MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

sanfl.com.au

Round 14 SANFL Match Review Panel - SANFL

sanfl.com.au sanfl.com.au

Port Adelaide’s Cam Sutcliffe has been offered a one-match ban with an early guilty plea for striking Sturt’s James Mathews at Alberton Oval on Sunday.

Cam Sutcliffe (Port) – Striking
Conduct: Intentional
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 2 matches
Early Guilty Plea: 1 match

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Honestly something has to be done to establish a more fool proof and objective ways to establish force.

At the moment it’s a complete lottery between low/medium/high between every game and incident. From what I can find, there doesn’t actually seem to be any guidelines as to what constitutes the different impact levels outside of the subjective interpretation of the MRO?

Surely something simple like;

Insufficient force: Impacted player continued unaffected or light contact was due to a reasonable football action.

Low force: Impacted player was lightly impeded however did not require any medical attention and continued playing.

Medium impact: Impacted player required limited medical attention, or was removed from the ground for a limited time to receive attention.

High impact: Impacted player was removed from the game.

Surely something like that could be put in place along side the MRO games matrix.

Using Rioli incident here, clear low impact without all the mess around.

Martin gut punch, 1 week easily assessed low force.

Majority of sling tackles fall into low impact. Removes this 1,2,1,2 week lottery.

Certainly not perfect and would need to take into account players being rested if an incident occurs at the end of a game etc but there needs to be some basic guidelines to assess impact.
 
Glenelg’s Lachie Hosie has been offered a reprimand for striking Port’s Brayden Kirk at Alberton Oval on Saturday night.
Charge: Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand

 
Port’s Orazio Fantasia has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand for striking South’s Kobe Mutch at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Orazio Fantasia (Port) – Striking
Conduct: Intentional
Contact: Body
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port’s Francis Evans has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with South’s Liam Nye at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Francis Evans (Port) – Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle)
Conduct: Careless
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port’s Harper Montgomery has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with South’s Eamon Wilkinson at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Harper Montgomery (Port) – Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle)
Conduct: Careless
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port Adelaide’s Cam Sutcliffe has been offered a reprimand for striking South’s Keegan Brooksby at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Cam Sutcliffe (Port)
Charge: Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand



Port’s Miller Carter has been offered a reprimand for misconduct against South’s Jake Summerton at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.
Charge: Misconduct
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand

 
RossFC said:
Port’s Orazio Fantasia has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand for striking South’s Kobe Mutch at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Orazio Fantasia (Port) – Striking
Conduct: Intentional
Contact: Body
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port’s Francis Evans has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with South’s Liam Nye at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Francis Evans (Port) – Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle)
Conduct: Careless
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port’s Harper Montgomery has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with South’s Eamon Wilkinson at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Harper Montgomery (Port) – Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle)
Conduct: Careless
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand



Port Adelaide’s Cam Sutcliffe has been offered a reprimand for striking South’s Keegan Brooksby at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.

Cam Sutcliffe (Port)
Charge: Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand



Port’s Miller Carter has been offered a reprimand for misconduct against South’s Jake Summerton at Flinders University Stadium on Saturday.
Charge: Misconduct
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand

Click to expand...

the sanfl really must be broke
 
Port’s Miller Carter has been offered a reprimand for wrestling with Central’s Justin Hoskin in the Elimination Final at Adelaide Oval on Sunday.

Miller Carter (Port) – Wrestling
Charge: Wrestling
Finding: Low Level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GWS' Toby Bedford won his outrageously delayed Appeals Board hearing.

Gleeson KC got another kick up the arse from the Appeals Board.

No way should the AFL tribunal have changed from a chair + panel of 3 ex players who make the decision after guidance from the chair, to a 3 man panel including a chair who is a KC and the ex AFL prosecutor and 2 ex players, who are more likely to be pressured to take a legal view than a practical common sense decision, with a KC on the panel making the decision.

www.afl.com.au

Bedford learns his fate after two-and-a-half hour Appeals hearing

Toby Bedford has faced the AFL Appeals Board in a bid to have his one-week suspension overturned and be available for the Giants' elimination final against St Kilda
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au

GREATER Western Sydney forward Toby Bedford is free to play in the Giants' elimination final against St Kilda after his one-match suspension was overturned at an AFL Appeals hearing on Thursday afternoon. Bedford was suspended for an off-the-ball bump, deemed as medium impact and high contact, on Carlton's Zac Fisher in the final round of the home-and-away season.

The Giants failed to overturn or downgrade the suspension at the AFL Tribunal on Monday night, but they came up trumps in an appeal on Thursday afternoon.

Giants counsel Ben Ihle successfully argued it was not reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude the high contact was forceful.

"The evidence that was before the Tribunal would not permit that finding to be logically or reasonably made," Ihle said. "Fisher gave evidence of not recalling high contact, let alone recalling any high contact that was forceful.

"Dr Middleton (the biochemist expert) said it was not capable of determining the level of force - it is impossible based on the video to determine the level of force.

"A Tribunal acting reasonably doesn't act on guess work.

AFL Counsel Lisa Hannon said the Tribunal panel that comprised of Jeff Gleeson, Darren Gaspar and Scott Stevens were well placed to assess the evidence.

