Hahahaha - it's always hilarious when someone gets hit in the wedding tackle, discounted fine fully justified for the lols!
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - 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
Hahahaha - it's always hilarious when someone gets hit in the wedding tackle, discounted fine fully justified for the lols!
One to store for future reference
- Aug 16, 2009
- 2,752
- 6,727
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Manchester United Portland Timbers
So the head is sacrosanct except when it isn’t.
Hate the inconsistency with the MRO.
We all know if Jonas or Dixon did that it would be at least a fine.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Hate the inconsistency with the MRO.
We all know if Jonas or Dixon did that it would be at least a fine.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
If it was Jonas eh 2 weeks
- Nov 6, 2014
- 63,109
- 79,305
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Lachie Henderson no sanction for concussing Marshall
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,108
The head is sacrosanct is just bullshit spin from the AFL.
Its a collision sport so accidental head knocks will happen. You can go for a speckie and drive your knee thru someone's head and that's all legitimate. Two people equally going for the ball flat out eyes on the ball bent over and a clash of heads and one player gets knocked out eg the Viney case or both do and nobody will get sanctioned.
This was one of those accidents. Henderson doesn't even notice Marshall and that's why he makes contact with him.
- Apr 25, 2013
- 4,580
- 5,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
How was Henderson contesting the ball when a free kick was given for shepherding?
- Apr 25, 2013
- 4,580
- 5,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
He shepherded Marshall out of the contest so he knew he was there. Players need to practice looking at the ball while moving in the path of a player with the elbow up in the air.
TeeKray
Moderator
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide Forum Tipping Champion
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
- Moderator
- #1,111
WE NEED TO PROTECT THE HEAD, GERARD*
*non-Victorian footballers are actually headless
*non-Victorian footballers are actually headless
- Aug 21, 2007
- 32,501
- 105,228
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Henderson knew exactly where Marshall was, he moved where he did to block him.
However, I assume he thought Marshall was going to be in the air so went slightly higher and hit him high. I think a free kick was enough of a penalty ultimately. Kept his eyes on the ball and was trying to get in the way, not bump. But he was 100% intentionally blocking Marshall.
- Aug 16, 2009
- 2,752
- 6,727
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Manchester United Portland Timbers
I agree with you, definitely was a football collision, there was no real malice.
The issue is the inconsistency.
A couple of weeks ago that’s reportable, this week it’s not
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,115
He didn't shepherd him, he ran into him. Just because the umpire calls a shepherd that doesn't mean that is what Henderson was trying to do.
Look at the footage between 6.55 and 6.58 in the link below, that is the best angle of the lot as you see Henderson's eyes he was going for the mark, sticks out his arms to mark, then sees Henry and doesn't even notice Marshall. Watch it a couple of time and go thru and jump forward frame by frame.
Look I'm no fan of the umps and the MRO but this was just a collision where there was no awareness of Marshall even being there.
At the ground and the one replay they showed there, I thought he will get weeks for it. But the angle they show between 6.55 and 6.58 show it was a collision accident.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,116
Yeah that is bullshit if he says nothing there. It has to be a low impact grading as Farrell took his kick.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,117
No he didn't. He knew he was in the general area, but his eyes never left looking at the ball and then Henry. Look at the 3 seconds of the link I said and put up in my 2nd to last post above.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,807
- 198,186
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #1,118
The kick that picked out the wrong one of the 3 Amons he was seeing.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 32,501
- 105,228
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
You don't have to be looking where you're going to execute a block. Geelong players take so many seemingly uncontested intercept marks because they're doing this constantly.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 10,903
- 14,061
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The tackle on Farrell should have got a week at least
Yeah omgosh, that was the worst all year IMO. I could understand not giving 4 weeks given no injury, but letting it through is just wildly inconsistent with calls against players like Lycett etc IMO.
