MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Let's accept for a moment that it isn't pure random chance that the most aggressive, bull at a gate player on the team who is known for his physicality ended up in this situation and that there is some part of his game that predisposes him to landing himself in this position.

Whatever it is that he's doing that Connor Rozee, Travis Boak, Jed McEntee, etc, aren't doing he either needs to stop doing or make bloody well sure he's doing it within the rules.

Whether people on an internet forum like it or not, the AFL do not want to see this sort of physicality in the game anymore. Even though it's not explicitly written into the rules, I think the message is pretty loud and clear to not bump. If you're a smart player, you won't be going anywhere near a bump. Same deal with the sling tackle. If you're a smart player you wouldn't even bother taking your opponent to ground unless you absolutely had to.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

philthy05 said:
Spp can’t react to something before it happens no matter how much “elite athleting” he’s done.

Also, the stuff you’re saying about fastballs and slips catching isn’t helping your case.

You know what those things are? Not thought processes, that’s training something a million times so then it becomes a reflex, you know, like protecting yourself.
Click to expand...

MLB players still have to decide whether to swing or not. They have to be able to predict where the ball is going to be based on a variety of factors and a split second of the ball being in the air. And that's with a much smaller accuracy window than SPP here, who only needed to effectively decide not to swing.

He doesn't have to react "before it happens". You're acting like the contest came out of nowhere. He can clearly see that Willie is about to tackle. He can clearly see that Keane has anticipated the tackle and his raised his arms in an attempt to spin out of it and get a handball away. Those two movements go as expected based on the flow of the play. He knows he's entering a contest where someone is probably going to be mid tackle when he gets there, and he elects to go in with force.

SPP knows enough about contested footy to be able to compute that Willie was about to lay a tackle and he's seen enough tackles to know instinctively where a tackle like that might end up. He went in anyway because he's a physical player who plays on the edge, and he missed.
 
Scodges said:
A tackle & bump are not the same act, not even remotely. Let’s go back a decade or so , I’d rather be tackled by Byron Pickett, than face his truck like bumps.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they're the same, I'm just saying you can legally do both but if you get them wrong you'll get penalised. So this outcry about the death of the bump is a bit over the top.
 
philthy05 said:
Spp approaching contests

View attachment 1914081




El_Scorcho


Try this test, let me know your results please.


Human Benchmark

humanbenchmark.com humanbenchmark.com


A common result for me was around 300ms, give or take a few faster and slower.

When you do it, compare what you did (move your finger 1mm) to what you expect spp to do in that same time.




View attachment 1914082
Now sure, spp had lead up time to the event to maybe prepare for POTENTIAL outcomes, but he still had approx 300 milliseconds once it eventuated.

Anyone who cares to take that test will surely understand that as fast as they managed to move their finger 1mm to touch a phone screen isn’t a whole lot of time to make decisions and execute while running at speed.

300ms is pure reflex action time and nothing else.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous comparison Philthy.

SPP wasn't waiting for a screen to turn green, he was watching a football contest where he can make predictions about what is about to happen based on what he can see in front of him.

Based on this reaction test, nobody would have hit a fastball in MLB history, but batters can preempt where the pitch might be by the position of the pitcher, the release point, their history with the pitcher etc.
 
The reaction time is so irrelevant. It's like running a red light and then saying 'oh, but I only had half a second to react to the car that I smashed into!'. Ask yourself what about Powell-Pepper's approach to that contest left him with less than a second to react to avoid concussing his opponent.
 
gtrxuone said:
Good point you make their
After Maynard got off the Brayshaw insodent.With Brayshaw having to retire in the prime of his career.
Who know what will happen to SPP.
Click to expand...
I only bring up the Brayshaw collision with Maynard because every friggin media article this week about the SPP incident has made that reference.

So let's talk about it. And I present the video of the collision again for reference:



Brayshaw was running in a straight line at pace (lets say 30km/h which is the equivalent speed of someone running the 100m over 12 seconds) kicking the ball forward.

Maynard accelerated into him and leapt into the air to smother the ball.

Using the same arguments that have been used against SPP by a few posters here, WTF did Maynard - the elite athlete at the end of his season not at the beginning when he was 'rusty' - imagine would happen?

Maynard rightly braced for impact, bringing his hands down and turning from the collision and as a result his shoulder hit Brayshaw squarely in the head- concussing him in a collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career. Maynard had options to avoid that collision didn't he?

All of this happened within a second, just like SPP contact with Keane. But there is a key difference.

