MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Festerz]

Hartigan has been done on a video from the internet.

That mobile phone footage might be the only footage of the incident the media has. But there are cameras stationed above the goals at each end that are reviewed at the end of the game by the MRO, AFL and both teams for a variety of reasons, including capturing off the ball incidents like this. But I do reckon the media coverage forced the MRO to take action.

The MRO raffle continues with Kyle Hartigan three matches for that hit on Sam Walsh. Nick Holman gets two matches for run-down tackle on Mitch Duncan. Lachie Plowman two matches for contest with Jaeger O’Meara. And Taylor Walker & Darcy Fogarty get soft fines.

The Holman suspension will get most of the attention in the media but I reckon that's not the only dodgy call here.


BTW, the AFL has said it will provide an official comment later today on the 2 controversial non decisions late in the Crows - Melbourne game.

 

[It Just Is]

I knew Holman was in trouble watching it live. Very similar to Jonas on Naughton in that the tackler lunges at the player with the ball and their momentum carries them forward. Naughton was fending off and didn’t protect himself and Duncan was in the act of kicking. Unfortunately for Holman the tackle caused a concussion and that is all the MRO cares about.

If a tackle is legal the tackler needs to be exempt from scrutiny. He didn’t tackle high, in the back, sling, or pick up and drive head first. It was an accident pure and simple.

 

[u2uabrs]

Hartigan has been done on a video from the internet. From AFL link in above post


Kyle Hartigan, Hawthorn, has been charged with Striking Sam Walsh, Carlton, during the fourth quarter of the Round 10 match between Carlton and Hawthorn, played at The MCG on Saturday May 22, 2021.

In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Intentional Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.

Nice to see Harry defend his team mate!

 

[Mr Experience]

I hope GC fight this to the death and if Gleeson QC is the AFL advocate and tries to belittle the player, he is attacked back, asked how many games of footy has he played, and asked who is representing, himself, or has he taken instructions from Stephen Hocking and is representing the AFL?

Match Review: Hawk cops huge whack, Sun and Blue banned for two

The Match Review has completed its findings for Saturday's matches in round 10

www.afl.com.au

Nick Holman, Gold Coast SUNS, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Mitch Duncan, Geelong, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between Geelong and the Gold Coast SUNS, played at GMHBA Stadium on Saturday May 22, 2021.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

There's a huge outcry from the AFL media and former players over the Holman tackle.

But we're a mere two weeks away from Lycett where it was "how many weeks can we get this big bully done for?"

Do any of these people listen to themselves??? A certain former North Melbourne player clearly doesn't but its a shame the rest of us have to one way or another.

 

[OneGreatClub]

There's a huge outcry from the AFL media and former players over the Holman tackle.

But we're a mere two weeks away from Lycett it was "how many weeks can we get this big bully done for?"

Do any of these people listen to themselves??? A certain former North Melbourne player clearly doesn't but its a shame the rest of us have to one way or another.

Just doing their job, matey. Doing their job.

 

[Mr Experience]

Just doing their job, matey. Doing their job.

As far as I'm concerned if Lycett's tackle is worth 4 weeks then Holman's punishment should stand.

I really don't want to get worked up over MRP/tribunal chook lotto and media double standards since it happens so regularly but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Schulzenfest]

There's a huge outcry from the AFL media and former players over the Holman tackle.

But we're a mere two weeks away from Lycett it was "how many weeks can we get this big bully done for?"

Do any of these people listen to themselves??? A certain former North Melbourne player clearly doesn't but its a shame the rest of us have to one way or another.

Lycett's was a sling tackle, Holman's wasn't. I'm not saying I agree with Lycett getting four weeks, but there's a very clear difference between the two tackles. Holman's tackle shouldn't even have been (and wasn't) a free kick against.

 

[Mr Experience]

Lycett's was a sling tackle, Holman's wasn't. Very clear difference.

The AFL are protecting the head. There is no difference in that aspect.

 

[dirty2]

2 weeks for a near perfect tackle... The AFL is a joke...

 

[backtozero]

What part of it is high contact?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL are protecting the head. There is no difference in that aspect.

You can go for the mark of the year and drive your knee as hard as possible into your opponents head or neck and the AFL wont do a thing about it, whatever the consequences. The speckie is more sacrosanct than the head to the AFL.

Watch Riewoldt and Lynch closely and you will see they jump with their knees into the head or neck of their opponent, especially if it is highly unlikely they will mark the ball. Get a hand to the ball, hurt your opponent, and a fair chance their swarming small forwards get to the loose ball first.

 

[FishingRick04]

You can go for the mark of the year and drive your knee as hard as possible into your opponents head or neck and the AFL wont do a thing about it, whatever the consequences. The speckie is more sacrosanct than the head to the AFL.