Nah on the live footage you can see exactly what Henderson is doing. Henry is in his vision when he actually jumps. So there's no way he's ever actually going for the mark. He's jumping across to block Marshall from competing. No ifs, no buts. In no wa is he ever actually competing for the ball.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,124
Mumford got away with the lower Fixed Financial Sanction and not thru the classifiable offences route ie careless, low impact and high contact. It's BS when you look at why they go the Fixed Financial Sanction route. It was more than a negligent act. The vision is in the link.
www.afl.com.au
Charges Laid:
Shane Mumford, GWS GIANTS, has been charged with Misconduct against Tarryn Thomas, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 13 match between North Melbourne and the GWS GIANTS, played at Blundstone Arena on Sunday, June 13, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Misconduct. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
MRO said that it was Misconduct not Rough Conduct - Dangerous Tackles
(C) MISCONDUCT
Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would
be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike or where it had
the effect or potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the
AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.
Acts of Serious Misconduct will be referred directly to the Tribunal.
However any other act of Misconduct will be subject to a fixed financial
sanction to be determined by the MRO in his absolute discretion.
The Swans v Hawks game MRO gave Worpel a week for a Rough Conduct Dangerous tackle ruling. Have a look at the tackle Worpel makes and tell me why Mumford's tackle shouldn't be considered a dangerous tackle and not get a misconduct ruling. Mumford would still get a financial penalty rather than game penalty as his impact was low but he should have got $3000 penalty reduced to $2000 with an early plea.
www.afl.com.au
Match Review: Big Mummy charged with misconduct
The AFL has completed its Match Review from the two matches on Sunday in round 13
www.afl.com.au
Shane Mumford, GWS GIANTS, has been charged with Misconduct against Tarryn Thomas, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 13 match between North Melbourne and the GWS GIANTS, played at Blundstone Arena on Sunday, June 13, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Misconduct. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
MRO said that it was Misconduct not Rough Conduct - Dangerous Tackles
(C) MISCONDUCT
Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would
be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike or where it had
the effect or potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the
AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.
Acts of Serious Misconduct will be referred directly to the Tribunal.
However any other act of Misconduct will be subject to a fixed financial
sanction to be determined by the MRO in his absolute discretion.
The Swans v Hawks game MRO gave Worpel a week for a Rough Conduct Dangerous tackle ruling. Have a look at the tackle Worpel makes and tell me why Mumford's tackle shouldn't be considered a dangerous tackle and not get a misconduct ruling. Mumford would still get a financial penalty rather than game penalty as his impact was low but he should have got $3000 penalty reduced to $2000 with an early plea.
Match Review: Hawk and Swan banned, star mid free to play
James Worpel and Sam Wicks have both been offered one-match bans after Friday's night clash between Sydney and Hawthorn
www.afl.com.au
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,125
Gleeson QC is representing the AFL in Mackay case.
The hanging panel has been appointed. Neitz and Loveridge I don't think have overturned the MRO the last 3 or 4 years I have been watching this. Below is a cut past from Foxsports report at below link with my odd comment in italics.
www.foxsports.com.au
Our cast of characters: Geoff Giudice is your Tribunal chairman. David Neitz, Paul Williams and Richard Loveridge are your jurors. Jeff Gleeson is representing the AFL while Andrew Culshaw represents Adelaide.
The AFLPA has sent a submission - which the AFL does not accept. The discussion now is whether the Tribunal chairman should consider the submission.
The AFL is arguing the Match Review Officer & head of footy have the absolute discretion to refer players to the Tribunal, countering the AFLPA's suggestion the league didn't follow its own Tribunal guidelines.
The AFL is speaking first and presenting its case - since Mackay wasn't officially charged by the MRO, of course.
The AFL says the charge is rough conduct. "They all come under the overarching offence of rough conduct ... which is interpreted widely to any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. A specific incident doesn't cease to be rough conduct under that wide interpretation because it might also be conduct that falls under one of the more specific examples, that is there's no compulsion to bring a charge persuant to one of the subsets. It would have been open to articulate the charge persuant to the rough conduct high bumps subset ... but as the AFL communicated, this charge is brought persuant to the overarching offence of any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances."
So AFL is saying MacKay's actions were unreasonable - this will be interesting.