The SPP/Keane collision has external variables on the collision - namely the Rioli tackle which constantly shifts Keane's body position both horizontally and vertically in relation to SPP prior to contact.

There is no such change in horizontal trajectory of either Brayshaw or Maynard prior to their impact - simple physics at work. The point of impact in the Maynard/Brayshaw collision was entirely predictable, unlike the SPP/Keane collision. And because Maynard elected to jump into the path of Brayshaw, the probability was raised to near certainty of impact with Brayshaw's head. The physical consequences of that head impact made a certainty by Brayshaw turning his body ever so slightly so that the point of his shoulder impacted with the upper cheekbone/ forehead of Brayshaw head.

And yet Maynard got off scot free. Classed as a football incident. For an avoidable head high collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career.

While SPP is being pilloried for a collision that was far less predictable and the consequences far less severe. With the sad early end of Brayshaw's football career used as the justification.

Can no one else see the double standard being applied here?
 
Last edited:
Festerz said:
I only bring up the Brayshaw collision with Maynard because every friggin media article this week about the SPP incident has made that reference.

So let's talk about it. And I present the video of the collision again for reference:



Brayshaw was running in a straight line at pace (lets say 30km/h which is the equivalent speed of someone running the 100m over 12 seconds) kicking the ball forward.

Maynard accelerated into him and leapt into the air to smother the ball.

Using the same arguments that have been used against SPP by a few posters here, WTF did Maynard - the elite athlete at the end of his season not at the beginning when he was 'rusty' - imagine would happen?

Maynard rightly braced for impact, bringing his hands down and turning from the collision and as a result his shoulder hit Brayshaw squarely in the head- concussing him in a collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career. Maynard had options to avoid that collision didn't he?

All of this happened within a second, just like SPP contact with Keane. But there is a key difference.

The SPP/Keane collision has external variables on the collision - namely the Rioli tackle which constantly shifts Keane's body position both horizontally and vertically in relation to SPP prior to contact.

There is no such change in horizontal trajectory of either Brayshaw or Maynard prior to their impact - simple physics at work. The point of impact in the Maynard/Brayshaw collision was entirely predictable, unlike the SPP/Keane collision. And because Maynard elected to jump into the path of Brayshaw, the probability was raised to near certainty of impact with Brayshaw's head. The physical consequences of that head impact made a certainty by Brayshaw turning his body ever so slightly so that the point of his shoulder impacted with the upper cheekbone/ forehead of Brayshaw head.

And yet Maynard got off scot free. Classed as a football incident. For an avoidable head high collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career.

While SPP is being pilloried for a collision that was far less predictable and the consequences far less severe. With the sad early end of Brayshaw's football career used as the justification.

Can no one else see the double standard being applied here?
Click to expand...
Nope, considering most agree that the Maynard incident should have resulted in weeks, including the AFL who sent him to the tribunal and even argued for a suspension and then changed the rules in the offseason to ensure that there was no defence that could be put forth to the tribunal in a similar situation.

There's zero double standard and trust me, I HATE sticking up for the AFL.
 
Honeyboy Wilson said:
Nope, considering most agree that the Maynard incident should have resulted in weeks, including the AFL who sent him to the tribunal and even argued for a suspension and then changed the rules in the offseason to ensure that there was no defence that could be put forth to the tribunal in a similar situation.

There's zero double standard and trust me, I HATE sticking up for the AFL.
Click to expand...

My allegation of double standards is not aimed at the AFL.
 
Maynard's is absolutely worse. Maynard made his decision to hurt Brayshaw with more time and space and then put himself in a situation where he was a missile and couldn't avoid hurting Brayshaw. Maynard's was a pretty obvious cynical 4 week type offence. I don't think anyone is defending the bullshit double standard that we'll be subject to because SPP isn't a player from a big Victorian team who stands to miss a GF.

That doesn't make SPP's bump any less of a careless/high/high at the very least.

I think our best bet is to argue the severe down to high to get it from 3 to 2. Keane wasn't knocked out. There were mitigating factors that affected the force of the collision. As I think Jonts said earlier, if this is severe, what's knocking someone out cold? What does a high impact look like? This doesn't look severe to me.
 
Festerz said:
I only bring up the Brayshaw collision with Maynard because every friggin media article this week about the SPP incident has made that reference.

So let's talk about it. And I present the video of the collision again for reference:



Brayshaw was running in a straight line at pace (lets say 30km/h which is the equivalent speed of someone running the 100m over 12 seconds) kicking the ball forward.

Maynard accelerated into him and leapt into the air to smother the ball.

