MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Tibbs]

Our

Why the hell did Sam need to tackle a player that was already being tackled? Dumb football gets what it deserves.

This is the main issue for me. The club's stance is that his role is defensive pressure, and that is what he was doing. The AFL will say he didnt need to hit the contest that hard as Keane was already under tackle.

IMO he had time to alter his final action to avoid a shoulder hit to the head. But the timing is the only real defense that the club has left to reduce the severity of the penalty.

This under normal conditions is a 2 match ban, reduced to 1 IMO. But we have the Brayshaw issue, and bad timing with SPP being the first test case to add to it., along with the Victorian trial-by-media campaign. Poor bugger never stood a chance!

 

[RossFC]

 

[Wargreymon90]

View attachment 1915157

Then get a new job

 

[Alberton Proud]

View attachment 1915157

Maybe 'cause it's a pretty important precedent to set for the rest of the year and all parties are trying to put reasonable arguments forward to reach a reasonable outcome

Muppet

 

[melanChronic]

This whole thing is a farce when 12 months ago Kossie Pickett's egregious bump got 2 weeks and 'yep all good' stamp from the media.

Now it's got to be 4 to set a standard.

 

[PowerBaz]

Message to the community? Not you Maynard or Pickett.....

 

[EskimoPAFC]

If its anything more than 3 I hope we spend the entire pre-season launching appeals.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Mr Pepper-Powell is what I'm calling Pep from now on.

 

[Festerz]

View attachment 1915157

Do the right thing then.

 

[melanChronic]

Why would the club go in asking for 3? Clearly 2 is the best case to push for with 3 the middle ground.

It's the same issue with the PBs, same issue at the trade table-- planting our flag firmly in the middle ground from the get go.

These Victorian bastards go for the most extreme outcome in their favour every time, you've got to be prepared for that.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Message to the community? Not you Maynard or Pickett.....

To be fair to the AFL they argued hard, thru their counsel Andrew Woods that they wanted to send a message re the Maynard bump, just their lawyer didn't convince the tribunal panel, and after a 4 hour hearing the panel said all clear.

The panel was 2 ex players and chairman Jeff Gleeson KC who was the most prominent AFL counsel for a decade, and Gleeson gave extensive directions to his fellow Tribunal members, including;

“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.”

After a lengthy deliberation period, the Tribunal found Maynard had no case to answer on all fronts.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Why would the club go in asking for 3? Clearly 2 is the best case to push for with 3 the middle ground.

It's the same issue with the PBs, same issue at the trade table-- planting our flag firmly in the middle ground from the get go.

These Victorian bastards go for the most extreme outcome in their favour every time, you've got to be prepared for that.

Do any of you actually read the tribunal guidelines book??

Concussion = Severe impact. 3 games is the best result Sam can get.

 

[PatientMental]

These sure are words they've chosen to use

 

[melanChronic]

Do any of you actually read the tribunal guidelines book??

Concussion = Severe impact. 3 games is the best result Sam can get.

That's MRO guidelines right? Once it's at the tribunal you can argue what you like. Clearly concussion does not always equal 3 weeks based on last year-- have they changed it this year?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That's MRO guidelines right? Once it's at the tribunal you can argue what you like. Clearly concussion does not always equal 3 weeks based on last year-- have they changed it this year?

You don't understand.

Concussion = Severe impact. Its then up to the offending player to prove he had no alternative. Which Maynard's lawyer was able to do.

You know, its like if you kill someone, its against the law, 25 years in jail, but if you can prove its self defence, you get off.

 

[melanChronic]

You don't understand.

Concussion = Severe impact. Its then up to the offending player to prove he had no alternative. Which Maynard's lawyer was able to do.

You know, its like if you kill someone, its against the law, 25 years in jail, but if you can prove its self defence, you get off.

Thanks, yes I didn't understand.

 

[bringbackbucky]

So we have the AFL cracking down on head knocks that cause concussion - and rightly so - because of the horrible long term effects that have ended in suicide.

At the same time we have an AFL sanctioned "journo" covering the tribunal, making jokes about losing the will to live. Classy.

 

[Jonts]

I feel like arguing 3 instead of 4

Based off the vibe and mabo of it all

Rather than 2 based off its high impact not servere

Is a mistake

 

[Ford Fairlane]

To be fair to the AFL they argued hard, thru their counsel Andrew Woods that they wanted to send a message re the Maynard bump, just their lawyer didn't convince the tribunal panel, and after a 4 hour hearing the panel said all clear.

The panel was 2 ex players and chairman Jeff Gleeson KC who was the most prominent AFL counsel for a decade, and Gleeson gave extensive directions to his fellow Tribunal members, including;

“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.”

After a lengthy deliberation period, the Tribunal found Maynard had no case to answer on all fronts.

You and I both know that the 'lengthy deliberation period' involved consulting Eddie McGuire

 

[Jonts]

David Zita is a god send

Not a part of the AFL former players boys club

Not a slimey prick
Shows a personality
Doesn't do controversial takes just cause


I cant believe people dont like him

 

[Interstater]

So we have the AFL cracking down on head knocks that cause concussion - and rightly so - because of the horrible long term effects that have ended in suicide.

At the same time we have an AFL sanctioned "journo" covering the tribunal, making jokes about losing the will to live. Classy.

Journo justifying his pay packet while sitting on his arse doing sfa.

 

[Grave Danger]

Been deliberating for an hour now - you'd like to think that means there's actually some argument abut the penalty, but they're probably eating their five course lunch.

 

[Coobk001]

It all just feels unfair, because the incident is so similar to Maynard's, which should have been suspended but wasn't, and here we are, new year, new rules and bang we get caught out straight up. Both scenarios are players playing the ball and suddenly at the last moment their decision was to brace with a bump. In both scenarios, the players should've braced with hands out in front or with a tackling motion. If anything Sam's is harsher, as collision with the opponent only became a thing with 0.2 of a second to go, whereas Maynard was always in line for that. Regardless, both ended up committing the final mistake and suspendable mistake of bracing into a bump.

Hopefully he gets 3, because that's what a reasonable suspension would be, but that anti-Port bias tax that has always smashed us in the past, Byron, Jonas, etc, is sure to mean he cops more.

 

[Del165198]

Message to the community? Not you Maynard or Pickett.....

So glad we get to make our community proudery by being the sacrificial test dummy for the AFL on concussion, which they'll have conveniently forgotten about by the end of the year if one of the big Viccy good blokes looks in danger of missing an important game

 

[Duckimus Prime]

You would think Pickett is out for a season if the new precedence is that this is 5.

The thing everyone ignores is that Pickett only made minimal contact to Bailey Smith's head. And Smith got up and kept playing. There was no concussion or anything just a horrible look.

I feel like arguing 3 instead of 4

Based off the vibe and mabo of it all

Rather than 2 based off its high impact not servere

Is a mistake

A medical report stating that Keane was concussed makes it severe. There's no argument to make to change that.