Sports law is one of Gleeson's specialties, while Darren Gasper (228 AFL games) and Stevens (144 AFL games) have extensive playing experience.

"(They are an) expert sporting panel," Hannon said. "The vision shows the whole of the incident.

"This was not a matter of accepting or rejecting the truthfulness of Fisher's evidence."

But the Appeals Board, led by chairman Murray Kellam, believed the AFL Tribunal got it wrong, with the decision freeing Bedford to face St Kilda at the MCG.

"We accept it was open to the Tribunal who found that there was contact by the body to player Fisher's head," Kellam said.

"But in our view, neither the evidence or the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was forceful as required by the AFL regulations."

Bedford beamed a big smile once the decision was handed down. Earlier in the day, Giants coach Adam Kingsley expressed confidence Bedford would win the case. The best forward in the league for pressure acts, Bedford has become an essential cog in the Giants' forward line.
 
Obviously not related to us, but relevant depending how we go in finals - I can’t see Maynard playing in the GF.

Intentional/Severe - head high is 4 games
Intentional/high - 3 games
Careless/high - 2 games

As Collingwood have the greatest resources, watch this one be appealed for the next two weeks.
 
MrChow said:
Obviously not related to us, but relevant depending how we go in finals - I can’t see Maynard playing in the GF.

Intentional/Severe - head high is 4 games
Intentional/high - 3 games
Careless/high - 2 games

As Collingwood have the greatest resources, watch this one be appealed for the next two weeks.
Click to expand...
The Tribunal gets soft in September. If this occurred in April it would be Careless/Severe or High and the mro would say he had the option to avoid contact. Any concussion with a whiff of carelessness was referred to the tribunal. But in September my guess is no report justifying it as accidental with no way to avoid contact and self protection excusing the turning shoulder.

More disturbing was the commentators immediately going into overdrive to whitewash the incident. One commentator even used the lack of remonstration by Melbourne players as proof it was a “football act” right before Viney confronted Maynard and clearly wanted to kill him.
 
Straight to the poolroom - Tribunal.

Chriso couldn't make a decision so new boss Laura Kane says it was an unreasonable act and Tribunal can sort it out.





“The devil is in the detail – Michael Christian and the AFL’s executive general manager Laura Kane jointly charged Brayden Maynard, it is unprecedented,” Fox Footy’s Jon Ralph said.

“We have seen of course Steve Hocking send the David Mackay-Hunter Clark case to the tribunal ungraded; we have never seen Laura Kane or an executive general manager step in like this.

“And so the inescapable conclusion here is Michael Christian was not keen to uphold this charge and felt there was no case to answer.
 
Gleeson's ruling in the Maynard case.

go.arena.im

Arena App

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


First

Jeff Gleeson instructions before deliberating:

We should judge the evidence fairly and impartially in the light of their (Tribunal members) common sense, their experience of life and where appropriate their experience as footballers.

No one should be under any misapprehension that, despite the fact we've been going for almost three hours with a minute analysis of this matter, this will be decided on the basis of common sense, a sensible and fair viewing of footage.

I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that this has taken nearly three hours.

A footballer was concussed and stretchered from the MCG in a final, another footballer has got a couple of pretty important games he’ll either play in or miss depending in part on what we decide tonight.

As importantly as any of that, there are footballers playing today, next year and in the decades to come who need to understand the basis on which this decision was made and the basis on which we approach these matters generally.

It ought not be assumed that this is going to be some watershed moment in the announcement of the duty of care.

There'll be an analysis of the duty of care specific to this incident.

One thing I think we've all appreciated from hearing the evidence tonight is that none of us can quite think of a specific factual circumstance that’s identical.

That's almost always the case. So many of the cases have subtle but important differences from the others.

We're here to analyse this matter and this evidence presented to us tonight and we will take no regard whatsoever of the many and various views that have been quite understandably circulating about the matter.

We’ll decide it only on the evidence.

There's been a common ground about the high bump provision. I just want to make quite clear and give this instruction to myself and my fellow panel members.

When we come to consider the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, it was fairly and appropriately acknowledged by Woods (AFL) that, in order for us to find that this was a bump, there needed to be a voluntary bump, not a bumping into someone, but a bumping of an opponent.

The panel's ruling:

Jeff Gleeson:

In the first quarter of Thursday's Qualifying Final from a centre bounce Brayshaw gathered the ball beyond the edge of the centre circle.

He ran in a direct line to the Melbourne goals at speed shaping to kick the ball long.

Maynard, who had set up at the centre bounce on the 50 meter line directly in line between the centre circle and the Melbourne goals and seeing Brayshaw running with the ball ran towards him.

He covered the distance of numerous meters at speed.

As Brayshaw shaped the kick and jumped high with both arms outstretched. He was attempting to smother the ball and in fact made contact with the ball.

By the time the ball made contact with Brayshaw’s boot, both of Maynard's feet had already left the ground.

At approximately the highest point of Maynard's elevation, he starts to pull his arms down and prepare for descent.

