MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[VineValerian]

dont think Cameron or Bedford were too bad. Neither player slung or did anything particularly dangerous except take a player to ground, and not really with any force near the head.
Dont think they are worth 3.

Charlie can apply the "good bloke" card.
Worked before.

 

[HugeJohnson]

I am right on the edge of the plank of jumping off of the AFL ship altogether. 3 weeks for that Bedford tackle is the worst decision they've ever made, and I do not say that lightly because they've made some truly stupendously bad decisions in the last few years. But a regulation rundown tackle being judged three weeks has got to be a joke. That tackle happens every single game at some stage. And Rosas only being judged one week for an elbow to the head behind the play??!
Nah, I think I'm just about done.

 

[Handyandy]

View attachment 2049217

So Rosas’s first striking offence?
So I guess a 1 game suspension for a headbutt earlier this season is not considered a strike?
https://www.afl.com.au/video/108931...dal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1710661017001

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Oh **** now I have to agree with Graham Cornes. I HATE YOU AFL!!!

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[Grave Danger]

So Rosas’s first striking offence?
So I guess a 1 game suspension for a headbutt earlier this season is not considered a strike?
https://www.afl.com.au/video/108931...dal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1710661017001

Tom Lynch must've worked his way though the whole playlist when he had 5 or 6 'first offences' in one season a few years back.

 

[Burningleviathan]

The Cameron decision is one of the worst. There is no way that is worth 1 game yet alone 3.

You can't say you are serious about head injuries if an off the ball elbow to the head is only worth a week. I thought the risk of serious injury was meant to be taken into consideration.

 

[Handyandy]

I think the takeaway is don’t play tough contested footy. If a genuine footy act goes slightly wrong you could get 3-4 games with no ill intent
Instead headbutt someone or elbow them in the head off the ball like a cowardly scumbag sniper & the AFL will look after you

 

[scotty13]

I think the takeaway is don’t play tough contested footy. If a genuine footy act goes slightly wrong you could get 3-4 games with no ill intent
Instead headbutt someone or elbow them in the head off the ball like a cowardly scumbag sniper & the AFL will look after you

Until a Port player does it this week and get 4weeks for it.

 

[TeeKray]

Cameron is a recidivist thug who knew exactly what he was doing and deserves every one of those three weeks. Rosas getting off lightly doesn't change that.

 

[Brian McGee]

Cameron is a recidivist thug who knew exactly what he was doing and deserves every one of those three weeks. Rosas getting off lightly doesn't change that.

I don’t see anything even reportable in that tackle. Doesn’t sling him, doesn’t pick him up, doesn’t really drive him into the ground. Both players momentum took them that way. It cannot simply be that a head hits the ground and it’s reportable. The afl does my head in.

 

[MrMeaner]

I'm not one of Cameron's fans and think he often snipes opponents. But this is not one of those occasions. He did nothing wrong in that tackle. There was nothing he could have reasonably done differently.

 

[RossFC]

If a player is falling backwards, remember to tuck your chin. Will help avoid smacking your head into the ground.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

So Rosas’s first striking offence?
So I guess a 1 game suspension for a headbutt earlier this season is not considered a strike?
https://www.afl.com.au/video/108931...dal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1710661017001

Headbutts go to Misconduct.

Mason Redman was suspended for an intentional, low impact high strike in round 3.

Later in the year he copped a striking first offence Fix Financial Sanction fine for a intentional, low impact, body contact strike.

Same offence in striking, but different gradings giving him two First Offences.

 

[TeeKray]

I'm not one of Cameron's fans and think he often snipes opponents. But this is not one of those occasions. He did nothing wrong in that tackle. There was nothing he could have reasonably done differently.

How about, don't apply such excessive force that your momentum takes the opposition player to ground? It couldn't be any clearer that if you take an opposition player to ground in a tackle in any way whatsoever that you're then liable for any head trauma that occurs. If you're still doing it then you're a moron.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Cameron decision explained

Reasons:

We find that in tackling his opponent in the way he did, Cameron engaged in rough conduct.

Almost immediately after Duggan picked up the ball, Cameron ran to Duggan and wrapped his arms around him in a tackle.

He had both of Duggan's arms pinned and the ball was locked in between them.

Contrary to Cameron's evidence, we consider the vision clearly captures Cameron taking Duggan to ground.

He used the right side of his body to forcefully drive Duggan backwards. Duggan managed to avoid being immediately driven to the ground by taking a few steps backwards and turning to the side. However, under the continued force being applied, Duggan then lost his feet and landed heavily on his back with his head hitting the ground.

It is the combination of the excessive force used in driving Duggan backwards with both of his arms pinned that makes the tackle unreasonable in the circumstances.

Those two features put Duggan in a highly vulnerable position. He had no opportunity to try to protect himself. If he wasn't driven backwards with such force, then there would have been opportunity for him to try to control the way he landed.

If his arms weren't held, then there would have been opportunity for him to try to use an arm or shoulder to cushion his landing.

For these reasons, we uphold the charge.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Toby Bedford

14

Toby Bedford

Age

24

Ht

179cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.0

1star

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

3star

G

0.0

1star

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.0

1star

’s ban has been upheld. He’ll miss the next three matches. Bedford decision reasons.

Reasons:

We find that this tackle was rough conduct. A reasonable player in Bedford’s circumstances would have realised that by leaping at Taranto in the way that he did from behind, he was likely to drive him into the ground.

A reasonable player would have realised Taranto was in a vulnerable position and was being driven into the ground with force, and that Toronto's head may well hit the ground with force.

A reasonable player would have released at least one of Taronto's arms to enable him to attempt to brace for impact.

We find that this may well have meaningfully reduced the impact. As it was, the impact was severe.

 

[DaTBird187]

Well, that's me done.......

 

[Grave Danger]

Davies hit on Lachie up now - be a laugh if that one gets overturned.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Davies hit on Lachie up now - be a laugh if that one gets overturned.

If there is a 2 hour shit between legal counsels, the tribunal panel willl probably take 15 minutes to decide, so they can go to the pub, so there probably is a 50% chance he gets completely off.

 

[HugeJohnson]

This competition is an absolute joke. Someone needs to form a breakaway league a la Kerry Packer ASAP.

 

[Handyandy]

Headbutts go to Misconduct.

Mason Redman was suspended for an intentional, low impact high strike in round 3.

Later in the year he copped a striking first offence Fix Financial Sanction fine for a intentional, low impact, body contact strike.

Same offence in striking, but different gradings giving him two First Offences.

Cheers for clearing that up

Everything is wrapped up in a neat little package

 

[ibd77]

This competition is an absolute joke. Someone needs to form a breakaway league a la Kerry Packer ASAP.

Too late now. AFL owns all the IP.

Basically you would need to start a new league from scratch, with new teams, new colours, new logos and mascots.

 

[chachi11]

Too late now. AFL owns all the IP.

Basically you would need to start a new league from scratch, with new teams, new colours, new logos and mascots.

Cool...so we can be the Port Adelaide magpies and wear prison bars in the new league.

 

[ibd77]

Cool...so we can be the Port Adelaide magpies and wear prison bars in the new league.

Port Adelaide Football Club, no
Magpies, no
Prison Bars, no
Black and white, no
Black, white, silver and teal, no
SBS, no
Power, no

AFL have controlling trade mark rights to the use of those names and icons associated with Australian Rules Football. They would impose court injunctions to prevent the use of anything branding that use to be associated with their league.