MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Waspy79]

Cue the media outrage because it's Carlton players...

What was he meant to do? Enter the contest spread eagled and lose his testicles in a knee?

 

[Mr Experience]

What was he meant to do? Enter the contest spread eagled and lose his testicles in a knee?

I'm more angling at how the media pick and choose their incidents to get on their soapboxes over dependent on the player/club, rather than the decision itself.

You are correct of course.

 

[Waspy79]

I'm more angling at how the media pick and choose their incidents to get on their soapboxes over dependent on the player/club, rather than the decision itself.

You are correct of course.

You are also of course correct.

Was it the Jack Viney case a few years ago that raised the ire of the media not long after farcical suspensions to probably Hartlett and Jonas

 

[SteppingTiger]

Deadset, if they are going to keep suspending players for football acts and then up the penalties for non football acts.

Face to face and you strike, minimum 6 weeks. Strike while a player is not even facing you, add 2-3 more.

I just can’t understand why football acts are getting such big penalties when in most cases players are moving on instinct and in a contest everything is happening at such speed abs the expectation from team mates, coaches, fans and media is to go in at each contest, to go when it is your turn.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Lol such a pussy sport 2021 the afl officially dies

 

[malcheski]

Yet is Plowman went for a hanger and drove his knee into O’Meara’s head he wouldn’t have got sighted. The MRO and Tribunal are losing sight of the game and the split second actions and decisions needed. The game has sped up something shocking in the last 5 years and even the ex players on the tribunal would fail to recognise the current game from when they played.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grave Danger]

What outcome tonite will be enough to save Christian's job?

 

[Grave Danger]

That's two wins for The Empire - they can afford to be magnanimous with the SUNS bloke. And save the sport.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is how Plowman finished.

So he's suspended but now we're figuring out for how long.
Carlton talking about exceptional and compelling circumstances.
Carlton arguing for a one-week ban, and even mentioning a suspended sentence.

Carlton trying to argue down the two-week ban, talking about Plowman's good record. So he's guilty but the sanction is yet to be confirmed.

They're still discussing whether Plowman's good record is worthy of "exceptional and compelling circumstances". AFL raises that he has received two melee sanctions but otherwise has a clean record.

No exceptional circumstances. TWO WEEKS confirmed.

Case took just over 2 hours.

 

[FishingRick04]

I can’t believe an elbow to the head off the ball is 3 weeks, Lycett 4!

 

[backtozero]

I can’t believe an elbow to the head off the ball is 3 weeks, Lycett 4!

And a forearm to the back of the neck (Flogarty) is a fine.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Marlion Pickett's hearing begins at 7:25pm.

Straight into the Pickett hearing. Same jury and chairman, with Sam Tovey representing Richmond and Jeff Gleeson again representing the AFL.

Marlion Pickett is pleading guilty to an alternative charge of high contact but low impact, rather than medium.

Lions' medical report: No ongoing treatment. No days of training or matches expected to be missed.

Pickett is asked about his actions when the ball became loose. "I was trying to either get it or put pressure on it."
He saw Starcevich take possession. "He picks it up and as I'm running towards him, he's trying to get the boot on it, so I'm trying to get there as quick as possible."
How did you put pressure on him? "He starts to move off my line, so I move and slow down before I try and make a tackle ... so I didn't slip over. He steps to the right which makes me change direction towards him."
Pickett: I'm trying to tackle him and interrupt his kick. I'm moving as he's moving, so I put my arm out to try and get him around the chest.

Pickett: I thought most of the force came onto his shoulder.
Pickett says he made some high contact, with "the high chest and lower neck".
Pickett is asked how forceful the high contact was. "Not really high."

AFL questioning Pickett's evidence about making minimal to no contact to Starcevich's face. "I suggest you did make impact to his head as the footage shows." Pickett disagrees that the footage shows he hit Starcevich's face, partly because of how blurry it is.

