MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[RussellEbertHandball]

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the MRO matrix which is used to determine a suspension is broken when an incident like this is classed as medium impact over others we have seen this year that are graded as low. Once again the grading is left up to interpretation which opens the door for bias whether conscious or subconscious bias.

There needs to be a clear determination in what is low, medium or high impact so we are removing personal interpretations from the equation.

I would seperate them by something on the lines of;

Low impact: Opposition player does not require medical treatment or time off the ground immediately following the incident (eg not able to compete in the next contest)

Medium impact: Opposition player requires minimal medical treatment or assessment following the incident and is required to leave the playing field for a short period but returns, or does not require medical treatment following the game (if incident occurs towards end of match)

High impact: Opposition player requires immediate medical treatment and does not return to the field of play for the remainder of the match, or requires further medical treatment after the match (again if incident occurs towards end of match this separates from medium impact)

Having a much clearer guideline will help make consistent outcomes which is all we are all asking for.

Further to the above, there needs to be a consideration or grading included for if the incident occurred in play (in an attempt to take possession of the ball or tackle), within reasonable distance of the play (50m) or out of play (beyond 50m). Players which are contesting for the ball should not be penalised for trying to win the ball as harshly compared to players who punch others completely off the ball or not involved in the lead up to the play.

The MRO matrix needs a complete overhaul moving forward after this year for consistency and to remove as much of the human element as possible and remove bias.

Its not the matrix perse, its the bullshit definition of medium which was changed a few years ago that includes the potential damage, not the actual damage, which leaves it open to so much subjectivity because of the fear about the "look of the game."

I can't find the 2020 Tribunal book, but from page 9 of the 2019 Tribunal book re how they grade impact.

(B) IMPACT
Consideration will be given as to whether the impact is Low, Medium, High or
Severe. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to several factors.
Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular, any
injury sustained by the Player who was offended against.

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury,
particularly in the following cases:

»»Intentional head-high strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist,
raised forearm or elbow;

»»High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or
Player momentum;

»»Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball,
particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from
a front-on position;

»»Forceful round arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in
a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;

»»Spear tackles; and

»»Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned.

The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.

Thirdly, consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending
Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as
a result of such impact. By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result
of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving
third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe,
even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim
Player was only Low or Medium.

In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending
Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either
increase or reduce the force of impact.

It should be noted that Low impact is the minimum impact required
for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a
negligible impact.

The bold bit for the third consideration has been conveniently ignored for a few star players by the MRP and MRO over the years.

And the definition of Rough Conduct - tackles on page 10.

3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is
unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application
of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is
Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following
factors, whether:

»»The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player
being tackled is in possession of the ball;
»»The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle
where a Player is lifted off the ground;
»»The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (i.e. arms pinned) with
little opportunity to protect himself;
»»An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

FYI mayes tackle looks a bit more "ruthless" tbh

 

[PA88]

Pepper's tackle was all one motion, with no arms pinned, holding him with one arm, at bloody waist level. It is just a bloody good strong tackle to force the player to dispose the ball. The player could have used his arms to protect his fall and had time to do so, and his back hits the ground first. Too much puff pastries infiltrating sports.

 

[HinkleysHeroes]

If any player gets games for a tackle like this one then we may as well just have players have a flag hanging out the back of their shorts. Grab the flag, holding the ball. All players welfare are totally protected then.

It's not even worth a fine. AFL is a joke. The game is being ruin by over protecting players. Have them sign a declaration that it is a contact sport and injuries, short and long term are a major risk. Done. Play or don't play.

 

[MrPlow]

Deemed “high contact” but the tackle was around the waist? Isn’t high contact a reference to where the player tackles the opposition?

Deemed “medium impact” but the opposition didn’t leave the ground, stayed on and played out the game

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

SPP's case up tomorrow night as Tribunal listening to Lynch's case tonight.

 

[Steve Dore]

Deemed “high contact” but the tackle was around the waist? Isn’t high contact a reference to where the player tackles the opposition? ...

Tackles him around the waist and sits him on his arse.

How any reasonable person could see Powell-Pepper's tackle on McAvoy as anywhere near as bad, let alone worse, than Silky's tackle on Dangerfield beggars belief.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

SPP's case up tomorrow night as Tribunal listening to Lynch's case tonight.

Of course it is ..
Just gives us another closer to Saturday and SPP not knowing if he is playing or not

 

[Enviable Tradition]

You have to ask given the way SPP is being treated after the way Choppy was treated whether there is an element of racism to it?

Both were judged way harsher than average for the actions that they took.

I'd love to see Choppy call it out. Watch the charge get quickly dismissed then!

 

[Spadge]

but you can't legally tackle somebody a bit too vigorously? Give me strength!!!

it wasnt even "a bit too vigorously"
It was a good strong fair tackle that should have been called holding the ball

 

[ROBBBO]

Power gun to challenge ban for dangerous tackle -

Power gun Powell-Pepper to challenge ban for dangerous tackle

Port Adelaide star Sam Powell-Pepper will appeal his one-game suspension at the AFL Tribunal

www.afl.com.au

Also Riewoldt calling it a sling in the commentary is a moron.

