MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Enviable Tradition]

Give me REH and Chewy by my side handing me notes (let alone MrMeaner) and I could have argued this 5x better than our lawyers

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[backtozero]

that is exactly how it works in the real world, you plead guilty, that is what you are - Guilty, in a court you just proceed to sentencing for your crime. There is no "sorry I didn't mean it" it's done, circumstances may influence the severity of the penalty though. Just as in my scenario, you get a speeding fine, you pay it, that is an admission of guilt, there is no other option available to you, you are convicted of that offence and the fine /loss of points / licence etc stands.

People plead guilty without being guilty often. False admissions are a thing. It's up to the court to decide if a crime took place.

 

[scotty13]

Maybe we can sacrifice a few 'lambs' over the next few weeks... AFL wants to hurt us by removing one of our best players we'll we will do the same.

Jed McIntee to play this week and take out Serong in the first few minutes.
Williams to play first final and take out Heeny/Green in the first few minutes. Fight fire with fire.

 

[bringbackbucky]

We should immediately cut all ties with Jeffcott Chambers. They’ve proven themselves to be completely inept.

 

[Brian McGee]

Once again they have stated in their reasoning, as per the afl article that there is ample evidence of contact to the “top of the shoulder”. It is literally impossible for Houston to have contacted the top of rankines shoulder in a front to front bump. That was the lid argument they were going with. How can they justify that?

 

[240volt]

Technically you could hang a player for bumping a player into a passing seagull.

What happens if the Seagull is concussed?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Tackles and hits aren't bumps. When the AFL makes a rule that a bump can be too forceful or to the body but high, it needs to be in the guidelines.
The fact that it isn't specified is what we should have been arguing from the beginning.

The fact it isn’t specific exactly what a bump, tackle etc includes isn’t really the point. It’s all resulted in high “contact” which is what they are trying to eliminate.

it’s a complicated game. They simply cannot have a definitive ruling for every action so it has to be generalised into things like “contact” “severe” etc type gradings.


The definition of contact here is generalised however it provides an overarching structure to what is determined to include “contact”. It doesn’t definitively state this only applies to tackles, or to bumps or anything. Unfortunately for us and Houston, that includes the head slamming into the ground as a reasonable result of his bump.

Tackles are legal, however tackle a player where their head hits the ground with the same force as Rankine did with the same result, would you be arguing he should get off? Very unlikely.

Just because it’s a bump doesn’t change the impact they are trying to eliminate. May not agree but that’s the result.

Tackle or bump is kind of irrelevant. It’s the following action and outcome we all know is what’s punished. Like it or not, that’s what it is.

 

[Flash of power]

Can we appeal again at another level? Like Supreme Court - Perhaps we could shine some light on all the dirty Vic Bias and Media influence at the same time

People plead guilty without being guilty often. False admissions are a thing. It's up to the court to decide if a crime took place.

No it isn't, it is only up to the court to prove you guilty if you plead not guilty and opt for a trial by judge or jury, you can then be found innocent of the charge or guilty based on facts and the law. Often people may plead guilty without actually being guilty because that may be the best option. BUT once you have pleaded guilty the judge will get you to agree to that plea in the courtroom, pronounce you guilty and proceed to sentencing. Job done, you can't undo it.

 

[MrChow]

Really any non tacking contact that is fair by an exemplary player (not high) during play (or not) that causes a concussion, however that happens, seagull, goal post, the ground - anything should be graded careless/severe and a minimum 5 weeks.

 

[Ropable]

Is our lawyer a Hinkley? The paint can analogy sounds like an awkward Kenism.

Queue Jordan fumbling with the laptop trying to flip to the slide with the Vegemite lid on it

 

[tribey]

What happens if the Seagull is concussed?

Does the seagull play for Richmond, and have they just won a Prelim?