AFL argues rather than trying to minimise the impact, Pickett was trying to increase the force of the impact when he collided with Starcevich. Pickett disagrees.

Pickett concedes he hit Starcevich at a reasonable speed.

The AFL speaks to the issue of whether the impact was low or medium. Gleeson points to the guidelines - extent of force and injury. "There's no injury as such but you know from the footage ... Starcevich hits the ground pretty hard, stays down for a fair while, looks as if he's in some stage of distress ... though he ultimately takes the kick."

AFL points out the guidelines say there being no injury can still result in a grading as harsh as severe.

AFL points to the guideline that says "strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury", which specifically mentions "a forceful round-arm swing". "It was a round-arm motion and it was forceful and it made head-high contact with the player. It's quite open to interpretation that contrary to Mr Pickett's evidence there was meaningful and significant contact made to the head of Starcevich. It's difficult to conclude there was no forceful contact to the head."

AFL: It's quite open to you to conclude that a swinging action like this, with momentum and speed and with the way the contact was made, will almost invariably attract a medium impact designation given the deference to head-high injuries in the guidelines. It would almost be an unusual outcome for this to be rated the lowest category.

Richmond argues with the idea low impact is "unusual". Points to examples in the guidelines, including one that had "a higher potential to cause serious injury" was graded as low.

Richmond also points out the lack of injury caused. "That word potential - was there capacity, realistically, for it to be worse than it was? In my submission the worst-case scenario eventuated; that potential resulted in no injury being suffered by Mr Starcevich."

Richmond says there was a mixture of contact, "most of it to the outer shoulder and chest area", and "some of it high", but "the bulk of the force that was used here was absorbed low - not high".

Richmond: Mr Pickett isn't lucky there wasn't further injury, but he was unlucky to get Mr Starcevich high at all.

The Tigers are now looking at other examples, one including Perryman and Wines.
The Perryman-Wines incident was low impact - the other incident involves Josh Caddy against Adelaide and was graded as medium impact. That incident concussed the Crows player.

The AFL says the guidelines have changed since those examples.

Tribunal chairman says the sole question is whether the impact was medium or low.

The jury will now deliberate.

Jury finds the impact was MEDIUM. The approach came with speed and included meaningful high contact & potential for injury. They did not consider the impact to be at the low level.
Pickett suspended for one week

Finished about 7.55pm.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Lol, Pickett was lying through his teeth. Lined him up, meant to hit him, meant to hurt him. Was going the biff like Richmond always do when they're losing. Campaigner.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

8:40pm start for Holman hearing

Here we go. Same jury, Tribunal chairman and AFL lawyer Jeff Gleeson, with Gold Coast represented by Stephen Russell.

Holman is pleading not guilty, especially in regards to carelessness, saying there was nothing careless about the tackle.

Gold Coast says the impact/contact grading aren't relevant because it wasn't a dangerous tackle. "It was entirely within the rules of the game and not a situation where it could be considered either careless or high contact, and certainly not high impact."

Mitch Duncan's medical report: Player needs ongoing treatment under the AFL concussion protocols. Duncan will miss TBC days of training, minimum five days before the return to non-contact training. Duncan will miss at least one game per standard concussion management, but no other injuries.


Gold Coast says there was no breach of the duty of care.
"There's no slinging action, there's no spinning ... no second action, no excessive force, no pushing into the ground, nothing of that sort at all, all within the rules of the game.

"There would need to be clear identification of something Holman did that another reasonable player did in the same circumstances would not have done. And that hasn't been identified at all."

We're going through some images (the PowerPoint!) to show what happened in the incident.


Gold Coast says Duncan was being tackled in a standing position as Holman lost his footing. "It's not a situation at that stage where he has the power imbalance over Duncan."
GC then says Duncan is trying to kick the ball mid-tackle while again Holman is "not in a position of power imbalance".
"It's no action on the part of Holman that has led to the eventual injury that has occurred, but more Duncan trying to kick the ball.

