MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Duckimus Prime]

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.

The AFL looking at suspending Maynard is about the same as James Hird sending an email to Stephen Dank saying please keep the doping programme legal.

The AFL's prosecution of Maynard at the Tribunal was a joke. They basically did the minimum effort of taking Maynard to the Tribunal then said "Hey Collingwood, please come up with a slightly plausible excuse for us to let him play".

The AFL constantly puts forward statements in Tribunals about wanting players to take ridiculous actions not to compete for the ball in order to avoid collisions. But none of that was put forward for cannonball Maynard.

 

[Jonts]

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.

Is Jed playing SANFL or Port district is he?

 

[TeeKray]

The AFL looking at suspending Maynard is about the same as James Hird sending an email to Stephen Dank saying please keep the doping programme legal.

The AFL's prosecution of Maynard at the Tribunal was a joke. They basically did the minimum effort of taking Maynard to the Tribunal then said "Hey Collingwood, please come up with a slightly plausible excuse for us to let him play".

The AFL constantly puts forward statements in Tribunals about wanting players to take ridiculous actions not to compete for the ball in order to avoid collisions. But none of that was put forward for cannonball Maynard.

It was a sham trial.

The AFL tribunal is NOT an independent body. Members of the AFL tribunal are appointed by the AFL and are under implicit pressure to deliver outcomes that are desired by the AFL and the industry as a whole. In the Maynard case that was no suspension, in the Powell-Pepper case that will be a suspension.

There is a strong argument that the tribunal process should be abolished altogether. Nobody is being sent to jail, there is no need for some wanky argument between KCs over football incidents. The MRO decision should be the MRO decision.

 

[bomberclifford]

Literally nobody in the world thinks the Maynard incident wasn't a suspension.

You might need to head on over to he main board, brosef.
This is patently untrue.

 

[TazD]

ENHANCE TO 34TH AND 35TH

 

[Interstater]

Don't worry guys, we have Cos to manage all the media for this matter.
Just look at his list of achievements on behalf of this club.

Lettuce assume our treatment will be fair.

 

[GremioPower]

The AFL does not use precedents or compare hits to get some type of relative outcome

And that’s precisely the problem.

 

[Grave Danger]

And that’s precisely the problem.

And that's about to be carved in stone:

In official changes to the tribunal process soon to be formally released via the 2024 guide, the AFL has cleared the way for a new watermark for reportable incidents like the Powell-Pepper bump that concussed Adelaide’s Mark Keane.

The fresh amendment makes clear that previous match review decisions or tribunal hearings have no bearing on new cases.

“In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions,” it reads.

Major change to tribunal guidelines allows AFL to push for heavier Powell-Pepper ban

A fresh amendment to the AFL's tribunal guidelines could put Sam Powell-Pepper on the sidelines for longer, reports Sam Edmund.

www.sen.com.au

 

[philthy05]

also let’s not pretend the Maynard decision is an outlier. So many players have gotten off from hits.

Edwards ending duursmas season with a tackle after he kicked the ball is one I mentioned earlier. I don’t think that even got a free kick much less an appearance at the tribunal

 

[SureBuddy]

Don’t know how anyone can argue this. He chose to bump, was reckless and hit the guy in the head, which left him concussed. It’s as simple as that. He will get 3 and deserves 3. Was incredibly dumb.

Does not matter at all that Rioli spun Keane into him, he still chose to bump and hit him high.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I'm sure Sam will be given fair and respectful treatment by the AFL-appointed executioners.

 

[TazD]

Edwards ending duursmas season with a tackle after he kicked the ball is one I mentioned earlier. I don’t think that even got a free kick much less an appearance at the trtribunal

You need to let this one go.

 

[Festerz]

And that's about to be carved in stone:

In official changes to the tribunal process soon to be formally released via the 2024 guide, the AFL has cleared the way for a new watermark for reportable incidents like the Powell-Pepper bump that concussed Adelaide’s Mark Keane.

The fresh amendment makes clear that previous match review decisions or tribunal hearings have no bearing on new cases.

“In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions,” it reads.

Major change to tribunal guidelines allows AFL to push for heavier Powell-Pepper ban

A fresh amendment to the AFL's tribunal guidelines could put Sam Powell-Pepper on the sidelines for longer, reports Sam Edmund.

www.sen.com.au

I have a slightly different interpretation of that amendment GD.

It says that 'the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year'. This is not the same as 'have no bearing'.

But what it does do though is expressly state that the tribunal is free to make subjective assessments based on 'evolving community standards'

Each tribunal member will have his or her own subjective assessment on what those evolving community standards might be and how they are relevant to a case that is presented to them on any particular hearing. And despite the protestations of a couple of posters here that the Brayshaw head high hit late last year and his subsequent retirement from the game last week is of no relevance to the SPP incident, my take of that amendment is that it makes it a near certainty that the Angus Taylor retirement and how it has been linked to the SPP incident by almost every media outlet WILL be a determining factor in the penalty the Tribunal wish dish out to SPP.

And as Whateley correctly observed in his comment on the matter yesterday:

'I feel as though you, the constituency, is ready for this type of suspension to rise.'

IMHO it's possible to make the case that the express inclusion of the words 'evolving community standards' makes the outcome of a Tribunal hearing even more of a lottery than it was previously.