Using the same arguments that have been used against SPP by a few posters here, WTF did Maynard - the elite athlete at the end of his season not at the beginning when he was 'rusty' - imagine would happen?

Maynard rightly braced for impact, bringing his hands down and turning from the collision and as a result his shoulder hit Brayshaw squarely in the head- concussing him in a collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career. Maynard had options to avoid that collision didn't he?

All of this happened within a second, just like SPP contact with Keane. But there is a key difference.

The SPP/Keane collision has external variables on the collision - namely the Rioli tackle which constantly shifts Keane's body position both horizontally and vertically in relation to SPP prior to contact.

There is no such change in horizontal trajectory of either Brayshaw or Maynard prior to their impact - simple physics at work. The point of impact in the Maynard/Brayshaw collision was entirely predictable, unlike the SPP/Keane collision. And because Maynard elected to jump into the path of Brayshaw, the probability was raised to near certainty of impact with Brayshaw's head. The physical consequences of that head impact made a certainty by Brayshaw turning his body ever so slightly so that the point of his shoulder impacted with the upper cheekbone/ forehead of Brayshaw head.

And yet Maynard got off scot free. Classed as a football incident. For an avoidable head high collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career.

While SPP is being pilloried for a collision that was far less predictable and the consequences far less severe. With the sad early end of Brayshaw's football career used as the justification.

Can no one else see the double standard being applied here?
Click to expand...



The double standard is the VFL.

The inaction with Maynard is just going to be dealt with now.

It’s also not near finals…
 
Festerz said:
I only bring up the Brayshaw collision with Maynard because every friggin media article this week about the SPP incident has made that reference.

So let's talk about it. And I present the video of the collision again for reference:



Brayshaw was running in a straight line at pace (lets say 30km/h which is the equivalent speed of someone running the 100m over 12 seconds) kicking the ball forward.

Maynard accelerated into him and leapt into the air to smother the ball.

Using the same arguments that have been used against SPP by a few posters here, WTF did Maynard - the elite athlete at the end of his season not at the beginning when he was 'rusty' - imagine would happen?

Maynard rightly braced for impact, bringing his hands down and turning from the collision and as a result his shoulder hit Brayshaw squarely in the head- concussing him in a collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career. Maynard had options to avoid that collision didn't he?

All of this happened within a second, just like SPP contact with Keane. But there is a key difference.

The SPP/Keane collision has external variables on the collision - namely the Rioli tackle which constantly shifts Keane's body position both horizontally and vertically in relation to SPP prior to contact.

There is no such change in horizontal trajectory of either Brayshaw or Maynard prior to their impact - simple physics at work. The point of impact in the Maynard/Brayshaw collision was entirely predictable, unlike the SPP/Keane collision. And because Maynard elected to jump into the path of Brayshaw, the probability was raised to near certainty of impact with Brayshaw's head. The physical consequences of that head impact made a certainty by Brayshaw turning his body ever so slightly so that the point of his shoulder impacted with the upper cheekbone/ forehead of Brayshaw head.

And yet Maynard got off scot free. Classed as a football incident. For an avoidable head high collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career.

While SPP is being pilloried for a collision that was far less predictable and the consequences far less severe. With the sad early end of Brayshaw's football career used as the justification.

Can no one else see the double standard being applied here?
Click to expand...

The only bit in your post I disagree with is that Maynard rightly braced for impact. He had no reason to turn like that other than to cause maximum damage.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PowerBaz said:
SPP will be making up for the Maynard incident.
Click to expand...
Yep all part of the plan... how do you ensure Collingwood wins their flag so you can milk their fans for lots of cash, but still come down hard on concussions?

You let Maynard play, then as soon as someone else gives someone concussion you act like they are the devil and need to have an example made of them.

Have your cake and eat it too.
 
TeeKray said:
Let's accept for a moment that it isn't pure random chance that the most aggressive, bull at a gate player on the team who is known for his physicality ended up in this situation and that there is some part of his game that predisposes him to landing himself in this position.

Whatever it is that he's doing that Connor Rozee, Travis Boak, Jed McEntee, etc, aren't doing he either needs to stop doing or make bloody well sure he's doing it within the rules.

Whether people on an internet forum like it or not, the AFL do not want to see this sort of physicality in the game anymore. Even though it's not explicitly written into the rules, I think the message is pretty loud and clear to not bump. If you're a smart player, you won't be going anywhere near a bump. Same deal with the sling tackle. If you're a smart player you wouldn't even bother taking your opponent to ground unless you absolutely had to.
Click to expand...
Sam needs to learn about playing football from Jed McEntee.
 
