd
Spp got ****ed
Scodges
Club Legend
- Sep 22, 2023
- 1,220
- 1,492
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 22,564
- 46,574
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
Well what do know they've dropped their bundle already. I reckon that would have been 6-7 last year so where is the hardman AFL now. They are just corrupt to the bone.
No that was 7 last year. Should be more for consistency with SPP.
That description didn’t really say why they knocked a game off what the AFL was asking. All that can be assumed is Webster fell on his sword and got a discount.Saint’s penalty revealed after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-week ban too long — Tribunal Wrap
Saint cops giant ban after club’s ‘eight reasons’ why 8-weeks is too long — Tribunal Wrap
(Long) reasons from Tribunal:
The rough conduct was extremely careless. Webster did not intend to commit a reportable offence, but we find that he did form an intention, albeit at the last minute, to bump Simpkin.
His execution of the bump was at the highest end of careless. He approached Simpkin at speed, he knew Simpkin was vulnerable and not in a position to protect himself, both his feet left the ground, removing any real prospect of not making high contact with Simpkin.
The force with which he struck Simpkin’s head was very high, as demonstrated by the manner in which Simpkin’s head recoiled.
Rough conduct warrants a significant sanction. The AFL submits the appropriate sanction is eight matches. Webster does not advance a specific number of matches, but says it should be in the range of the four weeks given to Sam Powell-Pepper.
The Powell-Pepper rough conduct was serious, but this was worse. Considerably worse.
Powell-Pepper approached a pack of players who were moving in a rapid and unpredictable manner. His carelessness was approaching such a situation at speed, which resulted in him bumping.
In this matter, it was the approach of a single player with a clear line of vision and the ability to readily anticipate what the player with the ball was about to do.
With Powell-Pepper there was no positive finding that he elected to bump. Here, we make such a finding.
We are not satisfied that Webster could not have avoided all contact entirely, or certainly any forceful contact. He could have attempted to smother and conceded this in evidence.
This was a classic case of avoidable head high contact.
The 2024 version, the tribunal guidelines includes this new provision: “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).”
There is no reason to assume community standards evolve slowly or in a linear fashion. The need to avoid head-high impact, the need to minimise the risk of concussion has never been more acute.
There is an urgency about the need to continue to do what is reasonably necessary to attempt to change what is admittedly rare instances of player behaviour.
A sanction of eight matches is very significant. It’s double imposed on Powell-Pepper. For reasons we have stated, there are differences between the incidents.
The assessment of relative culpability is not precise. It is not mechanical.
This incident was entirely avoidable. Webster launched into a relatively defenceless Simpkin. He had time to consider his alternatives. The impact was violent and the consequences for Simpkin were heavy. Nonetheless, the offence was graded careless.
We are not imposing a sanction on the basis that Webster intended to commit the reportable offence. It is not without significance, Webster pleaded guilty to all aspects, assisted by impressive character evidence from highly regarded individuals. He gave evidence, answered all questions asked of him, made no excuses for his conduct, which he himself described as unacceptable.
In all the circumstances we consider the appropriate sanction is seven matches.
Throw yourself at the mercy of the tribunal and you get a week off what the AFL wanted it seems.
But I'm stuffed if I know how it really works. If SPP and his counsel didn't say how many weeks he should get then would he have been given 1 less week than the 4 the AFL counsel requested???
I wonder if Port didn’t go down the mechanic route and prove SPP tried to tackle, would he have gotten 3.
At least a standard has been set and after the first tests, it seems consistent.
Similar threads
- Locked