Watch Riewoldt and Lynch closely and you will see they jump with their knees into the head or neck of their opponent, especially if it is highly unlikely they will mark the ball. Get a hand to the ball, hurt your opponent, and a fair chance their swarming small forwards get to the loose ball first.

They’re dogs and coaches to be that way

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The triple treat of cases = Plowman, Pickett and Plowman has started.

‘Perfect tackle’ ban overturned at AFL Tribunal but Blue and Tiger fail their appeals

‘Perfect tackle’ ban overturned at AFL Tribunal but Blue and Tiger fail their appeals

www.foxsports.com.au

Ross Howie is the Tribunal chairman. Our Tribunal members are David Neitz, Richard Loveridge and Wayne Henwood.

Jeff Gleeson is representing the AFL while Peter O'Farrell and Elisabeth Bateman are representing Carlton.


Medical report: O'Meara was examined for concussion and was taken from the game. Ongoing treatment required following the concussion protocols, and O'Meara is expected to miss one game.

Carlton isn't disputing the high impact/high contact grading, because it says it wasn't a reportable offence.

Carlton also arguing Plowman is not liable because he was contesting the ball, rather than electing to bump.

Carlton is pointing to the "reportable offence" section of the AFL rule book, and arguing "contact incidental to a marking contest" is not a reportable offence. "He is legitimately taking part in the marking contest, and that the ball was within five metres."
.........

The Blues are pointing to a separate incident, involving Zak Butters, where the player hit "was in clear possession of the ball and elects to bump, high contact was made and there was an injury". "These examples are in the guidelines ... in my submission, these need to be given some work to do. They're there to guide you. The example in front of you (Plowman) and example 34 (Butters) are not the same incident."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Plowman has given his evidence. Here is what Gleeson said trying to justify MRO's charge. Given he likes to hammer players thought it would be worth getting down his line of argument.

AFL now addressing Plowman.

AFL questions Plowman saying he came off second-best given he wasn't concussed. "No, I didn't suffer any concussion." It was O'Meara who came off second-best, wasn't it? "Possibly."

AFL and the Tribunal chair now disputing whether this is relevant.

AFL: You saw the ball was kicked to a Hawthorn player? Plowman: I saw Tom Mitchell kick it in the air and I thought I had priority on the ball. AFL: You weren't saying you didn't know anyone was there? Plowman: No, not at all. I saw him running through the middle ... and he came into my peripherals late.

AFL: You thought a Hawthorn player was likely to be there and be in possession of the ball, because you were going to punch the ball? Plowman: Yes.

AFL: If you thought you were going to get there first, or no-one was there, you would've tried to mark it? Plowman: Yes.

AFL showing vision and saying it "would've been obvious" the Hawthorn player wouldn't have known Plowman was coming. Plowman says he could have seen him coming earlier.


AFL: By this stage, you realised the Hawthorn player was ahead of you? Plowman: Correct. AFL: At that point, though you're coming at some speed, you have a decision to make whether to continue or deviate? Plowman: Correct. AFL: And you chose to continue? Plowman: Correct.

AFL says while leaving his arm out he turns sideways and bumps. Plowman says he has continued on his line and put the fist up. AFL: "We see your full back there (on contact) as you turn sideways to bump." Plowman: "I guess. I think I've run through the line."

AFL: You tuck your left arm in and turn and bump. Plowman: I don't believe I've turned.

Carlton now speaking to Plowman again and showing the point of contact, asking about whether he thought it was likely O'Meara would arrive ahead of him. Plowman: I believe I got the ball in the spoil, I'm not sure if he touched it.

AFL: It's no secret there's been a big focus on injuries to the head and concussion in Australian rules football. This is no immediate, recent phenomenon. Points to the guidelines which talk about reducing the risk of head injuries to players, and that this needs to be kept firmly in mind.

This comes down to whether that type of approach from Plowman, which wasn't an intentional reportable offence, whether that - knowing what he saw, his speed and the vulnerability of O'Meara - whether the Tribunal says that's OK, you can continue on and not deviate from your path.

What the vision shows is O'Meara was vulnerable, he clearly had eyes only for the ball, and had no way or knowing any Carlton player was coming from behind or to the right of him. Plowman on the other hand could see there was a Hawthorn player approaching the ball. Only he realised before impact there would be a high-speed impact - if he continued on the path he was travelling.

AFL: "The question is, is it OK for him to continue and bump the player who's vulnerable or not? 20 years ago there'd be no question, but we know more now. The guidelines have changed. If you decide this was not a bump, that's the end of the matter. If however you decide that prior to impact, Plowman realised there'd be high-speed impact and braced himself for and effected a bump, then it's a bump. The fact he was simultaneously trying to spoil doesn't necessarily detract from the fact it was a bump."

