MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Ford Fairlane said:
Except you can't say Houston's contact was not high when both the tribunal and Appeals Board agreed there was high contact.
Click to expand...
Because if they didn't say that it would have been zero weeks and they both would've looked more stupid than they do now. Also Houston already stupidly was advised to plead guilty to the charge of high contact. Never had a leg to stand on.
 
PAFC66 said:
Because if they didn't say that it would have been zero weeks and they both would've looked more stupid than they do now. Also Houston already stupidly was advised to plead guilty to the charge of high contact. Never had a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

I've heard this said a couple of times about Houston pleading guilty to making high contact. No, he didn't.

"I recall seeing Rankine when I was within a meter or so of him. I don't remember making the decision to bump. It is clear from the film that I did make that decision. I never meant to hurt Izak, let alone concuss him.

"I don't believe I made any contact at all with Izak's head, neck or top of his shoulders, but I accept that my bump caused his head to hit the ground, and because of that, this is classified as high contact.
Click to expand...

www.abc.net.au

'Crushing': Dan Houston's season over after copping monster ban at AFL Tribunal over brutal Rankine hit

The Port Adelaide star's season and potentially his career at the club is over after the tribunal handed down its verdict on the bump, which left his opponent concussed.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Port argued at the tribunal and appeals hearing that contact was not high. Both the tribunal and appeals board ruled it was.
 
Random thought, but I find it surprising we didn't wheel out the biomechanics expert at any point.

Both in terms of arguing the point of contact from the bump and also arguing the freak nature of Rankine hitting his head on the ground.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I've been thinking of a better way to classify incidents than the current system.

Technique:
  • Legal and legally applied (normal tackle, bump to the body)
  • Legal and illegally applied (sling tackle, high bump)
  • Illegal (Strike)

Game Context:
  • Contesting the ball
  • Late/Ran past the ball
  • Behind play

Impact - Head Injury (applies to all incidents):
  • Concussion
  • No concussion

Impact - Other (applies only to illegal techniques, behind play context)
  • Low (nothing to winded)
  • Moderate (required off the ground medical assessment)
  • High (Fracture/Broken Bone)
  • Severe (Internal injuries)

No careless/intentional guff. Gives room for nuance in application.

Topical incidents ranked from least to most severe based on the above metrics.

Houston on Rankine:
  • Legal, legally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Davies on Jones:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Picket on Moore:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Ran past the ball
  • Caused concussion

Rankine on Starcevish:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Behind play
  • Caused concussion

Hypotherical note: if none of the above caused concussion, then I would say:
  • Houston - play on
  • Davies - free kick
  • Pickett - supension
  • Rankine - suspension

Probably some refining to be done if the above hypothetical is true, as the Davies action is the most dangerous of the four and probably deserves more than just a free kick. That's where the potential to cause injury would come in in the current system, which I hate.

I think a better way to treat it might be to say bumping a player with their head over the ball is an illegal action like striking, though that introduces a grey area as to what counts as 'over the ball' which i don’t like.
 
Sleezy said:
I've been thinking of a better way to classify incidents than the current system.

Technique:
  • Legal and legally applied (normal tackle, bump to the body)
  • Legal and illegally applied (sling tackle, high bump)
  • Illegal (Strike)

Game Context:
  • Contesting the ball
  • Late/Ran past the ball
  • Behind play

Impact - Head Injury (applies to all incidents):
  • Concussion
  • No concussion

Impact - Other (applies only to illegal techniques, behind play context)
  • Low (nothing to winded)
  • Moderate (required off the ground medical assessment)
  • High (Fracture/Broken Bone)
  • Severe (Internal injuries)

No careless/intentional guff. Gives room for nuance in application.

Topical incidents ranked from least to most severe based on the above metrics.

Houston on Rankine:
  • Legal, legally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Davies on Jones:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Picket on Moore:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Ran past the ball
  • Caused concussion

Rankine on Starcevish:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Behind play
  • Caused concussion

Hypotherical note: if none of the above caused concussion, then I would say:
  • Houston - play on
  • Davies - free kick
  • Pickett - supension
  • Rankine - suspension

Probably some refining to be done if the above hypothetical is true, as the Davies action is the most dangerous of the four and probably deserves more than just a free kick. That's where the potential to cause injury would come in in the current system, which I hate.

I think a better way to treat it might be to say bumping a player with their head over the ball is an illegal action like striking, though that introduces a grey area as to what counts as 'over the ball' which i don’t like.
Click to expand...

Agree totally that the criteria needs a total overhaul and I like your new metrics, especially contesting/ran past/behind play.

The issue here is political. The AFL will grade every concussion before the MRP as severe so they can say that they take concussions seriously, which is why, as you say, they should have a seperate criteria for whether a concussion occurred to remove that aspect from impact.
 
Sleezy said:
I've been thinking of a better way to classify incidents than the current system.

