MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Duck Farmer]

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.

This is factually incorrect. I'm reliably informed that Collingwood invented the colours black and white while Kevin Sheedy was otherwise distracted working up some concepts for indigenous Australians.

 

[Grave Danger]

Alex Davies' three-match ban has been upheld.

 

[shewho]

Alex Davies' three-match ban has been upheld.

Travesty- should’ve been increased to 5

 

[Schulzenfest]

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.

There would be literally hundreds of tackles every week where the tackler applies enough force to take his opponent to ground. Applying enough force to take your opponent to ground is not an illegal act on the football field.

 

[It Just Is]

Toby Bedford’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.

Watch the Dangerfield tackle on Sam Walsh and then read this statement.

I guess the tribunal didn’t get as starry when Bedford dialled in.

 

[TeeKray]

There would be literally hundreds of tackles every week where the tackler applies enough force to take his opponent to ground. Applying enough force to take your opponent to ground is not an illegal act on the football field.

No it's not. But if your opponent ends up hitting his head on the ground it's a free kick and if he is concussed it's a suspension. If you think the head making contact with the ground is somewhat out of your control then the smart thing to do is to avoid taking your opponent to ground at all costs. And that's basically what the AFL is saying to the players without actually spelling it out.

 

[Schulzenfest]

No it's not. But if your opponent ends up hitting his head on the ground it's a free kick and if he is concussed it's a suspension. If you think the head making contact with the ground is somewhat out of your control then the smart thing to do is to avoid taking your opponent to ground at all costs. And that's basically what the AFL is saying to the players without actually spelling it out.

I don't think they've ever said that before as clearly as they have this week.

In the past when a player has been suspended for a tackle that caused a concussion there was at least something wrong with the tackle; a slinging motion, a push in the back, excessive force. Something. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Bedford tackle. It was perfectly within the rules. It wasn't paid a free kick. Aside from a half-hearted Toby Nankervis, no Richmond player remonstrated with him. But somebody got hurt, so now it's three weeks.

Up until now I've been mostly supportive of the concussion crackdown, but we've jumped the shark now. If that Bedford tackle is worthy of suspension then we're playing touch footy.

 

[Portology]

No it's not. But if your opponent ends up hitting his head on the ground it's a free kick and if he is concussed it's a suspension. If you think the head making contact with the ground is somewhat out of your control then the smart thing to do is to avoid taking your opponent to ground at all costs. And that's basically what the AFL is saying to the players without actually spelling it out.

In both the tackle cases on the weekend that head hit the ground with arms essentially pinned. Yes sometimes that's impossible to avoid because forward momentum from both bodies. But hard to argue the tackler was deliberately trying to knock the victim out.

The current model treats different parts of the equation differently. It almost deterministically punishes outcome, which is relatively easily measured, but it only "weights" intent heavily when the outcome is also bad, and it tends to towards punishing barely avoidable accidents (spectrum, yada yada, SPP bump, sure).

Seems to me Intent which is notoriously hard to prove could/should be separated from the outcome and potential outcome of the action. Reckless careless how about "dangerous" as the highest category?

Current system a totally off the ball elbow to the head where the action is 1000% avoidable, the intent to knock someone out is impossible to prove but could have very easily done so - that does not get the sanction it so richly deserves based on possible outcome. Sure, compare say to an off the ball Kane stomach punch where there's as much deliberate intent but far less chance of serious damage. And that frontal assault on Lachie's over-the-ball head could have easily broken his neck so there ought to be recognition in the model not just for "meant to hit" as is imperfectly labelled intentional these days but also "that action could have very easily permanently incapacitated someone".

tl;dr: it needs to be MUCH easier to punish completely unnecessary acts as well as egregiously dangerous ones.

 

[Portology]

There would be literally hundreds of tackles every week where the tackler applies enough force to take his opponent to ground. Applying enough force to take your opponent to ground is not an illegal act on the football field.

Except in the significant cases where you effectively pin their arms or knock them out (seemingly accidentally or otherwise).

 

[RossFC]

Can we appeal the elbow to the back of the head getting only a week? Almost as bad as the SANFL there.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Except in the significant cases where you effectively pin their arms or knock them out (seemingly accidentally or otherwise).