AFL: Last year the guideline was different - it spoke about no realistic alternative to contesting the ball. It was changed for this specific purpose, because there will be circumstances where it's simply not reasonable to contest the ball in that way. 20 years ago that would've been howled down, but we know more about head injuries now. Your duty of care means you can't contest the ball.


AFL: Because of the likelihood of a head injury, this might be one of those circumstances where Plowman and only Plowman had the chance to avoid this outcome and could've deviated his course. He could've accepted the fact where he could not attempt to both bump and punch without giving rise to a real risk of a head injury.

If you conclude Plowman had no way of stopping or doing anything ifferent, it's really not a bump in the first place. But bearing in mind the great skill our players have to change direction - if you conclude he could've changed his course, rather than barreling through O'Meara, you might decide this was rough conduct.

AFL refers to the previous Butters example of rough conduct. "It doesn't prove the converse; it doesn't mean a different situation is not rough conduct."


Carlton's representative now speaking. "You can assume a player of O'Meara's ability can see Plowman is on the move (before entering the contest). The suggestion that's been made that O'Meara had no way of knowing there was another player, I'd submit you reject that."
.........


Carlton's reasons to acquit:

1. This was not a bump, it was not an election to bump and they didn't even elect to brace. Evidence - Plowman's right arm and that fist, and the aftermath of both players being on the ground.
2. This was a collision that was incidental to a legitimate marking contest. The collision resulted from the courage of both players and the fact both players only had eyes for the ball.
3. In the guidelines, they're specifically written for this type of football incident because of the exceptions. They're football incidents, not reportable incidents. "Permitted conduct: the football is not more than 5 metres away, contact is incidental to a marking contest where a player is legitimately effecting a mark". These represent "a fabric of our game to ensure players contest marks".

Carlton: "What else could be more legitimate than two players contesting a mark? It's the very heart of the game."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Carlton - More reasons to acquit:

1. If there's no election to bump, and you're contesting the ball, you're not liable.
2. Unfortunately both players were hurt, but both had eyes for the ball, and this is a situation where you could reasonably say, what if Plowman didn't get up first? "If Plowman's contact was reportable, so was O'Meara's. But his contact isn't reportable because he was part of this marking contest. They both had eyes on the ball legitimately. It's wrong to work backwards from the injury to lead to the conclusion this is a reportable offence."

Carlton: "Sometimes a reasonable action takes place in a game, is not reportable, but unfortunately it leads to an injury, and this is one such occasion."

The Tribunal chairman is now speaking to the jury about the definition of rough conduct. The guidelines refer to "unreasonable" conduct. He says they must judge the factual situation of what Plowman did, and then consider whether his conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.

AFL: The question is not whether the conduct was reasonable, but whether there was a bump, and whether it caused forceful contact.

Tribunal member Loveridge: Is this about whether this was a bump? Chairman agrees.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Carlton have done well here. Lets see how it goes!

 

[Waspy79]

Plowman and Holman should both get off. Pickett’s penalty should stand.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Been on a long call but no progress in the Plowman case. Tribunal has been deliberating for over 30 minutes.

Progress since Tribunal member Loveridge: Is this about whether this was a bump? Chairman agrees.....

Carlton disputing that this is about whether it was a reportable offence, rather than whether it was a bump.

We're really getting into the weeds here of exactly what the jury must consider first and neither side can agree.

We're also arguing about what a marking contest is. Lawyers, hey?

Chairman: "The question of fact becomes whether this was a bump ... and whether it was careless."

The Tribunal chairman believes it was not a marking contest. Carlton argues trying to spoil can be part of a marking contest, and thus can not be reportable because it's a legitimate part of the game.

We're still disputing that element of the case. ....... The jury goes to deliberate.

 

[It Just Is]

Like SPP last year, if it takes so long to determine whether a split second act on a football field is illicit than the player is clearly not guilty.

 

[Garibaldi Red]

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Jury finds Plowman came to the contest at speed, was aware of O'Meara, consider that O'Meara was not aware of Plowman, find Plowman effected a bump. No exception as set out in the rules applies - therefore GUILTY.

So he's suspended but now we're figuring out for how long.

Carlton talking about exceptional and compelling circumstances.

 

[dirty2]

So... What's the game come to...

 

[Grave Danger]

Jury finds Plowman came to the contest at speed, was aware of O'Meara, consider that O'Meara was not aware of Plowman, find Plowman effected a bump. No exception as set out in the rules applies - therefore GUILTY.

So he's suspended but now we're figuring out for how long.

Carlton talking about exceptional and compelling circumstances.

Stays at 2 weeks

 

[Mr Experience]

Cue the media outrage because it's Carlton players...

 

[rumoursofwinter]

So... What's the game come to...

Can't spoil. Can't tackle.