MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Festerz]

Razor said in his interview today is the player whose bent down with head over the ball to get it who is then in the "vulnerable position".

Yep - because he is referencing the application of the rules of the game in play and why there was no free awarded. Correct decision. Umpires have zero responsibility to take subsequent injury to the player into account in awarding frees.

But the Tribunal rules operate on a different level - which is where the inconsistency comes in.

Under current AFL Tribunal rules, the onus on duty of care lies with the person laying the tackle or bump.

It's that inconsistency between the 'Rules of the Game' as applied during the game and the application of the rules in the post game assessment (with regard to impact) via the MRO and Tribunal that is being laid bare here.

 

[PAFC66]

Razor should be our lawyer then.
It was all optics

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

When do we find the final result? Is it tonight?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Why did they remove the word 'down' from that rule?

I don't know. But my (out of date and rarely used) legal training suggests to me that removing words matter when it comes to how legislation (or in this case rules of the game in a court-like Tribunal setting) are subsequently applied. And my guess is that they did that to remove the specificity about the position of the head in relation to the ball to cover exactly the sort of scenario that is presented with the Houston bump. That 'over the ball' becomes a more generic 'catch all' term that can be used to cover any circumstances where a player has forward momentum and the ball is in his immediate path even if not in his possession.

A club successfully argued that a player bending down to pick the ball up off the ground had his head up looking for a handball option when hit. So the rule didn't apply in that situation.

 

[gbear]

Appealing... interesting what grounds they will try

The AFL is a corrupt organisation that looks after the players of the big four clubs and Charlie Cameron.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I feel like if you bump someone it isn't reasonably foreseeable that their head will hit the ground and they will get concussed. That is farfetched to me.

Effectively that would mean every bump should result in a 5 game ban because in every situation there is a possiblity a person's head will hit the ground.

 

[Relativity]

Agonised over the decision... Or Warren Tredrea had to fight aganist the AFL plants to demand that its done.

I gather the agony was over the potential loss of xmas bonus due to the $10k soft cap reduction.

 

[PAFC66]

I feel like if you bump someone it isn't reasonably foreseeable that their head will hit the ground and they will get concussed. That is farfetched to me.

Effectively that would mean every bump should result in a 5 game ban because in every situation there is a possiblity a person's head will hit the ground.

It's a raffle.
Just ban the bump if they're serious.
Otherwise there will be talk like this forever and the AFL will become more of a laughingstock the longer this goes. You can't have it both ways.

 

[PAFC66]

When do we find the final result? Is it tonight?

Tomorrow I think.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Gotta come up with some more shock headlines..
Maybe..

Matty Nick's can sook some more or tay Tay can provide us an update to see if he's out of his induced come

 

[skanker08]

I wouldn’t want to be an employee of the PAFC, arguably Dan carried out that bump without breaking any rule of the game and their approach is to go grovelling for forgiveness. This want to not go against the media groupthink or to not appear to not care about player wellfare has pretty much thrown Dan under the bus. I’d want the club to be in my corner, arguing that it would have been difficult for Dan to predict the outcome when he did everything right, ie within the rules of the game.

 

[yepits2020]

Fans are not encouraged to touch players and many have been banned for doing so.

Crouch flicking the hat of a fan is definitely inappropriate and similarly, should be banned.

 

[Troopsy]

Fans are not encouraged to touch players and many have been banned for doing so.

Crouch flicking the hat of a fan is definitely inappropriate and similarly, should be banned.

That might help the Crows though. We don’t want that

 

[yepits2020]

What is galling is that Nicks said Crouch had the Crows full support and was concerned such incidents may deny fans interaction with players.

Well Nicks, control your players. It is Crouch who put the interaction at risk, especially if fans need to be protected from players.

As a side note, the man involved showed up with a “puffy” eye when he spoke to Port the next day.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Razor is completely right, it's like if you jump off the ground you'll land on your feet. In this case Houston elected to bump and it was a fair hit, subsequently Rankine has landed his head on the turf from the body impact. He wasn't/isn't concussed he's just dazed from the crunch.

The AFL can't be suspending players based on every high impact hit that looks bad. Such a corrupt and amateur league to protect their brand.

 

[Wargreymon90]

Razor is completely right, it's like if you jump off the ground you'll land on your feet. In this case Houston elected to bump and it was a fair hit, subsequently Rankine has landed his head on the turf from the body impact. He wasn't/isn't concussed he's just dazed from the crunch.

The AFL can't be suspending players based on every high impact hit that looks bad. Such a corrupt and amateur league to protect their brand.

Houston is responsible for Rankine’s head hitting the ground.

 

[Burningleviathan]

It's a weird circumstance that you can commit and legal act on the field but be suspended for five games for it.

I have no hope for any change with the appeal.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Houston is responsible for Rankine’s head hitting the ground.

Then should almost every tackler whose opponents head lands on the ground be banned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wargreymon90]

Then should almost every tackler whose opponents head lands on the ground be banned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean it’s nearly that way already. I guess it comes down to what is reasonablly foreseeable. The head hitting the ground is a reasonably foreseeable result from a bump or a sling tackle.

Whereas if it’s a trip, for example, you wouldn’t expect that to result in a concussion. So probably wouldn’t be suspended if it did occur.

 

[Portmagpies36]

I mean it’s nearly that way already. I guess it comes down to what is reasonablly foreseeable. The head hitting the ground is a reasonably foreseeable result from a bump or a sling tackle.

Whereas if it’s a trip, for example, you wouldn’t expect that to result in a concussion. So probably wouldn’t be suspended if it did occur.

So what if Lachie Jones broke his neck after being blatantly tunneled?

 

[Wargreymon90]

So what if Lachie Jones broke his neck after being blatantly tunneled?

Yep. Legitimate question. I suspect that will be more heavily scrutinised over the next few years

 

[theouthouse]

It's a weird circumstance that you can commit and legal act on the field but be suspended for five games for it.

I have no hope for any change with the appeal.

And then there are the nuffties in the media calling for a send off rule over a legal act where someone gets hurt feelings.

 

[Palpatine_Power]

Should argue how it can be a suspension but not a free kick. Rustle those jimmies.

I doubt we'll get anywhere with this, they've made their mind up and this is a line in the sand. Finals don't matter, player record/reputation doesn't matter.

Until next week...

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

I mean it’s nearly that way already. I guess it comes down to what is reasonablly foreseeable. The head hitting the ground is a reasonably foreseeable result from a bump or a sling tackle.

Whereas if it’s a trip, for example, you wouldn’t expect that to result in a concussion. So probably wouldn’t be suspended if it did occur.

How is it reasonably foreseeable that a bump will cause someone's head to got the ground (and that person to be concussed)?

How many times has that ever happened. I can't readily think of any examples.

The fact of the matter is that if there was no contention about whether the contact of the bump was high, then there is no way he gets suspended.

I.e. if the bump was clear shoulder to shoulder, but Rankine still gets concussed due to whiplash or ground contact, Houston gets off

 

[Brian McGee]

Doesn’t matter if you don’t get him in the head now. The upper shoulder and “neck area” is sacrosanct.