Adelaide: The defence is quite simple; the Tribunal jury ought not to be satisfied that his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. It's a not guilty plea, the question is whether it's proven Mackay's conduct was unreasonable.
We're viewing the vision of the incident. As per usual it's impossible to watch on the video conferencing software; it's more like a PowerPoint.
Here's the medical report for Hunter Clark from St Kilda: Assessed immediately, clear signs of jaw injury, m(is)aligned front teeth, pain and bleeding. Clark left the game. Required ongoing treatment - CT scan on Sunday morning at the Epworth. Mandibular fracture in two places, unstable. Requires immediate plate fixation. Expected to miss 30+ days training, 6-8 weeks. No immediate concussive symptoms nor post-match, management centered on jaw injury and pain.
The AFL submits if it would be classified, this would be careless conduct, high contact and severe impact, eg 3+ weeks suspended and a direct referral to the Tribunal.
AFL: In the interests of consistency and parity, although you're at large as a jury, you ought place a sanction that's consistent with the MRO guidelines.
Adelaide has three witnesses. Firstly David Mackay, then Chris Sheedy (data analyst, Adelaide) to speak to certain evidence, then Dr Robert Crowther (biomechanics expert).
Mackay now being called.
Mackay, on what he did: I saw the ball go over Clark's head. It started rolling in my direction and I made a decision at that point in time to go after the ball and try and pick it up off the ground.
Adelaide: Did you think you'd get to the ball first?
Mackay: Yes, for the whole period of time leading up to the collision. At no stage did I take my eye off the ball, believing I was gonna be first to it. That belief at no point changed until there was a collision.
Mackay: I saw Clark and Sam Berry in my peripheral vision. But I was solely focused on the football; I was aware of their presence in the general area but having been focused on the ball primarily, I only saw them in the corner of my eye and wasn't 100% sure of their exact whereabouts.
Adelaide: If you thought you wouldn't get to the ball first, would you have done something different?
Mackay: Yes, I could've stopped, changed my run into the contest and positioned my body to either tackle or provide some sort of pressure. At no stage did I have that belief I couldn't get to the ball first which is why I made the decision that I did.
Mackay: I approached the ball on the ground like I've trained for and developed my technique over 15 years in the AFL. I approached the ball in the same way as if there was no pressure around, and positioned my body to take the ball and not put myself at risk of head and neck injury by going head-first. It's how I take ground-balls no matter the situation.
Do you agree you ended up with both feet off the ground?
Mackay: Yes, once the contact occurred. At no stage did I leave the ground before this
Did you leave the ground on purpose?
Mackay: Leaving the ground was purely the result of the impact. As part of my technique to pick up a groundball, at no stage would I leave the ground to do so.
AFL now addressing Mackay.
AFL is showing the vision right at the start of the incident - where Mackay is very far away from the ball, disputing his evidence that he thought he'd get to the ball first. Mackay disagrees.
AFL: "You gave evidence you thought you'd get to the ball first. Having looked at the vision, is that still your view?"
Mackay: Yes
AFL: You see the ball's a lot closer to Hunter Clark there?
Mackay: From that angle, it looks so.
AFL: Not only from that angle, it is the case it was a lot closer to Hunter Clark?
Mackay: At that point in time yes.
The AFL is arguing there's enough distance between Mackay and the ball for it to be a mark (15 metres).
Mackay: I wouldn't say I sprinted as fast as I could. I sprinted at a speed I believed would allow me to get to the ball.
AFL: Even if we accept your evidence, you must've thought it was going to be close?
Mackay: Potentially, but that happens multiple 100 times in a game where I think I can get to the ball first but there'll be some pressure. That's part of the game.
If I believed I couldn't have got there first, I would've changed my run-in, my angle of my body and looked to put pressure, but I didn't have that belief.
AFL: Surely you did run as fast as you could?
Mackay: I'm not sure where it stacks up with my speed capability.
AFL: You knew it was a St Kilda player who was closer to the ball, didn't you?
Mackay: No, because there were times where I believe my teammate Sam Berry was on the other side of Hunter Clark, which is why I wasn't clear on exactly what was happening with those two players. My focus was on the ball.