 

[Ropable]

I genuinely feel dumber for reading the Tribunal findings, there's so many contradictions I could point to, but I only have 10 fingers

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Once again they have stated in their reasoning, as per the afl article that there is ample evidence of contact to the “top of the shoulder”. It is literally impossible for Houston to have contacted the top of rankines shoulder in a front to front bump. That was the lid argument they were going with. How can they justify that?

As I wrote in post # of this thread on Tuesday night

• #3,102

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.


The change made so that the top doesn't just mean the highest point of the shoulder, but also near the top of the shoulder. The old definition of above the shoulder would have only covered say a punch coming from up high and hitting the very top of the shoulder say next to the neck. The new definition covers a bit further down the shoulder which is where Dan hit Rankine.

 

[agmsy]

That is not specified. Just because tackles are mentioned later on, it does not specify that it only applies to that. New paragraph, new point.

Same principle applies to if you shove a player into a fence causing a concussion. That’s not a tackle but can bet you’d be suspended.

There is no good faith grounds from which to argue that a standalone clause that describes "Contact" in a section called "Contact" somehow mysteriously refers exclusively to tackles without once using the root word "tackle" or any of its conjugations. It's uninformed or cope.

From the 2024 tribunal guidelines (which omit references to the chest):

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.

The tribunal and appeals board seem satisfied that Houston made contact to Rankine's neck and the top of his shoulder (though the appeals board decision makes confusing reference to Rankine's "upper shoulder"). It would be nice to see the particular footage and angles upon which both bodies relied to be comfortably satisfied of that contact, but I doubt this will be released.

There's the separate issue of whether Houston's action (a forceful bump) would have constituted a reportable offence if he had only made body contact with Rankine, i.e., did he fail in his duty of care because Rankine's head hitting the ground was at least "reasonably foreseeable". We chose not to contest that, even in Houston's initial plea. Some take issue with that strategy, but I think the AFL's position all year has been reasonably consistent that players are generally liable in incidents that result in concussion. In other words, that the force of the bump carried reasonable risk of (and ultimately resulted in) a concussion means the act itself is a reportable offence.

It really would be nice to know the definitive footage and stills upon which both bodies concluded that there was contact to the top of the shoulder and neck. Without that, it's difficult to know if the AFL had a strong case, or if our paint-cans-and-vegemite-jars representative is just a dud.

 

[manureid]

This is why it's not worth taking this league seriously.

 

[Schulzenfest]

We should immediately cut all ties with Jeffcott Chambers. They’ve proven themselves to be completely inept.

Not really how a 'Chambers' works. They're all individual sole practitioner barristers who happen to operate out of the same building. One being incompetent has no bearing on anyone else who operates out of there.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Should of hired Spencer Reed ffs

 

[70sDinosaur]

The fact it isn’t specific exactly what a bump, tackle etc includes isn’t really the point. It’s all resulted in high “contact” which is what they are trying to eliminate.

it’s a complicated game. They simply cannot have a definitive ruling for every action so it has to be generalised into things like “contact” “severe” etc type gradings.

View attachment 2087927
The definition of contact here is generalised however it provides an overarching structure to what is determined to include “contact”. It doesn’t definitively state this only applies to tackles, or to bumps or anything. Unfortunately for us and Houston, that includes the head slamming into the ground as a reasonable result of his bump.

Tackles are legal, however tackle a player where their head hits the ground with the same force as Rankine did with the same result, would you be arguing he should get off? Very unlikely.

Just because it’s a bump doesn’t change the impact they are trying to eliminate. May not agree but that’s the result.

Tackle or bump is kind of irrelevant. It’s the following action and outcome we all know is what’s punished. Like it or not, that’s what it is.

The question here is what can be considered "a reasonable result of the bump"?

It's not difficult to see the "reasonable result" of the action if a player is pushed into the fence or has his head slammed into the ground as part of a tackle, but I don't see Rankine's head hitting the ground as a "reasonable result" of Houston's bump when you consider the starting positions of the two players when the action was initiated. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that there was no proximate cause, that 9 times out of 10 Rankine's head would not hit the ground the way it did from that type of contact.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

The question here is what can be considered "a reasonable result of the bump"?

