MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[OneGreatClub]

I guess the good guy media whine didn't apply to Houston this year but next year should be a certainty. Nothing the MRO does surprises me when Port are in the dock. Has not changed since 1997.

I hope we have the tenacity to win it all to absolutely stick it up the corrupt VFL

 

[Brian McGee]

How come the careless high severe rating doesn’t equal automatic sent to the tribunal? I thought that was what the grading matrix says.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

You are wrong. Any bump that causes a brain injury will be graded as high contact regardless of whether it hits shoulder neck head whatever. Just look at tackles around the waste that cause the head to bump the ground. They are not graded body contact they are graded high contact. How can it not be graded high contact if that is where the injury is sustained?

Anyway please provide instructions for how I delete my account. I’ve had enough of this ****ing biased league it’s a complete waste of time as is posting in this forum.

This is what the tribunal said

There was material before the Tribunal which it could be found that there was forceful high contact to the neck and that there was forceful contact to the opponent’s upper shoulder.

It was not about the result, the tribunal determined there was high physical contact. The appeals board supported that finding.

As for your request:

Account Deletion Requests

Please direct all account deletion requests to: helpdesk@biginterestgroup.com Or use this online form: https://biginterestgroup.com/contact-us/ Thank you.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Brian McGee]

This is what the tribunal said



It was not about the result, the tribunal determined there was high physical contact. The appeals board supported that finding.

As for your request:

Account Deletion Requests

Please direct all account deletion requests to: helpdesk@biginterestgroup.com Or use this online form: https://biginterestgroup.com/contact-us/ Thank you.

www.bigfooty.com

What material are they referring to? It would be nice to see it.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

What material are they referring to? It would be nice to see it.

Again, we referred to the video evidence, which we’ve studied and the still photographs, accordingly, we dismiss that ground of appeal.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I didn't think there was a lot in it, but who really thought Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

33

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

would get suspended? The blood lust has been sated with Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

's penalty.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Bwahaha apparently he didn't get off lightly enough. Add a couple more for wasting the tribunal's time.

 

[portforever]

Nothing changes in VFL land when their heroes are seen to break the rules. The actions are downgraded, with great excuses why it wasn't what our eyes see, rather what the journos tell us and that is transmitted to MRO decisions. Of course the media and public are OK with being more gracious and excusing the difficult fraction of a second split decision making options that their players must navigate when doing the exact same thing our players are viciously scrutinized with religious zealotry on the same MRO rules of the VFL.

 

[Windy Cindy]

I didn't think there was a lot in it, but who really thought Liam Jones would get suspended? The blood lust has been sated with Dan Houston's penalty.

I didn’t think his head even hit the ground.

 

[Windy Cindy]

Bwahaha apparently he didn't get off lightly enough. Add a couple more for wasting the tribunal's time.

If he ends up at port thats a 5 game offence

 

[rumoursofwinter]

Owies was paid holding the ball, then gets s game suspension for a lesser incident than jones. Sure

 

[gbear]

Bwahaha apparently he didn't get off lightly enough. Add a couple more for wasting the tribunal's time.

Wow, just wow. Should now get more weeks.

 

[PowerBaz]

I didn't think there was a lot in it, but who really thought Liam Jones would get suspended? The blood lust has been sated with Dan Houston's penalty.

Good Vic bloke logic.

Yes - Houston was made to pay.

if that was round three and was SPP laying the tackle it would be a game.

 

[klem22]

With all these significant and obvious discrepancies surely there is an opportunity to address Houstons case in the courts???
The AFL is not above the law as we see in racial and injury cases, and this competition involves multi million dollars and players careers.
Getting the best in the legal business surely could open this basket case of an organisation up to some level of accountability surely!

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

So when old mate bulldozed over King George if he hit his head on the harder ground ..
He was close ..

Would old mate be suspended for 5 games as it was unnecessary rough conduct.. and an all around w***er move

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

lol

 

[GremioPower]

The high contact was due to it being judged top of the shoulder/neck. So your point is wrong.

That was the assessment of the MRO, tribunal and appeals board.

There was absolutely no room for a court injunction other than a whiny "It's not fair".

I think the penalty was too high, 3 matches and you would have took it and run.

But as I posted earlier the appeals board threw out all the grounds we objected on.

They said the bump was high contact.

They said the penalty was not manifestly excessive.

They said Houston's good record was taken into account.

The tribunal had already said they wouldn't give any greater weighting to missing finals.

They covered all their bases. Any further argument is He said, she said. That will go nowhere in court.

The system is made to allow inconsistencies.

“Unfair” is a factual statement.

 

[MrMeaner]

So, I see O'Farrell is not the magician the media cast him as. He didn't get Owie off last night.

(Note: this isn't a dig at O'Farrell. I know and like him. It is just frustrating to see facile assessments of lawyers based on their results)

 

[Enviable Tradition]

So, I see O'Farrell is not the magician the media cast him as. He didn't get Owie off last night.

(Note: this isn't a dig at O'Farrell. I know and like him. It is just frustrating to see facile assessments of lawyers based on their results)

You sound like a Ken defender

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Haha Whateley on his program intro just said the Tribunal went past midnight.

What the hell happened?

 

[MrMeaner]

Haha Whateley on his program intro just said the Tribunal went past midnight.

What the hell happened?

The Pickett hearing went 3 hours

 

[MrMeaner]

You sound like a Ken defender

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

That's veering close to defo

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Pickett hearing went 3 hours

I guess my real question is why? how? It was pretty clear cut.

Is that 3 hours before the panel deliberated for an hour or so?

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Haha Whateley on his program intro just said the Tribunal went past midnight.

What the hell happened?

David Zita came off the top turnbuckle. Poor bloke

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The Pickett hearing went 3 hours

Zita spends a lot of time joking about the Tribunal "deliberating" for a long time. But I suspect that they actually only spent a short time deciding to uphold Pickett's suspension, and that the vast majority of the time is actually spent putting together all of the arguments in a way that will hold up against appeal.

Especially after we had two cases thrown out because the Tribunal apparently didn't consider the likelihood to cause injury in making its ruling for Cameron and Bedford. Two cases where the victim was actually injured.