Holman "had no other alternative" says GC.

AFL: "Most dangerous tackles don't start out as dangerous tackles; whether it's a sling tackle or a driving tackle. They start out, typically, as a dangerous tackle. But something happens in the course of the tackle that renders it dangerous - and it happens pretty quickly. But those who are making the rules and the guidelines, and what's a reportable offence, have decided to give great need to protect players from head injuries.

"The purpose of making it a reportable offence is because of the incidence of head injuries and the importance of avoiding that."

AFL going through the dangerous tackle guidelines.
"It's open to you to find that an element of each of those components is evident in this tackle ... in particular that there's a discernable second movement.
"I know the jury's well used to blocking out the noise from the media. There's been a great bit of vitriol about this charge. Not everyone's seen the footage."

Then:
"This starts off as a terrific tackle, there's a run-down by Mr Holman. Mitch Duncan is about to kick the ball, you can assume Holman knows that. He lunges at him and applies a tackle.
"Mr Holman tries to, and succeeds in, pinning the right arm of Mr Duncan. And you can assume reasonably he knows he's got his right arm pinned.

"He succeeds in preventing any effective kick, he knows Duncan's collapsing and can't kick it any more ... it's from the point at which the kick is ineffective, and known to be ineffective, that it's open to you to conclude this second driving action happens."

AFL: It's the rest of the tackle that's the problem. Instead of releasing his right arm, he keeps holding his arm and Holman's left arm drives Mr Duncan into the ground.
AFL says Holman's duty was to not exacerbate the impact once the kick was ineffective by letting go.
"I'm not saying it was necessarily the simplest thing in the world to achieve, but I'm saying it's open to you to conclude it was achievable."

AFL: If you conclude this was a good tackle that in its final moments turned into a dangerous tackle, you'll uphold the charge. Players who do run-down tackles at speed have the victim player in a place of vulnerability and must know it's the landing that's important.
AFL says the injury consequences and the potential for an even more severe concussion all "make it a straight-forward matter for you to conclude it's high impact".
AFL also says the momentum of the run-down tackle makes it more dangerous than several examples of dangerous tackles which the jury have available to them.

AFL concludes by saying there was more Holman could have done.

Gold Coast: The jury needs to measure what a reasonable player would've done that Mr Holman did not do. With the utmost respect to my learned friend (Gleeson), with regards to a second driving motion, clearly looking at the vision, there is no second driving action. There is no attempt to drive Duncan into the ground.

GC: The arm does come across the arm of Duncan but it's not a pinning action - it's part of the tackle that occurs.
GC points to Duncan having his arm free as he goes to ground. Says the AFL is asking for "a level of perfection that is not required of a player acting reasonably in these circumstances".

GC again points out that Holman is mid-air once the tackle is laid. "His feet are already off the ground and he's lost any imbalance that occurs in the other (examples) ... at that stage, he has the player in a tackle. He doesn't have reasonable opportunity to be able to change the momentum or change his position. It all occurs in a split-second."

Tribunal chairman now speaking to the jury. He says they should disregard "the publicity of this matter".

He says rough conduct "has to be conduct which in the circumstances was unreasonable ... saying it's unreasonable in many senses also says that it was careless, or in breach of the duty of care of the player (Duncan)."

The jury will now deliberate.

27 minutes later jury returns

Tribunal chairman: Jury finds Holman approached Duncan from behind and tackled him legally. Do not consider there was a second motion. The momentum of the two players is what caused the consequences. They consider Holman acted reasonably. Not careless. NOT GUILTY.

So was Gleeson speaking shit? Should his exaggerations be ignored in the future? Took just over 1 hour 10 minutes.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Holman has been cleared of his dangerous tackle charge. they have found Holman acted reasonably and was not careless. The charge has been dismissed.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Holman has been cleared of his dangerous tackle charge. they have found Holman acted reasonably and was not careless. The charge has been dismissed.