Technique:
  • Legal and legally applied (normal tackle, bump to the body)
  • Legal and illegally applied (sling tackle, high bump)
  • Illegal (Strike)

Game Context:
  • Contesting the ball
  • Late/Ran past the ball
  • Behind play

Impact - Head Injury (applies to all incidents):
  • Concussion
  • No concussion

Impact - Other (applies only to illegal techniques, behind play context)
  • Low (nothing to winded)
  • Moderate (required off the ground medical assessment)
  • High (Fracture/Broken Bone)
  • Severe (Internal injuries)

No careless/intentional guff. Gives room for nuance in application.

Topical incidents ranked from least to most severe based on the above metrics.

Houston on Rankine:
  • Legal, legally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Davies on Jones:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Picket on Moore:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Ran past the ball
  • Caused concussion

Rankine on Starcevish:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Behind play
  • Caused concussion

Hypotherical note: if none of the above caused concussion, then I would say:
  • Houston - play on
  • Davies - free kick
  • Pickett - supension
  • Rankine - suspension

Probably some refining to be done if the above hypothetical is true, as the Davies action is the most dangerous of the four and probably deserves more than just a free kick. That's where the potential to cause injury would come in in the current system, which I hate.

I think a better way to treat it might be to say bumping a player with their head over the ball is an illegal action like striking, though that introduces a grey area as to what counts as 'over the ball' which i don’t like.
Click to expand...

This is good.

It’s late for me to think about it in detail, but I really like it. At least, it has a lot of potential. It does look almost finished, though.
 
The legal argument for the appeal should've been to challenge the systemic bias in the judicial system and surrounding media commentary prejudicing the case, i.e.:
  • swap Port Adelaide for Collingwood
  • swap out of finals contention for guaranteed Top 4 spot
  • swap Dan Houston for Nick Diacos
  • keep everything else exactly the same
Does anyone seriously believe he's going for 5 weeks?
 
Let's say Pickett gets a lesser suspension than Houston, and in the finding things that we argued and were dismissed were allowed in Picketts case which meant a lesser suspension.

Does that open the door for the club to appeal again? Whether it be AFL tribunal, Sports Court of Arbotration or Supreme Court?
 
Sleezy said:
I've been thinking of a better way to classify incidents than the current system.

Technique:
  • Legal and legally applied (normal tackle, bump to the body)
  • Legal and illegally applied (sling tackle, high bump)
  • Illegal (Strike)

Game Context:
  • Contesting the ball
  • Late/Ran past the ball
  • Behind play

Impact - Head Injury (applies to all incidents):
  • Concussion
  • No concussion

Impact - Other (applies only to illegal techniques, behind play context)
  • Low (nothing to winded)
  • Moderate (required off the ground medical assessment)
  • High (Fracture/Broken Bone)
  • Severe (Internal injuries)

No careless/intentional guff. Gives room for nuance in application.

Topical incidents ranked from least to most severe based on the above metrics.

Houston on Rankine:
  • Legal, legally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Davies on Jones:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Contesting the ball
  • Caused concussion

Picket on Moore:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Ran past the ball
  • Caused concussion

Rankine on Starcevish:
  • Legal, illegally applied
  • Behind play
  • Caused concussion

Hypotherical note: if none of the above caused concussion, then I would say:
  • Houston - play on
  • Davies - free kick
  • Pickett - supension
  • Rankine - suspension

Probably some refining to be done if the above hypothetical is true, as the Davies action is the most dangerous of the four and probably deserves more than just a free kick. That's where the potential to cause injury would come in in the current system, which I hate.

I think a better way to treat it might be to say bumping a player with their head over the ball is an illegal action like striking, though that introduces a grey area as to what counts as 'over the ball' which i don’t like.
Click to expand...

There is still a heap of grey areas for interpretation.

Take the Houston example, which you've graded as generously as possible.

The tribunal view is the bump was illegally applied. The MRO ruled it was high, the tribunal agreed and the appeal board supported that.

Contesting the ball? Dan shirt-fronted Rankine. The MRO will argue that's not contesting the ball. The AFL prosecution will attack an in-play interpretation.

So what is it in that case? Then it can only be Late/Ran past the ball.

The outcome doesn't change.

At the end of the day you will wind up in the same place we are now.
 
yepits2020 said:
Pickett should be suspended. Contact is clearly high. Careless v intentional, would lead to intentional. Given Moore was concussed, and given the potential of the bump, it should be classified as severe. High impact is 3 matches. If graded severe, then 4 or more matches and off to the tribunal. If graded as careless, then 2 matches or three or more (tribunal) respectively.

we shall sit snd judge the MRO.
Click to expand...
Its Careless - you are allowed to bump. Intentional can only really be for a punch.
Its Severe impact - as Moore was concussed and the outcome means it has to be severe ruling
Its High contact - to the head.

That means under the matrix is is at least 3 weeks or it goes straight to the Tribunal.

MRO - Michael Christian has the discretion whether to give it 3 weeks or send it straight to the tribunal.

As I have written a 2 or 3 times this season, in this thread, Michael Christian has never explained in his rulings, why he has used his discretion to either give it 3 weeks, or send it straight to the tribunal. Unaccountable Swill stuff.

It is another deliberate grey area left unanswered by the AFL to give themselves wiggle room.
 
Non vic teams getting reamed by the umpires in the Suns and WCE games.