The comparisons with the Brayshaw/Maynard case are pointless.

The AFL does not use precedents or compare hits to get some type of relative outcome and if they did the Maynard case would be the last one used.

SPP is getting 3 or 4 games. 3 to me seems about right, 4 is possible given the climate on head knocks currently.

For Sam to be at his best he needs to play on the edge. Sometimes that may result in a suspension. I’d much rather that than have him seagulling around the contest like most of our players do.
 
If they want to raise the bar and give 4, then fine. As long as the same applies to Nick Daicos in a qualifying final then I can live with it.

I have my doubts it will though…
 
TeeKray said:
The reaction time is so irrelevant. It's like running a red light and then saying 'oh, but I only had half a second to react to the car that I smashed into!'. Ask yourself what about Powell-Pepper's approach to that contest left him with less than a second to react to avoid concussing his opponent.
Click to expand...
He didn't short step into the contest like most would have?

El_Scorcho said:
This is a ridiculous comparison Philthy.

SPP wasn't waiting for a screen to turn green, he was watching a football contest where he can make predictions about what is about to happen based on what he can see in front of him.

Based on this reaction test, nobody would have hit a fastball in MLB history, but batters can preempt where the pitch might be by the position of the pitcher, the release point, their history with the pitcher etc.
Click to expand...

Your contention goes to the idea that Powell-Pepper was aware that Rioli's tackle would swing Keane around and increase his momentum before Rioli had even laid the tackle.

The frame rate of the incident on the AFL website is 26 frames per second. That means each individual frame is approximately 0.0385 seconds. The reaction time of an F1 driver is 0.2 seconds - let's be generous and say that Powell-Pepper's reaction time is 0.231 seconds, because that is literally 6 frames of footage (I highly doubt this cause an F1 driver is operating at speeds of up to 300 KPH and they also have to make predictions about what is about to happen based on what they can see in front of them, but anyway...)

I've taken the liberty of removing all the frames where Keane wasn't in control of the ball yet.

1708985288969.png
Keane begins to spin at Frame 14 of 26 in at 18:44...but remember, it takes 6 frames for anyone to even react to this, so the earliest Powell-Pepper could have reacted to what Keane did was Frame 20 - this is where we can see Powell-Pepper visibly start to change direction and start to shift his weight to the right. He's not reacting to the Rioli tackle at all at this point...he's anticipating where Keane is going to be without any consideration for Rioli's tackle, which hasn't even be laid yet.

The problem is that Rioli stars to lay the tackle at Frame 18 and only manages to get two arms around Keane at Frame 21 - one arm isn't going to do jack shit. Giving Powell-Pepper, even with his cat-like reflexes, about 0.231 seconds to react to the fact that Keane has now been tackled and his momentum is a lot faster than he had anticipated, so his ability to react would be at Frame 23 at best.

1708986602485.png

But here's the problem - if you look at each frame, you'll see that at no time did he plant his right foot from Frame 18 onward. He's already committed to coming forward and being in that exact location from Frame 20. That's why at Frame 25 (when he's about to plant his foot) he starts raising his left arm - he knows there is going to be a collision at that point, and at that point only.

1708986762404.png

Lastly, look at the distance between Keane and Powell-Pepper in Frame 26. If Rioli wasn't tackling him, which is what Powell-Pepper anticipated, Keane would be on his feet in that exact position and Powell-Pepper would have been there to lay a tackle.
 
El_Scorcho said:
MLB players still have to decide whether to swing or not. They have to be able to predict where the ball is going to be based on a variety of factors and a split second of the ball being in the air. And that's with a much smaller accuracy window than SPP here, who only needed to effectively decide not to swing.

He doesn't have to react "before it happens". You're acting like the contest came out of nowhere. He can clearly see that Willie is about to tackle. He can clearly see that Keane has anticipated the tackle and his raised his arms in an attempt to spin out of it and get a handball away. Those two movements go as expected based on the flow of the play. He knows he's entering a contest where someone is probably going to be mid tackle when he gets there, and he elects to go in with force.

SPP knows enough about contested footy to be able to compute that Willie was about to lay a tackle and he's seen enough tackles to know instinctively where a tackle like that might end up. He went in anyway because he's a physical player who plays on the edge, and he missed.
Click to expand...

El_Scorcho said:
This is a ridiculous comparison Philthy.

SPP wasn't waiting for a screen to turn green, he was watching a football contest where he can make predictions about what is about to happen based on what he can see in front of him.