Football very nearly died as a contact sport tonight, but it lives to fight another day.

 

[philreich]

AFL = Absolute F***ing Lunatics!!!

 

[Coobk001]

I feel like I'm the only person that sees the Plowman incident as clear charging, and a absolutely clear suspension. I can't even believe they appealed.

Great to see the tackle charge thrown out though. Good results.

 

[Waspy79]

I feel like I'm the only person that sees the Plowman incident as clear charging, and a absolutely clear suspension. I can't even believe they appealed.

Great to see the tackle charge thrown out though. Good results.

Fair enough. I try to put myself in the players position and then think how I would react in the same situation. I keep envisaging myself doing what Plowman did simply to protect myself having arrived to the contest a smidgen late. Could this be considered careless? Yes I guess so, but there a dozens of careless acts on a footy field every game that don't warrant a suspension. Would Plowman do anything different next time? I really doubt it - his first intent should always be to contest the ball.

 

[Tibbs]

I feel like I'm the only person that sees the Plowman incident as clear charging, and a absolutely clear suspension. I can't even believe they appealed.

Great to see the tackle charge thrown out though. Good results.

No you are not. I totally agree with you. I really cant believe the Blues are going to take this further & appeal! The video footage clearly shows he braces & bumps. Very similar to Dangerfield in that he probably started off with intentions of going for the ball, but was too late, and so bumped instead - Remember too that O'Meara has no idea an is unable to brace! This is just a terrible shot of what is happening to O'Meara's head! If you are late to a contest and choose to not contest the ball and go though with the bump, then you just cannot hit the player's head. Someone could easily get killed.

UPDATE: Plowman ruled out, Blues still appealing for 'clarity'

Carlton will front the Appeals Board in a bid to overturn Plowman's ban

www.afl.com.au

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Plowman appeal - Gleeson at it again.


Oooooh. AFL's Gleeson takes his time getting to his argument.

Carlton: "We're not here to hear how many submissions Mr Gleeson has made at the Tribunal before."

Chairman: "That's OK, Mr Gleeson is adding a bit of colour to his commentary, but I'm sure he'll get to his point now."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The hearing will now begin at 5:30pm. 2 legal eagles each.

Blue Lachie Plowman still banned even after marathon appeal finds Tribunal chair did make error

Blue remains banned even after marathon appeal finds Tribunal chair did make error

www.foxsports.com.au

We're about to get underway. Jeff Gleeson and Gayann Walker are representing the AFL and Peter O'Farrell and Elizabeth Bateman are representing Carlton. Our chairman is Murray Kellam while our jury members are Stephen Jurica (and his incredible beard) and Geoff Giudice.

Chairman: It appears to me that the issues are substantially the construction of the regulations, the laws and the relevant guidelines with not an enormous amount of dispute around the facts.

Carlton has provided a written submission. It begins by talking about the spirit and intention of a marking contest. O'Farrell talks about the rule which allows players to try and spoil the ball in a marking contest.

O'Farrell: "What occurred on Tuesday night, which was regrettable, suggested it's only a marking contest if a player is going to mark the ball." He is arguing a spoil can be part of a marking contest.
Carlton's O'Farrell, referring to his argument from last hearing: "It's general knowledge of the game of football - I knew that in a marking contest, it's permitted contact to try to spoil."


O'Farrell raises the fact the jury was questioning the chairman about his guidance. "The chairman's directions were erroneous ... they misdirected the jury and did effect the jury's verdict.
"That the chairman did not allow the jury to consider what permitted contact (in a marking contest) was is central to their verdict. We submit their verdict is unsafe and should be reversed from guilty to not guilty."

I believe I'm right in saying Carlton is arguing the jury wasn't allowed to consider whether a spoil was part of a marking contest; instead they were judging whether Plowman bumped or didn't, because of what the Tribunal chairman told them to consider.

