MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Grave Danger said:
He's innocent!

Incident assessed:

The matchday report laid against Port Adelaide’s Jeremy Finlayson from the fourth quarter of Sunday’s game between Essendon and Port Adelaide was assessed. McGrath takes possession of ball in the centre square where he is tackled by Finlayson. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient impact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.


www.afl.com.au

Match Review: Port tall's report assessed, Hawk charged with tripping

The Match Review findings from Sunday's round 22 games are in
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
Click to expand...
I thought he'd get low impact "for the look" purposes, and pay some $$$, but there you go. Insufficient impact and umpires over reacted along with a whole lot of media types.
 
No wonder the MRO was late with Jezza's decision. We were the last game of the round and Chriso laid 22 other charges, financial sanctions and had a great headache with the Zane Cordy case, which was so mind numbing he sent it straight to the tribunal to work out, despite it being a shoulder to shoulder bump, no head high contact.

Might have been a factor why Jezza didnt get a fine.

www.afl.com.au

Match Review: Cordy sent to Tribunal, Demon charged, melee fines

The Match Review Officer has released their findings from Saturday's games in round 22
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
 
Cordy got off his shoulder to shoulder bump direct to tribunal charge. And so he should have. Wll put up more later but I like this comment from Fox Sports live blog.


Jeff Gleeson making a point of issuing directions to the jury after it was a supposed lack of such directions that led to the Appeals Board overturning the Tribunal's decision on Patrick Cripps.


 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just over 2 hour hearing and deliberations that started at 4.30 EST.

www.foxsports.com.au

Bump wins again as Bulldog has no case to answer at AFL Tribunal

Bump wins again as Bulldog has no case to answer at AFL Tribunal
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au


The AFL Tribunal is underway.
Zaine Cordy will plead 'not guilty' to the charge.
The AFL argue the conduct was 'careless', impact was 'high' and to the 'body'
The AFL is arguing for what would be a one-week ban under the MRO matrix..


Sam Norton (WBD): Issue is taken with the allegation Cordy acted unreasonably.

Nick Pane (AFL): By reason of force of the bump, Bruhn's head made contact with the ground. Bruhn was in a vulnerable position chasing Ed Richards at speed and did not have sufficient opportunity to prepare for contact ... Cordy could've impeded Richards without forceful bump.
Nick Pane (AFL): Whilst player Cordy did not force any contact to be made with any part of his body with Bruhn's head or neck, he did cause forceful contact to the upper body, causing Bruhn's head to be jolted in a whiplash motion.

Zaine Cordy will now give evidence.

Cordy: My intent was to block for my teammate Ed Richards ... we are expected to lay a block. If we didn't, it would come up in review and be an 'RFI' - Room For Improvement - and probably be classed as a bit selfish not trying to look after a teammate.

Cordy: I made sure I was planted - I was stationary when the hit occurred - and braced for impact with my shoulder and elbow tucked in.
Cordy: There's definitely a stage where we lock eyes and he sees me coming.
Cordy: I'm suggesting it's a block.
AFL: Are you suggesting it wasn't a bump?

Cordy: I disagree with that statement considering how quickly he was running. If I stuck my arm out, I'm opening myself up to dislocating my shoulder with him at that speed.
AFL: You could've shepherded with your arms out more like a corralling motion...

The Dogs want to bring in another incident as evidence, but the AFL is pushing back against it.
Gleeson notes he has consistently allowed this sort of evidence and will allow the footage to be shown and spoken to before then making a decision on whether it's admissible.

The AFL thru its representatives pissing their pants as usual, as they don't want to have a very high degree of consistency between decisions. They love the ****ing grey areas so they can mount an argument to suspend players.


Pane (AFL): Cordy should've recognised electing to bump in the manner he did had the potential to cause injury.
Cordy is aware of the height difference and did not significantly lower his body.
The force was excessive for the situation.

Pane (AFL): Regardless of whether the bump was within five metres of the ball or whether it was a block, his actions were unreasonable in the circumstances ... forceful bump to the upper body in manner it was delivered could result in jolting of head and consequent injury.