Based on this reaction test, nobody would have hit a fastball in MLB history, but batters can preempt where the pitch might be by the position of the pitcher, the release point, their history with the pitcher etc.
Click to expand...

MLB is a poor comparison to try to help your case.

1. Yeah, to hit a fastball they’re operating on reflex, there’s no risk assessment going on.

Swing, don’t swing.

2. There’s little to no variation in circumstances. It’s a small strike zone , there’s very little variation in possible outcomes when a pitcher winds up.

3. MLB batting is incredibly high failure rate


The reaction test is a perfect evidence based and relevant measure.

It takes a person 0.3 secs to move a finger 1mm to tap a screen it is entirely relevant to expectations of what a player can do in that same time frame.
 
Festerz said:
I only bring up the Brayshaw collision with Maynard because every friggin media article this week about the SPP incident has made that reference.

So let's talk about it. And I present the video of the collision again for reference:



Brayshaw was running in a straight line at pace (lets say 30km/h which is the equivalent speed of someone running the 100m over 12 seconds) kicking the ball forward.

Maynard accelerated into him and leapt into the air to smother the ball.

Using the same arguments that have been used against SPP by a few posters here, WTF did Maynard - the elite athlete at the end of his season not at the beginning when he was 'rusty' - imagine would happen?

Maynard rightly braced for impact, bringing his hands down and turning from the collision and as a result his shoulder hit Brayshaw squarely in the head- concussing him in a collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career. Maynard had options to avoid that collision didn't he?

All of this happened within a second, just like SPP contact with Keane. But there is a key difference.

The SPP/Keane collision has external variables on the collision - namely the Rioli tackle which constantly shifts Keane's body position both horizontally and vertically in relation to SPP prior to contact.

There is no such change in horizontal trajectory of either Brayshaw or Maynard prior to their impact - simple physics at work. The point of impact in the Maynard/Brayshaw collision was entirely predictable, unlike the SPP/Keane collision. And because Maynard elected to jump into the path of Brayshaw, the probability was raised to near certainty of impact with Brayshaw's head. The physical consequences of that head impact made a certainty by Brayshaw turning his body ever so slightly so that the point of his shoulder impacted with the upper cheekbone/ forehead of Brayshaw head.

And yet Maynard got off scot free. Classed as a football incident. For an avoidable head high collision that ultimately ended Brayshaw's career.

While SPP is being pilloried for a collision that was far less predictable and the consequences far less severe. With the sad early end of Brayshaw's football career used as the justification.

Can no one else see the double standard being applied here?
Click to expand...


Literally nobody in the world thinks the Maynard incident wasn't a suspension. Everyone knows it was an intervention from the boys club (including and especially the media) to make sure Maynard didn't miss the premiership. It's a total red herring and not relevant to the actual application of the rules of the game.
 
EskimoPAFC said:
Sam needs to learn about playing football from Jed McEntee.
Click to expand...

Well, Jed Heads will be cheering come the opening rounds of the season as their man kicks goals and puts on the pressure acts whilst the Powell Pals will be stewing that their guy is nowhere to be seen. So yes, in some respects, he does have something to learn from Jed.
 
TeeKray said:
Well, Jed Heads will be cheering come the opening rounds of the season as their man kicks goals and puts on the pressure acts whilst the Powell Pals will be stewing that their guy is nowhere to be seen. So yes, in some respects, he does have something to learn from Jed.
Click to expand...
I think I've said it already but as a Powell Pal I'm absolutely fine with him getting a rest.
 
He didn't need to bump. And he didn't need to tackle either.

One bloke tackling should always be enough. The 2nd bloke should stay out of it and be ready for the ball to spill out. But for some reason our blokes are taught to gang tackle, which always leaves us outnumbered on the outside

Love Peps, but he deserves whatever he gets for this.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Similar threads

Magpiespowaz
Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 29
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
195
Views
8K
FishingRick04
FishingRick04
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
80 81 82 83 84
Replies
2K
Views
72K
philreich
philreich
El Zorro
  • Locked
Game Day Game Day Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
75 76 77 78 79
Replies
2K
Views
48K
philreich
philreich
RangaInTeal
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for QF2, 2024 vs Geelong
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
865
Views
34K
Addy23
A
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for 2024 Preliminary Final vs Sydney @ SCG
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
859
Views
32K
Buget
Buget
Marmozet
  • Locked
Preview Changes & Preview Thread for Round 24, 2024 vs Fremantle
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
16K
Dutchy5150
Dutchy5150

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top