It’s obvious from the vision, and we find that at that moment it would have been obvious to Maynard, that he was going to collide with Brayshaw.

He turns his body to the right, tucks his right arm in, splays his legs and shapes his left hand in something of a fending motion.

He collides with Brayshaw with considerable impact.

After kicking the ball with his right foot, Brayshaw lands on that right foot. He lands or moves in such a way that his body moves to the right or directly into the path of Maynard.

Maynard’s arm or shoulder make forceful contact with Brayshaw’s head and he's knocked out cold. He suffers a concussion and is stretched from the field.

Maynard is charged with rough conduct, classified as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact.

The charge is advanced in two ways: Under the general rough conduct provision or alternatively under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, we will address them in turn.

First, the rough conduct general provision.

The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.

Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.

As to the decision to smother basis, we find that Maynard's decision was reasonable.

He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.

We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.

We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.

Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.

We are here discussing the first way in which the general rough conduct charge is pressed; That is, focusing on the decision to commit to the act of smothering.

The still images showing the ‘lanes’ in which the players were located at various relevant times, provide support for Maynard's evidence that he did not expect Brayshaw to be where he ultimately saw him to be after he took his eyes off the ball and look down to see Brayshaw.

As to the second basis of the rough conduct general provision, we accept the evidence of Professor Cole that he did not believe that Maynard’s body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.

Here, we’re addressing the second way in which general rough conduct charge is pressed, namely that it was something that Maynard did or didn't do after he'd decided to smother was careless.

We find that Professor Cole's evidence is consistent with the time intervals that were introduced into evidence and consistent with our repeated viewing of the video evidence from numerous angles at normal speed.

Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw, if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position, we find that he had no such sufficient time.

He would have had to weigh up what his other options were and whether they were more or less likely to cause harm to Brayshaw.

It is not an irrelevant consideration that these other possible methods of landing foreseeably have resulted in harm to Maynard.

The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.

It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.

This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.

The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.

The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.

We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.

It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.

At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.

In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.

We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.

The charge is dismissed.
 
The biomechanist's evidence was the critical evidence that drove the final judgement, so I will quote what Fox Sports scribe scribbled down from his evidence.

go.arena.im

Arena App

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

The biomechanist, Michael Cole, is here. He is an expert in biomechanics and neuroscience. He is an expert in two more things than me.

Biomechanist: Once airbone, Maynard had no opportunity to avoid the collision.

The AFL notes the biomechanist says a young athlete might be 20-to-25 times faster than a non-athlete.

The biomechanist corrects him, saying they might be 20-to-25 per cent faster.

Biomechanist: I do not believe Maynard's body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.

Biomechanist: Once he's airborne, he's essentially a projectile. He's like a frisbee with arms and legs.

The biomechnaist has concluded evidence. He is told he is free to stay if he likes. He makes the correct decision and immediately logs off.
 
The bits i dont agree with

We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

Why is this the case? Isnt the fact that these types of smothering attempt collisions are so rare a statement that suggests the reasonable player foresees the type of impact at the other end and doesnt attempt said smother?

Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.

How is this even a point lol? The receiver of every high bump ever couldve changed what they were doing prior to the collision so it didnt happen. What Brayshaw did was reasonable to expect


Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw, if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position, we find that he had no such sufficient time.

It may have only been enough time for him to go to his relfext action and not make a conscious choice. That doesnt chenge the fact you can train your reflexes to do different actions.

A Quick Look at Reflexes - Health Encyclopedia - University of Rochester Medical Center

www.urmc.rochester.edu www.urmc.rochester.edu

In particular "
While the speed of signals through nerves doesn't change with practice, practice improves the coordination of complex signals between the nerves, also known as muscle memory. Your brain cells can adapt to communicate differently to make these activities more automatic.

The real key to reaction time is practice."

Is it reasonable to suggest a player should be practicing their response in that circumstance and the response shouldnt be to bump? Absolutely.

Thus saying the above i absolutely disgree with this part

We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed
 
Basically the AFL has said two things tonight:

1. The consequence of Maynard's action was an inevitable concussion to his opponent that Maynard was powerless to avoid.
2. What Maynard did was a 'football act' within the rules of the game.

If Brayshaw has to retire as a result of that hit, a first year law student could win his claim against the AFL for lost income.
 
Schulzenfest said:
Basically the AFL has said two things tonight:

1. The consequence of Maynard's action was an inevitable concussion to his opponent that Maynard was powerless to avoid.
2. What Maynard did was a 'football act' within the rules of the game.

If Brayshaw has to retire as a result of that hit, a first year law student could win his claim against the AFL for lost income.
Click to expand...
No the Tribunal has said that, not the AFL.

So if a court says its acceptable to shoot people, then that is the government is also saying its all ok??

The AFL can appeal this and they might win it. They also can, just like a government can, change their laws after an unfavourable court ruling, to have new laws that deliver the outcome they want. The question is, do they have the intelligence to write better laws / rules???

Aren't you a lawyer?? Or at least got a law degree? You should know the difference.
 

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
47K
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 2024 Preliminary Final vs Sydney @ SCG
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
859
Views
30K
Buget
Buget
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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top