Jeff Gleeson is posing if it's true that 'You can be within five metres, you can bump a player who doesn't have possession but you can still do it illegally.'
We're now debating over the meaning of 'shepherd'. FFS

Pane (AFL): In circumstances where the player could use a number of actions - each less forceful than the action that Cordy chose on this occasion - it may be the player's action is unreasonable and sufficient to meet the definition of rough conduct.

Norton (WBD): Blocking is not simply a dinosaur's 'men will be men' approach. It is expressly contemplated in the laws of the game that it's an act that will be participated in.

Norton (WBD): The jury has to be clearly satisfied that what Cordy did was unreasonable (if they want to sanction him).

Norton (WBD) says if Cordy hadn't tried to shepherd, it would be "reviewed from everything from On the Couch to YouTube to footy fan sites."

Gleeson posits there are degrees of vulnerability.

Norton (WBD): That's such a fine concept that, to apply that to the game of Australian Rules football, would be unworkable.

Norton (WBD): It's really important that we don't start from the proposition that 'he's concussed, he must've committed an offence.' The rules simply do not apply to that.
Norton (WBD): This is a classic block. The rules should continue to allow for it.

Jeff Gleeson making a point of issuing directions to the jury after it was a supposed lack of such directions that led to the Appeals Board overturning the Tribunal's decision on Patrick Cripps.

Looks like the hearing was about 80 minutes and the jury deliberated for over half an hour.

The AFL Tribunal finds Zaine Cordy has no case to answer.
He is free to play this week.

The Tribunal found Cordy‘s conduct did not fit the description of careless conduct and that a reasonable player would’ve regarded it as prudent to have shepherded and to have done so in the way Cordy did. The charge was dismissed and Zaine Cordy is free to play against Hawthorn.
 
Just FYI, Gleeson and Pane are good mates. Also, Woods read with Gleeson. The chair of the AFLW Tribunal, Renee Enbom worked a lot with Gleeson before she took silk.

I like all of the individuals. They are all great lawyers and are suited for their positions but it really does emphasise how much of a closed shop the AFL is. I'm absolutely certain that you would find similar relationships between other AFL officeholders. It's just that I know most about the people involved in the tribunals.
 
MrMeaner said:
Just FYI, Gleeson and Pane are good mates. Also, Woods read with Gleeson. The chair of the AFLW Tribunal, Renee Enbom worked a lot with Gleeson before she took silk.

I like all of the individuals. They are all great lawyers and are suited for their positions but it really does emphasise how much of a closed shop the AFL is. I'm absolutely certain that you would find similar relationships between other AFL officeholders. It's just that I know most about the people involved in the tribunals.
Click to expand...
I like making comments about Gleeson, because he treats all AFL players like they are guilty and in a court of law and will say anything to try and win. But this isn't a court of law and he at times degenerates players for taking normal reasonable footy acts.

Sure go bloody hard after a guy who punches someone in a non footy act, but don't try and make out these collisions are all 100% black and white.

I think his past experience as the AFL's prosecutor is still on display as the chairman of the jury. Sure prosecutors become judges in the real world, but they don't become part of the jury, which he is here, as the AFL Tribunal system changed from being the chairman of the tribunal who advises a panel of 3 ex players, to in 2022 being a panel of 3, which includes the chairman and 2 ex players.

Its why he was caught out by the Appeals Board because as chairman he is supposed to issue directions to the panel, just like a judge does to a jury in the real world.

In its typical fashion, the AFL has changed the system without explaining it and I reckon wanting to get the results it wants. The AFLPA have again bowed weak-kneed to the AFL and accepted a dodgy change that probably works against their members.

No way in a court of law would a judge be made part of a 12 person jury. That is what the AFL has effectively done here with the 2022 changes.

That said, I probably would want Gleeson as my lawyer in a court of law.

"I'm absolutely certain that you would find similar relationships between other AFL officeholders." Absolutely it is one big mates club.
 
Tonight we have an eye gouging case - or more the unnecessary contact to the face charge by Jarrod Berry. "On Saturday, the Match Review Officer (MRO) charged Berry with making "unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region" of Oliver. It was graded as intentional conduct, low impact and high contact, leading to Berry being offered a one-match ban.