Because, by definition, that evolution of standards can take place over a matter of weeks, days or even hours if a particular incident or event (such as the retirement of a much loved player from concussion related brain trauma) becomes front page news.

 

[Alberton Proud]

The thing I'd be focusing on if I was Powell-Pepper's advocate is the fact that he raised his left arm/hand and had it on or near Keane's shoulder a split second before the bump occurred, which signified his original intent was to tackle.

View attachment 1913971

First panel, Powell-Pepper has his right arm at his side and his left forearm is extended away from his body - he has no intention to bump at this point and is in fact expecting to help Rioli in the tackle.

Second panel, his left arm is on Keane's right shoulder, which again signifies his original intent was to tackle - why would someone who is going to bump have their other arm out like this? - this is where he first realised that he is either going to have to protect himself or get cleaned up by Keane.

Third panel - again, Powell-Pepper either turns his body and bumps or allows Keane to clean him up.

Now, let's look at the contention that Powell-Pepper had time to do something else OTHER than bump.

View attachment 1913994

Thankfully, we have the centre square line to give us an accurate mark as to perspective in this situation. And we can see that just before Rioli begins the tackle, Powell-Pepper is about two meters away from the contest. However, due to Keane's momentum and the Rioli tackle, that distance literally halves by the point of impact (the horizontal line is exactly the same size in both photos).

So unless you believe that Powell-Pepper is so smart that he could literally calculate exactly where Rioli's tackle was going to position Keane and that he believed at 18:44 he was going to be swung around the right to allow him to hit Keane at 18:45, combined with the fact that he had his left arm up to Keane's shoulder...it's very clear that it was just an accident and that bracing to bump should be graded as 'something a reasonable person would do in circumstances'...which means it cannot be graded as careless.

I think this is the most logical thing you've ever said

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Don’t know how anyone can argue this. He chose to bump, was reckless and hit the guy in the head, which left him concussed. It’s as simple as that. He will get 3 and deserves 3. Was incredibly dumb.

Does not matter at all that Rioli spun Keane into him, he still chose to bump and hit him high.

And how will you feel when he gets 5?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Macca19]

And how will you feel when he gets 5?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm expecting 5-6 and in the end, lesson learned, we move on.

 

[TazD]

AFL pushing for 4, so it will probably be 3.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

lolol "set the terms" that will become magically rubbery later in the year.

 

[Visenfest]

AFL pushing for 4, so it will probably be 3.

AFL looks to set the terms for 2024. Terms which will be left flexible enough to benefit the next Victorian player who ends someone’s career in finals.

 

[240volt]

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.

It’s just another stupid tackle in the long line of stupid tackles we have been renowned for over many years.
We need some West Coast training in how to tackle and how to dive.
Yeah I don’t like diving also but it’s a part of the game these days and as we well know it can win matches especially finals

 

[gbear]

AFL looks to set the terms for 2024. Terms which will be left flexible enough to benefit the next Victorian player who ends someone’s career in finals.

This.
Still it was reckless and SPP has to deal with the consequences.

 

[Janey]

I have a slightly different interpretation of that amendment GD.

It says that 'the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year'. This is not the same as 'have no bearing'.

But what it does do though is expressly state that the tribunal is free to make subjective assessments based on 'evolving community standards'

Each tribunal member will have his or her own subjective assessment on what those evolving community standards might be and how they are relevant to a case that is presented to them on any particular hearing. And despite the protestations of a couple of posters here that the Brayshaw head high hit late last year and his subsequent retirement from the game last week is of no relevance to the SPP incident, my take of that amendment is that it makes it a near certainty that the Angus Taylor retirement and how it has been linked to the SPP incident by almost every media outlet WILL be a determining factor in the penalty the Tribunal wish dish out to SPP.

And as Whateley correctly observed in his comment on the matter yesterday:

'I feel as though you, the constituency, is ready for this type of suspension to rise.'

IMHO it's possible to make the case that the express inclusion of the words 'evolving community standards' makes the outcome of a Tribunal hearing even more of a lottery than it was previously.

Because, by definition, that evolution of standards can take place over a matter of weeks, days or even hours if a particular incident or event (such as the retirement of a much loved player from concussion related brain trauma) becomes front page news.

So it’s set to become even more of a dog's breakfast than it already was, happy days.

 

[Duck Farmer]

And that's about to be carved in stone:

In official changes to the tribunal process soon to be formally released via the 2024 guide, the AFL has cleared the way for a new watermark for reportable incidents like the Powell-Pepper bump that concussed Adelaide’s Mark Keane.

The fresh amendment makes clear that previous match review decisions or tribunal hearings have no bearing on new cases.

“In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions,” it reads.

Major change to tribunal guidelines allows AFL to push for heavier Powell-Pepper ban

A fresh amendment to the AFL's tribunal guidelines could put Sam Powell-Pepper on the sidelines for longer, reports Sam Edmund.

www.sen.com.au

tl;dr - making an example of SPP by suspending him for 4 games to set the tone means we can still let Nick Daicos off for a similar incident later in the season.

 

[DaTBird187]

If King had it his way he would deregister Sam, then make him commence a nationwide apology tour, followed by 20 years of hard labour. The guy has lost the plot.

If only Sam had gone to the right school.

 

[DaTBird187]

You might need to head on over to he main board, brosef.
This is patently untrue.

I thought about it, but then decided to massage my balls with an cheese grater.