Pinning your opponent's arms isn't against the rules either.

I'd love the AFL to come out and say what part of Bedford's tackle was illegal, aside from the outcome, which was outside of Bedford's control.

If you're not allowed to pin player's arms in a tackle any more, make that a rule. If you're not allowed to tackle players to the ground any more, make that a rule. If you're not allowed to pin player's arms and tackle them to the ground any more, make that a rule. But as it stands, none of those things are rules. There isn't a single rule Bedford broke. There would have been 100 similar tackles this weekend.

Up until now, suspensions have been handed out on the basis of 'if you do x wrong in a tackle (x potentially being slinging your opponent, making high contact with your opponent, applying excessive force to your opponent, or any number of other things) and your opponent gets concussed, you'll get weeks'. This week was the first time we jumped to 'if you apply a tackle that is perfectly within the rules but your opponent gets concussed, you'll still get weeks'.

 

[TeeKray]

Pinning your opponent's arms isn't against the rules either.

I'd love the AFL to come out and say what part of Bedford's tackle was illegal, aside from the outcome, which was outside of Bedford's control.

If you're not allowed to pin player's arms in a tackle any more, make that a rule. If you're not allowed to tackle players to the ground any more, make that a rule. If you're not allowed to pin player's arms and tackle them to the ground any more, make that a rule. But as it stands, none of those things are rules. There isn't a single rule Bedford broke. There would have been 100 similar tackles this weekend.

Up until now, suspensions have been handed out on the basis of 'if you do x wrong (x potentially being slinging your opponent, bumping your opponent, applying excessive force, or any number of other things) and your opponent gets concussed, you'll get weeks'. This week was the first time we jumped to 'if you apply a tackle that is perfectly within the rules but your opponent gets concussed, you'll still get weeks'.

It's called a dangerous tackle. That's the rule. If you make a tackle of any sort where your opponent's head is slammed into the ground with any decent force it is deemed a dangerous tackle. Intent is not a factor.

When these cases go before the tribunal what you are basically hearing is the AFL arguing that literally anything you could've done to stop that happening would've been better than what you did. That's a hard position to argue against. If it's not clear, the AFL care more about preventing head injuries than they do protecting the art of tackling. They would rather eliminate players being tackled to ground altogether than keep having players be knocked out in this manner.

 

[Schulzenfest]

It's called a dangerous tackle. That's the rule. If you make a tackle of any sort where your opponent's head is slammed into the ground with any decent force it is deemed a dangerous tackle.

That's not a rule. A rule is 'you cannot do x'. What you're describing is 'you can do x, but if you do x and something bad which is entirely out of your control happens, we will punish you'. That's absurdity.

You'll also notice the umpire didn't even call it a dangerous tackle on the ground either. Because it wasn't any more dangerous than the 150 other tackles that took place in that game. Bedford didn't sling, he didn't make high contact, he didn't apply excessive force. Taranto's head inexplicably jerking forward and hitting the ground was a freak accident.

They would rather eliminate players being tackled to ground altogether than keep having players be knocked out in this manner.

Then they should do that. But until they do, Bedford didn't do anything against the rules and shouldn't have been suspended.

 

[chiwigi]

The tackle concussions are in the control of the AFL, when they get sued they can say they did what they could.

The off the ball was on the player itself. The AFL could claim it wasn’t a part of the sport and that the individual should be sued.

It would be bullshit, but could be part of their thinking.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

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.

Magpies would be a Yes. The AFL only has the specific Collingwood logos trademarked. (see all other Magpies all over the world)

Prison Bars would be a yes. Prexisting designs would stop the AFL from being able to trademark the design. Just can't use AFL logos on it. Which no one would do if you're starting up a new league.

Black and white, no
Black, white, silver and teal, no
Yes, see every other black and white sporting team throughout the world.

As we've never actually been it or used it, we could probably actually be the Port Adelaide Power Football Club.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

At the end of the day, if a player takes another player to the ground and the tackled player hits their head there is only one reasonable thing that they can do:

Spoiler

Sack Hinkley

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I'd love the AFL to come out and say what part of Bedford's tackle was illegal, aside from the outcome, which was outside of Bedford's control.