AFL: But Mr Mackay, certainly a sufficient time before the impact, you knew it was a St Kilda player because you're not saying to the jury you would've clattered into a player if it was your teammate
Mackay: I was trying to go for the ball and get my hands on the ball, and whether that was a teammate or an opponent, my focus was purely on the ball. I wasn't sure of their positioning.
AFL: Just to be clear, it's your evidence that you were sufficiently unaware of whether it was your teammate or Clark, and it would've been the same outcome if your teammate was ahead of Clark?
Mackay: My evidence is I'm not sure at the time I played the ball.
AFL is asking why Mackay would have let up if he'd known he wasn't getting to the ball first, as he previously testified.
Mackay: To avoid getting stepped around. My objective there would've been putting pressure on or to tackle. If I came in at high speed with the intention to tackle, it's very easy to get stepped around.
AFL: Would it be a factor that if you didn't get there first and simply entered the contest in the way you did, you would've injured the player, was that a factor?
Mackay: I wasn't thinking about that at all.
AFL: Do you accept there are occasions where it's not reasonable to contest the ball because you could cause serious injury to another player?
Mackay: I accept there are a number of possibilities that involve that.
The hanging panel has been appointed. Neitz and Loveridge I don't think have overturned the MRO the last 3 or 4 years I have been watching this. Below is a cut past from Foxsports report at below link with my odd comment in italics.
NOT GUILTY: Crow David Mackay ‘acted reasonably’ says Tribunal jury after heated three-hour hearing
NOT GUILTY: Crow ‘acted reasonably’ says Tribunal jury after heated three-hour hearing
www.foxsports.com.au
Our cast of characters: Geoff Giudice is your Tribunal chairman. David Neitz, Paul Williams and Richard Loveridge are your jurors. Jeff Gleeson is representing the AFL while Andrew Culshaw represents Adelaide.
The AFLPA has sent a submission - which the AFL does not accept. The discussion now is whether the Tribunal chairman should consider the submission.
The AFL is arguing the Match Review Officer & head of footy have the absolute discretion to refer players to the Tribunal, countering the AFLPA's suggestion the league didn't follow its own Tribunal guidelines.
The AFL is speaking first and presenting its case - since Mackay wasn't officially charged by the MRO, of course.
The AFL says the charge is rough conduct. "They all come under the overarching offence of rough conduct ... which is interpreted widely to any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. A specific incident doesn't cease to be rough conduct under that wide interpretation because it might also be conduct that falls under one of the more specific examples, that is there's no compulsion to bring a charge persuant to one of the subsets. It would have been open to articulate the charge persuant to the rough conduct high bumps subset ... but as the AFL communicated, this charge is brought persuant to the overarching offence of any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances."
So AFL is saying MacKay's actions were unreasonable - this will be interesting.
Adelaide: The defence is quite simple; the Tribunal jury ought not to be satisfied that his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. It's a not guilty plea, the question is whether it's proven Mackay's conduct was unreasonable.
We're viewing the vision of the incident. As per usual it's impossible to watch on the video conferencing software; it's more like a PowerPoint.
Here's the medical report for Hunter Clark from St Kilda: Assessed immediately, clear signs of jaw injury, m(is)aligned front teeth, pain and bleeding. Clark left the game. Required ongoing treatment - CT scan on Sunday morning at the Epworth. Mandibular fracture in two places, unstable. Requires immediate plate fixation. Expected to miss 30+ days training, 6-8 weeks. No immediate concussive symptoms nor post-match, management centered on jaw injury and pain.
The AFL submits if it would be classified, this would be careless conduct, high contact and severe impact, eg 3+ weeks suspended and a direct referral to the Tribunal.
AFL: In the interests of consistency and parity, although you're at large as a jury, you ought place a sanction that's consistent with the MRO guidelines.
Adelaide has three witnesses. Firstly David Mackay, then Chris Sheedy (data analyst, Adelaide) to speak to certain evidence, then Dr Robert Crowther (biomechanics expert).
Mackay now being called.