BTW Riewoldt being in the media is a bigger injustice compared to any suspension ever given. That guy is so out of his depth on the couch

 

[Canoogs]

Imo, a big part of the problem is that umpires at AFL level have consistently failed to penalise dangerous tackles. Sam's tackle should have been a free kick against for a dangerous tackle, but they are often missed, and occasionally rewarded. Every week there seems to be at least one dangerous tackle that gets shown by the MRP where the tackler has been rewarded with holding the ball. Gibbs on Gray is the most egregious one I remember us being on the losing end of that I can't help but get angry about even now that he didn't get a free kick.

In SA, there has been a big focus the last few years on umpires cracking down on dangerous tackles. They are now far less frequent across many leagues here where they used to be rampant. Players can and do adjust when rules are applied consistently, and not changed from week to week.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You have to ask given the way SPP is being treated after the way Choppy was treated whether there is an element of racism to it?

Both were judged way harsher than average for the actions that they took.

I'd love to see Choppy call it out. Watch the charge get quickly dismissed then!

Not as bad Robbie Muir got it. That long article on ABC website yesterday re a trip when he was 17 in 1971 in Ballarat footy, his white team mate got 12 weeks a few weeks earlier, the umpires conspired to trump up the charge and he got 2.5 years.

Certain players get judged harsher than others. Tough black blokes scare the white legal blokes.

 

[Spadge]

Sam's tackle should have been a free kick against for a dangerous tackle

Absolute nonsense.
There was nothing wrong with his tackle at all and should have been holding the ball

 

[NoddyHolder]

I honestly have no idea what consitutes a dangerous tackle or a sling tackle or a two motion tackle. I watch the games and think 3 or 4 incidents a quarter could fit that category. It seems to me that you either get pinged on the outcome of the tackle (eg a concussion) or the far more dubious 'look' of the incident. As ridiculous as it sounds, I actually feel like SPP is being pinged here just because he's a big tough guy with a bald head from an unpopular team laying a strong tackle. If Scott Pendlebury lays the same tackle, nobody blinks an eyelid.

I reckon there were 43 other players in that game who could have laid that tackle without an eyelid being blinked anywhere. SPP's treatment by the Malbun good school network is a disgrace.

 

[Alberton Proud]

I reckon there were 21 other players in that game who could have laid that tackle without an eyelid being blinked anywhere. SPP's treatment by the Malbun good school network is a disgrace.

Definitely in the Lindsay Thomas subset of bad boys

 

[Alberton Proud]

Maybe Big Boy was dazed from the Head Clash at the start of the tackle

Or maybe he was already injured given the effen huge bandage around his noggin

 

[StrappingTape]

I'm baffled how that's a report or was even flagged to be looked at. It's not racist it's just having one person with NFI in charge of it all. Christian was shite on Channel 10 when he'd want to suspend everyone during and after games so it's no surprise he has no idea when he's in the role. If anyone at AFL had a clue they'd have disqualified him from the job before selecting him based on his previous views on incidents whilst working as a broadcaster but no, old boys club ****s something up again.

 

[VineValerian]

Absolute nonsense.
There was nothing wrong with his tackle at all and should have been holding the ball

Correct. Umps did not even pay a free kick or even caution Sam.
Absolute non-event as a reportable incident.

Hope common sense and justice prevails and the charge is thrown out in the first 15 seconds.

If one of our players does something dangerous, I will accept punishment. But nothing at all wrong with that, unless they ping the other 3 or 4 incidents that were even worse during that game, and numerous others in other games this weekend - which they conveniently turned a blind eye to, even though some were given as frees!!!!

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Deemed “high contact” but the tackle was around the waist? Isn’t high contact a reference to where the player tackles the opposition?

No thats not how it works with Rough conduct charges. If the action causes a players head to hit the ground then its considered high contact. This is a decent reworking of the way the ruling works, because even a truly dangerous speak tackle where you dump a player on their head generally involves grabbing them around the body.

Mind you its pretty questionable whether McEvoy's head even hits the ground. I'd also be questioning any medical report, considering it looks like SPP and McEvoy clash heads while he's looking to make a tackle (instead of choosing to bump), and McEvoy already has his head taped up.

Deemed “medium impact” but the opposition didn’t leave the ground, stayed on and played out the game

Impact level seems to be the new bullshit that Christian makes up based on media outrage. See Ebert and Mayes suspensions, where the player wasn't forced from the ground. Compared to two hits the same week as Ebert's, Marlion Pickett's hit on Isaac Heeney and Gary Rohan's hit that both resulted in the player having to leave the ground. Both escaping with a fine.