And so Carlton believes "the laws are clear. It was a marking contest, and the incidental conduct is permitted if the player's sole intent is to mark or spoil a mark."

Carlton: "The evidence is clear ... Plowman's sole objective was to spoil the mark."
Carlton also says emphasis should not be placed on the injury suffered by Jaeger O'Meara in the incident.
Carlton says the jury's decision was "infected" by the chairman telling them they couldn't consider what permitted contact is.
Carlton argues permitted contact (ie a spoil) is not a reportable act.

Jury member Giudice: What was the actual contact in this case, and what caused the concussion? The force of the contact or the player hitting the ground?

Carlton: I describe it as permitted contact that occurred in a marking contest by a player whose sole objective was to spoil.
Giudice: Well, that doesn't help me very much, you've already said that.


Chairman: You're not suggesting that all contact that might take place in a marking contest is permitted? Just because the word incidental is used, that can't make it permitted, can it?

Carlton: The key is the spirit and intention of the rule - to allow a player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark to do so. If a player has gone to a marking contest to hurt someone or do something else, that's a difficulty.

Carlton: "The word bump happens quite a lot in a marking contest - incidentally. But the key to it is, what was Plowman's action?"

In response, the AFL points to the same rule Carlton has been using, citing the part which states a player who "unduly pushes or bumps an opposition player" is breaking the rule as well.
AFL: "The jury found Plowman effected a bump, and that there was no reasonable contest engaged in to contest the ball. The only conclusion you can derive from those two matters is that this was an undue bump. Hence not permitted contact."

The chairman says Tribunal chairman Howie was "clearly wrong" in saying a spoil is not part of a marking contest.

AFL responds that the incident wasn't a spoil anyway, it was a bump.

AFL: Plowman's contention is as long as I was legitimately trying to spoil, and it wasn't unreasonable for me to do so, this was incidental contact and therefore permitted. But that introduces a question of a reasonableness of the bump. We know it's a bump, the jury told us that. They can't sit side by side.

AFL: There may be circumstances where it's not reasonable to contest the ball in that way. That's in our laws.

They're going right into the weeds on how the rules work around incidental contact, and the 2021 changes which mean players no longer have the pure defence of "I was going for the ball".

Been going an hour so far - could be a long night.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

AFL rep Jeff Gleeson's statements end with the suggestion there was no "substantial miscarriage of justice" by what Tribunal chairman Howie told the jury anyway, so there's no need to overturn the verdict.

The Blues disagree with that idea that a jury being "misled" is not a miscarriage of justice.

From what I can see, this appeal will come down to this...

1. Did the Tribunal chairman mislead the jury when he said a spoil wasn't part of a marking contest?

The Appeal chairman has already said yes, he did - this is important because Carlton is arguing Plowman was allowed to do what he did because it was incidental contact in a marking contest.

2. But was it permitted contact?

The jury could still agree with the Tribunal jury and say Plowman bumped rather than spoiling, which would probably still see him suspended. But if they said yes to question 1, they can now accept the idea that it was incidental contact.

 

[Grave Danger]

Lachie just got Plowed...



Chairman: The jury in the Tribunal found the player had come to the contest at speed, that he was aware of the presence of O'Meara, considered O'Meara was not aware of Plowman, and that Plowman affected a bump, and in their view there was no exception in the evidence which applied. On that basis they concluded Plowman was guilty.

The Appeal relies upon a complaint that the Tribunal chair misdirected the jury. It's significant no complaint is made to the jury's findings were so unreasonable that no Tribunal could've come to that decision.

Whilst there may be legitimate grounds for criticism for part of the jury directions, we considered there's no basis to say any such error justifies the reversal or modification of the Tribunal decision.

We affirm the Tribunal decision.

SUSPENDED

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Georgiades didn't even get a mention for the sling tackle on anonymous Fremantle player #1. Thought the action was basically exactly the same as Lycett, just the Freo bloke had a hard head and got straight up.