MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Ant Bear
Swamprat
- Dec 7, 2012
- 37,287
- 86,542
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Magpies, Swamprats forever,
Two games.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
Not bad at all Mr Ehrlich.
Better outcome than I expected.
Better outcome than I expected.
- Jan 20, 2015
- 3,274
- 6,272
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
That’s the best outcome we could have hoped for really, the tribunal has more sense than the mro. I still don’t think it was really striking, and the impact was barely there but somehow enough to cause concussion. Imagine the Essendon fans shouting “dog act” from the rooftops will be dissapointed though.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 82,798
- 204,549
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #1,432
- Jul 1, 2014
- 8,106
- 9,311
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls Man Utd
So blocking is out of the game aswell .. piss ant competition
PrisonBars4life
Club Legend
- May 10, 2021
- 1,853
- 2,831
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Banned
- #1,434
Good post.
Two weeks is sensible given the climate but unfortunately these things are now more judged on who you hit rather than how hard, malice etc.
Because Bailey whatshisface from the Dogs can take a hit, Kozzie gets off lightly. Sneeze on Paddy McCartin and you'll be out for a month.
Because Bailey whatshisface from the Dogs can take a hit, Kozzie gets off lightly. Sneeze on Paddy McCartin and you'll be out for a month.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 3,951
- 4,840
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I'd love to see a player sue the MRO/Tribunal/AFL for defamation, assination of character. "YOU MEANT TO HIT HIM, IT WAS A DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL ATTEMPT TO CAUSE CONCUSSION WASNT IT?!?! ARGGHH" vs "Yeah nah it was an accident and I'm sorry about that, I'll try not to do it again and thanks for the mental anguish btw"
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 82,798
- 204,549
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #1,441
Van Rooyen gets off! I think the waffle blow translates as "it's the vibe of the thing" after important people in the AFL media had spoken out against the original prenalty...
Reasons from Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam:
Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.
These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.
We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.
However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.
It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.
Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.
Reasons from Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam:
Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.
These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.
We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.
However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.
It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.
Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.
Last edited:
We should’ve appealed. No way rioli’s hit was worse than the Melbourne bloke who literally smashed a guy in the face…
- Jan 20, 2015
- 3,274
- 6,272
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
So now, based on their interpretation of rule 18.5, literally anything you do in a “legitimate” spoiling attempt is fair game, because it can only legally be classified as incidental contact. And there is no way they are allowed to interpret that as unreasonable. Amazing.
- Jan 20, 2015
- 3,274
- 6,272
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I would love to see the actual wording of the rule around this.
AFL only has themselves to blame. MRO/tribunal has been a complete shambles for as long as I remember.
The second they started wheeling out the line "you chose to bump (a legal act) and the player got concussions, therefore.." they were always going to end up with insane contradictions. Surprised its taken so long.
The second they started wheeling out the line "you chose to bump (a legal act) and the player got concussions, therefore.." they were always going to end up with insane contradictions. Surprised its taken so long.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 82,798
- 204,549
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #1,448
Looks like the coat hanger is back!
Covered by 18.3, I think.
The rule is about a player that has made spoiling their sole intention.
Similar threads