We have had 2 cases in the last 13 months, with different outcomes. Big difference in this case is that Clayton Oliver whinged about it to the umpires and the TV commentators went on and on about it.

Rd 21 2021 Andrew Brayshaw against Jarrod Berry.

Original Charge
Andrew Brayshaw, Fremantle, has been charged with Making Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact to the Eye Region of Jarrod Berry, Brisbane Lions, during the second quarter of the Round 21 match between Fremantle and the Brisbane Lions, played at Optus Stadium on Sunday, August 8, 2021. In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Tribunal result is short in this link but you can see the video embedded.

I think Brayshaw suffered from his hearing being on straight after a long Toby Greene striking incident. He also was up against Gleeson

Brayshaw failed to overturn his charge of intentionally making unreasonable or unnecessary eye contact to Brisbane midfielder Jarrod Berry and will miss Sunday's Western Derby. He gave evidence and faced cross examination from Gleeson to argue his actions were careless rather than intentional. When it was put to him that he intentionally grabbed at Berry's face with his hand in a "clenched or clawing position", the midfielder replied, "I would never do that". He argued he was attempting to tackle Berry, lock the ball in, and prevent the Lions midfielder from getting to his feet and playing on.

The three-man jury of Richard Loveridge, Shane Wakelin and Paul Williams spent 25 minutes deliberating before finding Brayshaw guilty. (from Perth Now)

Rd 1 2022 Rory Sloane's charge

Original Charge
Adelaide captain Rory Sloane is also facing a week on the sidelines after making intentional contact to the eye region of Fremantle wingman Blake Acres in Sunday's clash at Adelaide Oval. ........ Sloane was cited by the MRO for an incident in the first quarter, which was assessed as intentional conduct, low impact and high contact.

Tribunal result
ADELAIDE captain Rory Sloane has had his one-game ban for contact to the eye region downgraded to a fine. It means he will play in Saturday's game against Collingwood at the MCG.

Sloane's evidence on Tuesday night that he would never intentionally make contact with an opponent's eye, given his own extensive injury history, was accepted by the Tribunal jury. The Crows onballer acknowledged the incident involving Fremantle utility Blake Acres last Sunday was low impact and high contact, but argued it was careless rather than intentional.

After several minutes of deliberating, the Tribunal ruled in his favour. In his evidence, Sloane detailed his own history of facial and eye injuries because of football, including a detached retina last year that had the potential to end his career.

"I'm very aware of what even just a little scratch in the eye can do, even just a poke," he said. "There's no way I'd go after anyone's eye because I'm very aware of the damage it can cause. "I was super close to being finished in football and close to losing my eyesight so there's no way I'd go near anyone's eye." Sloane added he was "genuinely shocked" when made aware of the charge.
 
Tribunal started 5pm AEST

The AFL Tribunal hearing for Jarrod Berry is getting underway now.

Lions arguing Berry was in a vulnerable position due to the force being applied to his throat by Clayton Oliver and he was acting in self defence.

Like it was for Oliver whose conduct wasn’t even questioned. Clayton should be the one to get a week he could've hurt berry more than he did

There's some debate over whether such an argument can be made without calling Oliver's conduct into question.
The Lions are trying to argue Berry was acting in self defence while at the same time not calling Oliver's conduct into question.

Lions rep Adrian Anderson refers to Jarrod Berry as 'Jacob' twice.
"Jacob being a former teammate who I can't get out of my head whenever mentioned."


The Lions arguing Berry's contact was not intentional OR careless.

They say any contact with Oliver's eye region was accidental while flailing to get Oliver off him.

If the Tribunal doesn't agree regarding Berry's intention, the Lions then argue there are exceptional and compelling circumstances in that Berry was in a vulnerable position.

If the Tribunal doesn't agree regarding Berry's intention, the Lions then argue there are exceptional and compelling circumstances in that Berry was in a vulnerable position.

Character witness alert: Luke Hodge will be relied upon by the Lions.