 

[AdamMarrett]

I honestly have no idea what consitutes a dangerous tackle or a sling tackle or a two motion tackle. I watch the games and think 3 or 4 incidents a quarter could fit that category. It seems to me that you either get pinged on the outcome of the tackle (eg a concussion) or the far more dubious 'look' of the incident. As ridiculous as it sounds, I actually feel like SPP is being pinged here just because he's a big tough guy with a bald head from an unpopular team laying a strong tackle. If Scott Pendlebury lays the same tackle, nobody blinks an eyelid.

It's McEvoy's head hitting the turf that makes it a dangerous tackle in the MRO's eyes. I think SPP getting a week is a utter load of bullshit don't get me wrong, but that's what they look for and the fact McEvoy took a while to get up and what not is the triggers they look for, outside of those Burgoyne sling type tackles.

We're at the mercy of Hawthorn's medical report really with the appeal. We'll argue it wasn't medium impact, which I agree it wasn't it should be graded as low or no impact, but if they do what Hawthorn do and say McEvoy has had headaches or any other concussion like symptoms our appeal is doomed to fail no matter what we think of it.

Unfortunately that's the system as crap as it is.

 

[VineValerian]

Its not the matrix perse, its the bullshit definition of medium which was changed a few years ago that includes the potential damage, not the actual damage, which leaves it open to so much subjectivity because of the fear about the "look of the game."

I can't find the 2020 Tribunal book, but from page 9 of the 2019 Tribunal book re how they grade impact.

(B) IMPACT
Consideration will be given as to whether the impact is Low, Medium, High or
Severe. In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to several factors.
Firstly, consideration will be given to the extent of force and in particular, any
injury sustained by the Player who was offended against.

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury,
particularly in the following cases:

»»Intentional head-high strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist,
raised forearm or elbow;

»»High bumps, particularly with significant head contact and/or
Player momentum;

»»Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball,
particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from
a front-on position;

»»Forceful round arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in
a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;

»»Spear tackles; and

»»Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned.

The absence of injury does not preclude the classification of impact as Severe.

Thirdly, consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending
Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as
a result of such impact. By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result
of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving
third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe,
even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim
Player was only Low or Medium.

In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending
Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either
increase or reduce the force of impact.

It should be noted that Low impact is the minimum impact required
for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a
negligible impact.

The bold bit for the third consideration has been conveniently ignored for a few star players by the MRP and MRO over the years.

And the definition of Rough Conduct - tackles on page 10.

3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is
unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application
of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is
Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following
factors, whether:

»»The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player
being tackled is in possession of the ball;
»»The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle
where a Player is lifted off the ground;
»»The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (i.e. arms pinned) with
little opportunity to protect himself;
»»An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.

Thanks for clarifying that. From what I can determine, none of the above apply to SPP's tackle. So are we all convinced then that he should get off?

 

[Alberton Proud]

It's McEvoy's head hitting the turf that makes it a dangerous tackle in the MRO's eyes. I think SPP getting a week is a utter load of bullshit don't get me wrong, but that's what they look for and the fact McEvoy took a while to get up and what not is the triggers they look for, outside of those Burgoyne sling type tackles.

We're at the mercy of Hawthorn's medical report really with the appeal. We'll argue it wasn't medium impact, which I agree it wasn't it should be graded as low or no impact, but if they do what Hawthorn do and say McEvoy has had headaches or any other concussion like symptoms our appeal is doomed to fail no matter what we think of it.

Unfortunately that's the system as crap as it is.

If the medical report claims any post match symptoms, then he simply is not allowed to play next week

The AFL letting him play with an acknowledged concussion is surely negligent

You can't have it one way and not the other

 

[VineValerian]

It's McEvoy's head hitting the turf that makes it a dangerous tackle in the MRO's eyes. I think SPP getting a week is a utter load of bullshit don't get me wrong, but that's what they look for and the fact McEvoy took a while to get up and what not is the triggers they look for, outside of those Burgoyne sling type tackles.

We're at the mercy of Hawthorn's medical report really with the appeal. We'll argue it wasn't medium impact, which I agree it wasn't it should be graded as low or no impact, but if they do what Hawthorn do and say McEvoy has had headaches or any other concussion like symptoms our appeal is doomed to fail no matter what we think of it.

Unfortunately that's the system as crap as it is.

He took about 10 seconds max to get up, ran off and took the ruck throw in and played on. No treatment required. No concussion test.

I also take issue with, and believe that we should also fight the careless tackle ruling. Not careless at all. He made an effort not to pin the arms, not to drive him head first into the ground, and there was no "second action" for a sling tackle. Perfect fair tackle.

I also take issue and think we should contest the high contact. McEvoy is tackled around the waist, so no high contact from SPP. McEvoy is then sat on his arse, had arms free to cushion the fall, and only had "mild" head impact at the end of the tackle, when SPP had released the grip.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If the medical report claims any post match symptoms, then he simply is not allowed to play next week

The AFL letting him play with an acknowledged concussion is surely negligent

You can't have it one way and not the other

Hawks are playing Thursday at AO v Essendon.