MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Dan is a bit more stuffed that I was hoping for. Yesterday I watched the replay and saw it was shoulder on shoulder hit and he avoided Rankine's head so it was a body contact, not high contact.

Unfortunately the AFL changed the definition over the last couple years as appeals have been won and its gone from -
High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact above the shoulders, in 2022,
to the top of the shoulders in 2024.

His bump is shoulder to shoulder and he didn't meet the old definition of above the shoulders, but meets the new definition of the top of the shoulders. That mean's it is extremely unlikely to get a 3 games suspension unless our KC(s) do and extraordinary job,

From page 10 of Tribunal 2024 guideline booklet;

(C) CONTACT
The MRO will consider whether Contact to the Victim Player was High/to
the Groin or to the Body. In the interests of protecting the health and
welfare of Players, sanctions for head-high contact and contact to the
groin will be more severe.

High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact
to the top of the shoulders.


A classification of High contact may apply for a Careless or Intentional
Dangerous Tackle (refer section 4.3(e)(3) below) which has the potential
for injury to be caused through dangerous high contact with the ground
but where high contact does not actually occur.

Contact to the Groin includes contact to the crease or hollow at the
junction of the inner part of each thigh with the trunk together with
the adjacent region and including the testicles.
Where contact is both High and to the Body, the MRO will usually
classify the contact as High.
Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player’s head
or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or
the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is there a definition of "top of the shoulders"? Is that the part of the shoulders joining the neck or is it a height level?
Looking at that pic it would appear to below the top of Rankine's shoulder as Dan's chin is closer to Rankine's shoulder than the other way around

Looking at the definition supplied there, contact with the ground being high contact seems to refer to tackles not bumps but not fluent in legalese
 
From other angle Rankine has jumped to catch the ball. His right foot is higher than Dan's right foot that is planted on the ground.


1724046842356.png


Collects the ball and shoulder, and that's why the ball spills out.



1724046895989.png


This angle shows he misses the head, but collects the top of the shoulder.


1724046957462.png
 
The AFL can't afford for the Maynard travesty last year to happen again (at least not until it affects another Big 4 Vic Club). They'll push to end Dan's season, that much is certain. We don't seem to have a good track record of defence at the Tribunal, is there any chance of getting Carlton's lawyers?

It should be 2, we'll argue for 3 and Dan'll get 4, because optics (and of course it damages our finals chances).
 
Is there a definition of "top of the shoulders"? Is that the part of the shoulders joining the neck or is it a height level?
Looking at that pic it would appear to below the top of Rankine's shoulder as Dan's chin is closer to Rankine's shoulder than the other way around

Looking at the definition supplied there, contact with the ground being high contact seems to refer to tackles not bumps but not fluent in legalese
There probably isn't, but my reading of that is to handle the case where a player has their head down, someone runs into them, misses the head but gets the shoulder area. It shouldn't apply to this case.
 
Dan is in trouble. The AFL also in trouble, in babying the players the players no longer protect themselves. Rankine voluntarily left himself open. It’s crazy, have your hands in a better position to protect yourself, assume there’s going to be contact and turn your body.

As for Dan not going as hard to avoid collision, I thought the rule was go in timid and get hurt.

It was a football incident that went bad.

Thilthorpe’s was an illegal play with a fortunate outcome.

The AFL believes the former is worse than the latter. That tells everything one needs to know about the current state of the league.
 
The game is so messed up. "If you choose to bump and someone gets hurt you'll be suspended" is the most ridiculous concept.

Either ban the bump - or don't. Sitting on the fence is killing the game.
Agree in principle, but I'm not sure there's any practical way you can ban the bump. You'd just shift the shitty grey area to a worse place.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Penalties should include portions of games in addition to full games. Can't decide between 4 or 5 weeks? How about 4 games and 3 quarters. Free to play 1 quarter in the 5th game. Could kick the match winner!
Yeah I dunno about that but they should consider looking at other penalties , maybe give suspended sentences or fines mixed with less weeks. I feel like with such split second decisions that could cost you a quarter of the year even for football acts they need to look at atleast changing the sentencing.
They're never going to eliminate concussions by forcing players to miss huge chunks of the season. Most of these actions are protective and instinctual they're going to keep occuring over and over again especially if the bump isn't outlawed in a 360 degree contact sport.
 
Penalties should include portions of games in addition to full games. Can't decide between 4 or 5 weeks? How about 4 games and 3 quarters. Free to play 1 quarter in the 5th game. Could kick the match winner!
The Club should be able to negotiate and give up some percentage to reduce the penalty...
 
In the night’s second hearing (not before 6:30pm AEST), Port Adelaide defender Dan Houston will face the music for a huge collision which concussed Adelaide superstar Izak Rankine, ending his Showdown and season.

Live feed will be at this Fox Sports article page which I quoted above.

 
In the night’s second hearing (not before 6:30pm AEST), Port Adelaide defender Dan Houston will face the music for a huge collision which concussed Adelaide superstar Izak Rankine, ending his Showdown and season.

Live feed will be at this Fox Sports article page which I quoted above.

That headline....jeezus.
 
How can you ban the bump anyways? Was what Evans did to Rachelle a bump?
I think they just have to accept that some bumps to the body are going to cause injury, anything high is reportable. Body is fine. Otherwise it becomes even greyer than it is now.
 
But I am sure that Nicks won't come out and correct it because I doubt that spineless prick would have said that to Hinkley, his mentor, in the first place.
The unfortunate reality is Nick's will likely be sacked before ken and he knows that , especially after the mini grand final, hence his little tantrum.
 
Can we legitimately use the good bloke clause given I don't think he's ever been suspended? Should take off a week atleast
3 weeks, as it wasn’t high, good bloke clause get it down to 2 would be ideal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top