Hodge's written statement says Berry a player of "outstanding character and integrity" and "definitely a person who wouldn't intentionally do what he's been charged with".

Hodge being dialled up now. Luke Hodge is here via audio but not video.

Anderson: What would you say about the likelihood he'd intentionally make contact to the eye region of an opponent?

Hodge: Nup. No chance.

Jarrod Berry is now giving evidence.

"I felt like I was under threat ... my intentions were to get him off me by pushing him or grabbing and pulling him off me. I was in quite a vulnerable position."

Berry showing the ring finger on his left hand to the Tribunal, which he says has been dislocated more than 100 times.
He shows it to the Tribunal.
To be honest, it looks dislocated right now. He isn't lying.

Jeff Gleeson: If you had either seen or felt your fingers were near his eye, what would you do?
Berry: I would've pulled them away.
Asked if he knew eye contact was a reportable offence, Berry says no, he was only aware of eye gouging.

Neurosurgeon Damian Amato is now appearing as a reference.
He does not work for or support the Lions.

Amato: It appears Berry is in a very vulnerable position ... there was danger of obstruction of the airway and reduced oxygen supply to the brain.

Amato: He's not moving in one single manner but with all of his limbs to get Oliver off his throat and release the pressure on his airway.

Amato: I would expect he was not suffering from hypoxia at the time of the incident but rather protecting himself.
Amato: I think the movements that were exhibited were necessary to allow him to relieve the pressure that was applied to his throat.

Vision of Rory Sloane's report from earlier in the year being shown by Anderson (Lions).

That was a one-match ban downgraded from intentional to careless, which resulted heavily from the weight the Tribunal gave Sloane's evidence.

Pane (AFL): Oliver was on top of Berry, but this does not excuse the action, which was unreasonable and unnecessary ... the vision provides enough evidence to disregard Berry's evidence that he was unaware of Oliver's eyes.

Pane (AFL): The speed in which the contact happened here is very different to Sloane's. Sloane had a limited view of the face, while Berry had a full view of Oliver's face.

Pane (AFL) says very little weight should be given to Luke Hodge's testimony.

Pane (AFL): An AFL footballer of any experience is aware there is no explanation for a raking motion across the eye region.

Pane (AFL): When one looks at the footage and takes into account the range of actions that were available to Berry ... choosing to make a raking action with his left hand across the player's eye region is unreasonable in the circumstances.

Pane (AFL): The fact that it's not in the eye is not to the point - it's in the eye region.

Anderson (Lions): Berry is grappling to get his opponent off him, he's in a vulnerable position, his hand is in that region because that's the only spot where he can push ... there's no way you can say he's looking at the eye region of Oliver.

Anderson (Lions): This is a much quicker, shorter, briefer moment in which contact has occurred to the relevant region and we dispute it is a raking motion.

Anderson (Lions): Berry had, at very best, a very limited view of Oliver's eyes. If you look at where his eyes are facing, he's not looking towards there.

Anderson (Lions) says the most important point is the evidence Berry gave.

"He has put it to you unequivocally tonight he was not intending to make unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of his opponent."


Tribunal chairperson Jeff Gleeson is now putting together directions for the jury.

Just for clarity: Gleeson will come back and provide directions to the jury, THEN they will retire to deliberate

You can thank the AFL Appeals Board for this added delay, because the lack of clear directions at the Patrick Cripps Tribunal was the reason they overturned that decision.

Jeff Gleeson has given directions. The jury is now deliberating. When they're back, we'll have a decision.

As I type the jury has been out for 10 minutes. Probably another 20 or 30 minutes before they decide.
 
Grave Danger said:
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but...

I wonder whether Gleeson deliberately stuffed up his directions to the jury in the Cripps case, to enable the technicality that allowed him to get a 'miss trial'. He was probably more careful tonight...
Click to expand...
I don't know if Gleeson did that, but the 2 or 3 cases the tribunal has heard since Cripps successful appeal, according to the Fox Footy journo doing these reports, he has written that Gleeson has taken his time to deliberately make his instructions clear to the other 2 panel members and obviously those watching on.
 