Mackay, on what he did: I saw the ball go over Clark's head. It started rolling in my direction and I made a decision at that point in time to go after the ball and try and pick it up off the ground.
Adelaide: Did you think you'd get to the ball first?
Mackay: Yes, for the whole period of time leading up to the collision. At no stage did I take my eye off the ball, believing I was gonna be first to it. That belief at no point changed until there was a collision.
Mackay: I saw Clark and Sam Berry in my peripheral vision. But I was solely focused on the football; I was aware of their presence in the general area but having been focused on the ball primarily, I only saw them in the corner of my eye and wasn't 100% sure of their exact whereabouts.
Adelaide: If you thought you wouldn't get to the ball first, would you have done something different?
Mackay: Yes, I could've stopped, changed my run into the contest and positioned my body to either tackle or provide some sort of pressure. At no stage did I have that belief I couldn't get to the ball first which is why I made the decision that I did.
Mackay: I approached the ball on the ground like I've trained for and developed my technique over 15 years in the AFL. I approached the ball in the same way as if there was no pressure around, and positioned my body to take the ball and not put myself at risk of head and neck injury by going head-first. It's how I take ground-balls no matter the situation.
Do you agree you ended up with both feet off the ground?
Mackay: Yes, once the contact occurred. At no stage did I leave the ground before this
Did you leave the ground on purpose?
Mackay: Leaving the ground was purely the result of the impact. As part of my technique to pick up a groundball, at no stage would I leave the ground to do so.
AFL now addressing Mackay.
AFL is showing the vision right at the start of the incident - where Mackay is very far away from the ball, disputing his evidence that he thought he'd get to the ball first. Mackay disagrees.
AFL: "You gave evidence you thought you'd get to the ball first. Having looked at the vision, is that still your view?"
Mackay: Yes
AFL: You see the ball's a lot closer to Hunter Clark there?
Mackay: From that angle, it looks so.
AFL: Not only from that angle, it is the case it was a lot closer to Hunter Clark?
Mackay: At that point in time yes.
The AFL is arguing there's enough distance between Mackay and the ball for it to be a mark (15 metres).
Mackay: I wouldn't say I sprinted as fast as I could. I sprinted at a speed I believed would allow me to get to the ball.
AFL: Even if we accept your evidence, you must've thought it was going to be close?
Mackay: Potentially, but that happens multiple 100 times in a game where I think I can get to the ball first but there'll be some pressure. That's part of the game.
If I believed I couldn't have got there first, I would've changed my run-in, my angle of my body and looked to put pressure, but I didn't have that belief.
AFL: Surely you did run as fast as you could?
Mackay: I'm not sure where it stacks up with my speed capability.
AFL: You knew it was a St Kilda player who was closer to the ball, didn't you?
Mackay: No, because there were times where I believe my teammate Sam Berry was on the other side of Hunter Clark, which is why I wasn't clear on exactly what was happening with those two players. My focus was on the ball.
AFL: But Mr Mackay, certainly a sufficient time before the impact, you knew it was a St Kilda player because you're not saying to the jury you would've clattered into a player if it was your teammate
Mackay: I was trying to go for the ball and get my hands on the ball, and whether that was a teammate or an opponent, my focus was purely on the ball. I wasn't sure of their positioning.
AFL: Just to be clear, it's your evidence that you were sufficiently unaware of whether it was your teammate or Clark, and it would've been the same outcome if your teammate was ahead of Clark?
Mackay: My evidence is I'm not sure at the time I played the ball.
AFL is asking why Mackay would have let up if he'd known he wasn't getting to the ball first, as he previously testified.
Mackay: To avoid getting stepped around. My objective there would've been putting pressure on or to tackle. If I came in at high speed with the intention to tackle, it's very easy to get stepped around.
AFL: Would it be a factor that if you didn't get there first and simply entered the contest in the way you did, you would've injured the player, was that a factor?
Mackay: I wasn't thinking about that at all.
AFL: Do you accept there are occasions where it's not reasonable to contest the ball because you could cause serious injury to another player?
Mackay: I accept there are a number of possibilities that involve that.
Similar threads
- Locked