You've literally listed it yourself. Its rough conduct because he tackled Taranto in a way that resulted in his head hitting the ground. And he doesn't do anything to mitigate that outcome, its done in a way that puts the outcome out of his control.

Its something they want out of the game. But they're half arsing it, because they're also still celebrating big hits in tackles that slam players into the ground where by pure luck the head doesn't hit the ground.

The Charlie Cameron tackle is the bullshit one. But that's mainly because I think the Tribunal's findings on what Cameron did are bullshit. He didn't drive Duggan into the ground, he simply held on as Duggan fell over trying to break the tackle.
Similar to the Tom Jonas tackle against Tom MacDonald.

Watch the Dangerfield tackle on Sam Walsh and then read this statement.

I guess the tribunal didn’t get as starry when Bedford dialled in.

Dangerfield's tackle wasn't like either of these ones. He did not launch himself at Walsh like Bedford did with Taranto.

If you want to find a tackle with a similar action to Bedford's then this would be it

 

[raptalia]

What the AFL is trying to avoid is retired players queuing up to sue them for brain injury. The AFL stance has nothing to do with player welfare it is all about avoiding the prospect of mass payouts down the track.

Where does this end? The fabric of the game is being changed dramatically. As supporters we want to see the players go hard we do not want to see them avoid tackling an opponent lest they get reported. That is where this is headed.

Australian Rules is a contact sport and if you play the game and take the money you should also take the risk.

 

[Schulzenfest]

You've literally listed it yourself. Its rough conduct because he tackled Taranto in a way that resulted in his head hitting the ground.

Taranto hitting his head on the ground is an outcome, not an action. Bedford didn't break any rules. You're allowed to pin your opponent's arms and tackle them to the ground.

If you think the Bedford tackle was even half as forceful and reckless as the Naitanui tackle you posted then you're ****ing blind.

 

[TeeKray]

The tackle concussions are in the control of the AFL, when they get sued they can say they did what they could.

The off the ball was on the player itself. The AFL could claim it wasn’t a part of the sport and that the individual should be sued.

It would be bullshit, but could be part of their thinking.

If Evans ended up with concussion and/or facial fractures then that would've been 6 weeks.

 

[TeeKray]

What the AFL is trying to avoid is retired players queuing up to sue them for brain injury. The AFL stance has nothing to do with player welfare it is all about avoiding the prospect of mass payouts down the track.

Where does this end? The fabric of the game is being changed dramatically. As supporters we want to see the players go hard we do not want to see them avoid tackling an opponent lest they get reported. That is where this is headed.

Australian Rules is a contact sport and if you play the game and take the money you should also take the risk.

There's been about half a dozen players forced into retirement due to brain injuries in the last year alone. Countless others with unknown long term damage. I don't know about you but I'm not sure I really want to be watching a sport knowing that many of its participants will end up with brain injuries down the track. Yes the AFL itself is largely concerned with the legal side but that doesn't mean making the game safer is not a worthwhile thing to do.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

If you think the Bedford tackle was even half as forceful and reckless as the Naitanui tackle you posted then you're ****ing blind.

Its the same action. Diving at a player to make a tackle.

As for the forcefulness, yeah because Bedford was tackling a guy that a bit bigger than him, rather than signficantly smaller.

Nic Nat would be copping 3+ weeks as well if he did it this year.

 

[Schulzenfest]

The simple answer is this. If the AFL has decided that pinning a player's arms and tackling them to the ground in the absence of any slinging motion or excessive force is against the rules, then make it so. But that means you're paying a free kick every time somebody makes one of those tackles, not just every time one of them results in a head injury.

Outcome playing a role in the severity of punishment is nothing unusual. You drink drive and get pulled over, you lose your driver's licence. You drink drive and accidentally kill someone, you go to jail. Same action, different outcome. But that's still starting from a point of the action (drink driving) being illegal. Either outlaw the action, or don't punish people for making an action within the rules that has unintended consequences.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Alex Davies' three-match ban has been upheld.

The bloody gall of challenging

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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.

I thought that initially then saw another angle where he appeared to drive the other player into the ground, rugby style.

My default position is Cameron is a grub, so deserves the penalty.