Edit: imagine the umpiring if we end up playing Geelong in finals week 1 - and lose that, likely to end up playing the Hawks, and we will have no hope. Give the AFL a Hawks fairy tale

Edit edit: wrong thread
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ford Fairlane said:
There is still a heap of grey areas for interpretation.

Take the Houston example, which you've graded as generously as possible.

The tribunal view is the bump was illegally applied. The MRO ruled it was high, the tribunal agreed and the appeal board supported that.

Contesting the ball? Dan shirt-fronted Rankine. The MRO will argue that's not contesting the ball. The AFL prosecution will attack an in-play interpretation.

So what is it in that case? Then it can only be Late/Ran past the ball.

The outcome doesn't change.

At the end of the day you will wind up in the same place we are now.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point, but not your second.

On the first, I do think there was some incentive on the AFLs behalf to get it graded as high contact, even though it wasn't, because the wording of the rules is unclear and they wanted to bolster their case.

By taking concussion out of the impact section and making it its own set of criteria, i was hoping to kind of remove that incentive. Make the cause concussion get, suspended sentiment explicit. With that out of the way, there is less incentive to try to fudge high contact where there wasn’t any.

On the second, you just can't argue in good faith that Houston wasn't contesting the ball. He actually hit it with his bump.
 
Sleezy said:
On the second, you just can't argue in good faith that Houston wasn't contesting the ball. He actually hit it with his bump.
Click to expand...

The AFL would argue if he was contesting the ball, we would have stuck his hands out to try and collect it or stop Rankine from getting possession.

Instead he crashed into the body, so he wasn't contesting the ball.

Not surprised Pickett was only given 3, just disappointed at the obvious differential ruling.
 
Ford Fairlane said:
Except you can't say Houston's contact was not high when both the tribunal and Appeals Board agreed there was high contact.
Click to expand...

The high contact grading was due to brain injury which is fair enough, but the actual physical contact was not high, that was my point. I actually don’t dispute the careless, severe and high gradings but I have a massive problem with a 5 week ban given the incidental nature of the high impact, the fact Rankine had possession of the ball and the fact Houston has a perfect record. A 5 week ban in those circumstances is nothing short of outrageous and we should have lodged a court injunction.
 
On the back of this Pickett grading, the umpiring in the Geelong game and the likely fixing in tomorrows games by the VFL planted maggots I am saying farewell to my interest in this corrupt contemptible biased campaigner of a league and will also delete my BigFooty account. May the non Victorian clubs overcome adversity and bias and win every premiership forever forward.
 
Waspy79 said:
The high contact grading was due to brain injury which is fair enough, but the actual physical contact was not high, that was my point. I actually don’t dispute the careless, severe and high gradings but I have a massive problem with a 5 week ban given the incidental nature of the high impact, the fact Rankine had possession of the ball and the fact Houston has a perfect record. A 5 week ban in those circumstances is nothing short of outrageous and we should have lodged a court injunction.
Click to expand...

The high contact was due to it being judged top of the shoulder/neck. So your point is wrong.

That was the assessment of the MRO, tribunal and appeals board.

There was absolutely no room for a court injunction other than a whiny "It's not fair".

I think the penalty was too high, 3 matches and you would have took it and run.

But as I posted earlier the appeals board threw out all the grounds we objected on.

They said the bump was high contact.

They said the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

They said Houston's good record was taken into account.

The tribunal had already said they wouldn't give any greater weighting to missing finals.

They covered all their bases. Any further argument is He said, she said. That will go nowhere in court.
 
Ford Fairlane said:
The high contact was due to it being judged top of the shoulder/neck. So your point is wrong.

That was the assessment of the MRO, tribunal and appeals board.

There was absolutely no room for a court injunction other than a whiny "It's not fair".

I think the penalty was too high, 3 matches and you would have took it and run.

But as I posted earlier the appeals board threw out all the grounds we objected on.

They said the bump was high contact.

They said the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

They said Houston's good record was taken into account.

The tribunal had already said they wouldn't give any greater weighting to missing finals.

They covered all their bases. Any further argument is He said, she said. That will go nowhere in court.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Any bump that causes a brain injury will be graded as high contact regardless of whether it hits shoulder neck head whatever. Just look at tackles around the waste that cause the head to bump the ground. They are not graded body contact they are graded high contact. How can it not be graded high contact if that is where the injury is sustained?

Anyway please provide instructions for how I delete my account. I’ve had enough of this ****ing biased league it’s a complete waste of time as is posting in this forum.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Similar threads

Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 56
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
527
Views
21K
Portmagpies36
Portmagpies36
El Zorro
  • Locked
Game Day Game Day Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
75 76 77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
46K
philreich
philreich
RangaInTeal
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
865
Views
32K
Addy23
A
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
15K
Dutchy5150
Dutchy5150
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 21 vs Sydney
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
8K
PowerLil
PowerLil
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 22, 2024 vs Melbourne @ MCG
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
261
Views
10K
Expat power
Expat power
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 55
25 26 27 28 29
Replies
700
Views
25K
x_les_x
x_les_x

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top