MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Why did we open asking for three? Why not just say it wasn't in breach of the rules and at worst was careless to the body.
Because we are stupid
 
Reasons:

Izak Rankine was waiting under a high ball, he moving in the same direction as the ball, his eyes were on the ball, and he was exposed and vulnerable to any forceful contact from an opposing player.

An opposing player has a clear duty of care in these circumstances not to commit an act which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reported offense.

Houston breaches that duty of care, and his breach was significant.

He had time to think, (that's bullshit) he had time to weigh up his options. He had time and the clear opportunity to tackle. He chose to run at speed for several meters and forcefully bumped Rankine.

We are satisfied he made forceful contact to Rankine's upper shoulder and neck. His forceful contact also resulted in Rankine's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Although Houston's feet did not leave the ground, and he appears to have made some attempt to lower his body, the time he had to decide not to bump, the vulnerability of Rankine and the speed and force of his impact, lead us to conclude that this was a serious breach of the duty of care.

Rankine could have expected to be tackled, he could not reasonably have expected to be bumped high. (says who)

The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion. We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.

Having done so, we consider the appropriate sanction is five weeks for the reasons set out above.

His carelessness was significant, the impact was severe. The immediate consequences for Rankine were evident, he was concussed, it appears his shoulder was hurt and there was the potential for more serious injury.

We do not consider the circumstances give rise to exceptional and compelling circumstances.

We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury. (lets see if they say that after a SF or PF game hearing)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The AFL is up there with FIFA as one of the most corrupt & untrustworthy sporting organisations on planet earth. Brayden Maynard would be pissing his pants in laughter tonight.
 
The AFL is up there with FIFA as one of the most corrupt & untrustworthy sporting organisations on planet earth. Brayden Maynard would be pissing his pants in laughter tonight.

FIFA is fairer.
 
5 weeks for a legal bump that didn't even yield a free kick.

You can be unhappy with the penalty, but pretending that the tribunal must be consistent with or owes some kind of deference to the umpires - who routinely miss frees and f*** things up - is silly.

We do not consider the consequence of missing finals and potentially a grand final impacts the sanction that should be imposed, particularly for such a serious breach and such a significant injury. (lets see if they say that after a SF or PF game hearing)

"We do not consider Houston worthy of the same fellatory protection we afforded Maynard and Cotchin."
 
Reasons:

The sanction is to be determined in the Tribunal's discretion. We’ve taken into account Houston's guilty plea, among other things, including his good record, his contrition and the need for consistency compared with other recent comparable Tribunal decisions.

So the tribunal had FULL DISCRETION (i.e. they are not bound by any rules or regulations), and they chose to suspend for 5, give guilty plea, spotless record, contrition...

Bunch of campaigners.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top