It's not difficult to see the "reasonable result" of the action if a player is pushed into the fence or has his head slammed into the ground as part of a tackle, but I don't see Rankine's head hitting the ground as a "reasonable result" of Houston's bump when you consider the starting positions of the two players when the action was initiated. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that there was no proximate cause, that 9 times out of 10 Rankine's head would not hit the ground the way it did from that type of contact.

He may not hit his head at that exact point with the exact same outcome 9/10 times however I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s not reasonably foreseeable that he could hit his head.

It’s very forseeble that if you bump a player at force that they will fall backwards and there’s a reasonable chance they will hit their head from there.

Feel the only point we can argue and be disappointed that we are hard done by is that the good bloke clause doesn’t seem to have been applied to someone with a clean as record as they come. Therefor, that discount shouldn’t be applied to anyone in the future if it wasn’t here.

 

[70sDinosaur]

He may not hit his head at that exact point with the exact same outcome 9/10 times however I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s not reasonably foreseeable that he could hit his head.

It’s very forseeble that if you bump a player at force that they will fall backwards and there’s a reasonable chance they will hit their head from there.

Feel the only point we can argue and be disappointed that we are hard done by is that the good bloke clause doesn’t seem to have been applied to someone with a clean as record as they come. Therefor, that discount shouldn’t be applied to anyone in the future if it wasn’t here.

I get what you're saying and no doubt that's how the tribunal sees it but I just disagree that the so-called "duty of care" principle can or should be applied to a violent contact sport in the context that it's being applied here. As we have seen with the ad hoc application and inconsistent outcomes, it's just another tool for the corrupt AFL to further debase the integrity of the competition.

 

[GremioPower]

 

[Palpatine_Power]

It’s not worth the energy, I feel stupid for even getting invested in this.

Houston’s happy to tear up 2 years on his contract to go back to Melbourne anyway. I just hope we get something decent out of it.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

I get what you're saying and no doubt that's how the tribunal sees it but I just disagree that the so-called "duty of care" principle can or should be applied to a violent contact sport in the context that it's being applied here. As we have seen with the ad hoc application and inconsistent outcomes, it's just another tool for the corrupt AFL to further debase the integrity of the competition.

Oh I’m not saying I agree with it either, I find it somewhat absurd that an action is purely based on its outcome however it is what it is and that’s how the process is by design nowadays.

My first thought as soon as it happened was that Houston was done for the year so I didn’t even let myself get that little hope up he may become available later.

I think there’s a couple things that do need to happen with the process however; gameday commentators should not be able to provided judgement on how many weeks they expect something to be, the AFL should not be recommending how many weeks as that should be the role of an independent MRO or tribunal and there needs to be a clear guideline as to what constitutes good behaviour and what that discount means.

Pretty simple measures however doubt we’ll see any change.

 

[Chewy316]

Give me REH and Chewy by my side handing me notes (let alone MrMeaner) and I could have argued this 5x better than our lawyers

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Haha, funny you mention this because REH and I have been texting each other all night about how we would have pitched this to both the tribunal and then the appeals board.

They should have started at not guilty due to no definitive vision of "high" contact.

Houston then expresses remorse for the result but reaffirms his (and the club's) view that it was a clean, football act that did not warrant a free kick because no law of the game was broken.

You then also argue the severity of the hit - the direct hit didn't cause the concussion but rather the impact with the ground did - hence you could argue the severity is high rather than severe. A hubris lawyer would then suggest the tribunal be requesting the ground be up before them for said contact with Rankine's head rather than Houston.

And then the last point is that you emphasise the good bloke game - never been suspended before, always plays within the rules and re-emphasise that the hit was deemed on the night to be within the rules of the game.

Instead, they bent over and admitted guilt from step one.

It's like bidding on a house pre-covid. Never meet the asking price, always start low because you can always move up.

 

[Dazalinko1988]

Our lawyer leaving the hearing