Fox Footy's David Zita has just written

Part of Gleeson's directions to the jury that could prove key:

Even if the Tribunal finds Berry's actions unreasonable or unnecessary, they can still then downgrade from intentional conduct to careless.

It essentially gives the Lions two separate chances to get off.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

go.arena.im

Arena App

Sports are more fun when you chat in the moment.
go.arena.im go.arena.im

Summary of Tribunal findings:

There was significant pressure applied to Berry’s throat region by Oliver. It’s not suggested this was intentional, but it was real and forceful. Berry’s action with his left hand occurred because he felt pressure to his throat region. We accept his evidence he felt under threat and wanted to get Oliver off him.

This would be a natural human reaction to feeling forceful pressure on the throat … we find Berry had limited visibility of Oliver’s face in a vigorous grapple and he had no real clear view that he was about to or was making contact with Oliver’s eye region … when played at normal speed and taking into account Berry’s evidence, which we accept, we can’t be satisfied he could see clearly where his hand was.

We find he did not intend to make contact with Oliver’s eye region specifically. Contact was fleeting and not forceful. It caused no injury and little if any discomfort to Oliver.

A reasonable player would not regard the contact as imprudent and there was a justifiable reason for the action, being the forceful pressure Berry felt to his throat.


Maybe a bit of Mayo by reporter Drew Jones.

 
www.portadelaidefc.com.au

Byrne-Jones fined by MRO

Darcy Byrne-Jones has been fined by the Match Review Officer over an incident against the Lions, however the defender is free to play against Collingwood on Saturday.
www.portadelaidefc.com.au www.portadelaidefc.com.au

PORT ADELAIDE defender Darcy Byrne-Jones has been fined by the Match Review Officer over an incident in Saturday evening’s win over Brisbane.

Byrne-Jones was cited for a tripping Lion Zac Bailey in the second quarter of the 54-point victory.

The offence comes with a fixed financial penalty of $1500 but the Power leadership player can save $500 if he enters an early guilty plea.

Either way, Byrne-Jones is free to play against Collingwood at the MCG on Saturday afternoon.
 
Ryan Burton tackling someone is equally as bad as Pickett launching himself at someone's head like a scud missile
 
sobrave said:
Ryan Burton tackling someone is equally as bad as Pickett launching himself at someone's head like a scud missile
Click to expand...
I don't mind it. Given that the victim was able to get up in both instances and continue on means they are judging purely on the action, and it seems those actions are worth 2 weeks. As long as they are consistent.
 
PortWTF said:
I don't mind it. Given that the victim was able to get up in both instances and continue on means they are judging purely on the action, and it seems those actions are worth 2 weeks. As long as they are consistent.
Click to expand...

No, because the consequences are largely chance. If Burton was tackling mason Cox, chances are there's no injury. If Pickett hit Fantasia, there'd be a coronial inquest. An innocuous fall can result in no injury or a quadriplegia.

Judging based on consequence is dumb af. If you hit someone made of glass you get 6 weeks, if they're tough you get 1. What sort of system is that?
 
PortWTF said:
I don't mind it. Given that the victim was able to get up in both instances and continue on means they are judging purely on the action, and it seems those actions are worth 2 weeks. As long as they are consistent.
Click to expand...
Season 1 Cartoon GIF by Paramount+
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
Rules Please Read re Copyright: Posting Newspaper Articles
Replies
3
Views
485
Enviable Tradition
Enviable Tradition
RossFC
Injury 2025 Injury Updates Thread
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
RussellEbertHandball
RussellEbertHandball
Magpiespowaz
Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 29
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
51K
240volt
240volt
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Showdown 56
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
527
Views
23K
Portmagpies36
Portmagpies36
KrispyKremeMullanikka
Certified Legendary Thread Sack Hinkley 13 - Another Crack At This
150 151 152 153 154
Replies
4K
Views
142K
Nelso
Nelso
El Zorro
  • Locked
Game Day Game Day Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
75 76 77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
50K
philreich
philreich
RangaInTeal
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
865
Views
35K
Addy23
A

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top