MRP / Trib. Douglas suspended for 2 games (With subsequent discussion on Viney bump)

[The Karma Bus]

They may not be but I maintain my stance. Glass leaves the ground and collects a player in the head well after the ball has been marked and he gets a week. After all the AFL go on about head contact and thats it....... Douglas hits Ward shoulder to shoulder, Ward falls down and smacks his head...... Big fricken deal !!!!

I reckon alot will depend on what Ward has to say at the tribunal.

The biggest problem is where Douglas has done it, not the part about if it was shoulder to shoulder with possible slight head contact or head contact was with the ground.. That will come into it anyway..
But it was a bump on an unsuspecting player slightly off the ball..
They want this gone from the game.. Whether we agree or not, people need to realise that..

They suspend players for incidents which are split second decisions, sometimes there isn't even a decision possible.. The fact he had time and a choice is not in his favour..

It might be more than 5m, but it's not much more. It's not as though it was a mile behind play.

The line has to be somewhere I guess though, it looks around 7-8 meters maybe..

It's too hard to tell if there was a head clash at all, vision from Fox from the Southern end showed there may have been but hard to tell..
But not sure that will matter that much, think it will be more on the incident itself they will come down on..

 

[Elder van Berlo]

So a1118868 does that mean Dougie can still get his good record and guilty plea bonus?

I can't say I'm 100% sure, I don't have the Rules & Regs and as you can imagine the reporting of these things often doesn't go into detail about the technicalities... but Heath Shaw got both discounts when he was done for umpire contact.

Judd and Brogan both pleaded not guilty as far as I can tell, and neither had clean records. The Tribunal doesn't seem to have taken these things into account.

Suban's was essentially a plea bargain where the guilty plea and penalty was agreed in advance. Interestingly, he should've got 6 weeks under the points system but the MRP thought that was excessive so referred it to the Tribunal.

Hall pleaded guilty and the jury was advised to take that into account, but he didn't get the mathematical 25%.

So who knows. I'd hope we'd clarify this in advance.

 

[GROTTO]

The biggest problem is where Douglas has done it, not the part about if it was shoulder to shoulder with possible slight head contact or head contact was with the ground.. That will come into it anyway..
But it was a bump on an unsuspecting player slightly off the ball..
They want this gone from the game.. Whether we agree or not, people need to realise that..

They suspend players for incidents which are split second decisions, sometimes there isn't even a decision possible.. The fact he had time and a choice is not in his favour..

The line has to be somewhere I guess though, it looks around 7-8 meters maybe..

It's too hard to tell if there was a head clash at all, vision from Fox from the Southern end showed there may have been but hard to tell..
But not sure that will matter that much, think it will be more on the incident itself they will come down on..

Definitely less than 8 and more than 5m away.

I still dont believe it was a head clash.

I wonder if Douglas will argue he was in position to receive the handball and Ward was in his way?

 

[GROTTO]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-04-20/douglas-crunches-ward

 

[joejoe]

What did hamish hurtalott get for his hit on the GC player last year?

 

[Crows4Eva]

Assuming he does get weeks, I'm seriously hoping for no more than 2. We can cope without him against the Dogs and Dees if Crouch Jr keeps up his form and Grigg comes in but we'll need him against the Pies after the bye.

 

[The Karma Bus]

What did hamish hurtalott get for his hit on the GC player last year?

That hit was about 1-2 metres from the ball and Tape was in full chase..
Hartlett got 3 matches down to 2..

Douglas is going straight to the tribunal and based on the incident compared to Hartlett, Douglas is getting 4-5 you'd think..

 

[xchadders]

without being bias, this is just a crap decision (ala fyfe and numerous other decisions). seriously, it was shoulder on shoulder, and he banged his head on the ground. a perfectly acceptable shepherd i would have thought. sam newman is right, the game is getting unrecognisable.

is 10m too far for a legitimate shepherd?
if someone is chasing, what is the distance that will distinguish between being able to shepherd and not to shepherd?

the bump is dead. long live the bump.

 

[kirky]

Wingard ended up in hospital! They totally stuffed up that one and no consistency.

 

[ok.crows]

Can someone please post the vision in here?

Did Ward run into Douglas or the other way around? Massive difference in the decision.

Ward wasn't looking where he was running, and he ran into Douglas. Douglas was almost stationary, trotting across Ward's path (not at Ward, but across his path), then standing his ground, although he did brace for the impact.

 

[Dewy006]

Let's all remember Darren Glass recieved the 50% Chad Wingard discount...

 

[The Karma Bus]

Let's all remember Darren Glass recieved the 50% Chad Wingard discount...

I just want them to show the vision again of Wangard with his dropped bottom lip about to cry..
It was so so close to a river of tears..

 

[smoovy]

The first step is to decide if he is guilty of Rough Conduct

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough
conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or
unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of
his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless
a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by
circumstances outside the control of the player which could not
reasonably be foreseen.
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing
with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head
injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by
all players and will guide the application of the rule.

Think the answer to that is yes. Then it is up to the tribunal to deal with a penalty. There is an interesting last line here;

Direct reference to the AFL Tribunal
Where the Match Review Panel determines on the basis of the evidence
before it that it is not able to determine with sufficient certainty, the
relevant factors set out in the Categorising the Level of Offences table
in respect of any Reportable Offence, or for any other reason, the Match
Review Panel may refer the matter to the AFL Tribunal in accordance
with Player Rule 22.12.9 in which case, the player shall not have the
option of an early plea. Where a player is referred directly to the Tribunal,
the Tribunal may favourably consider a player’s guilty plea, however the
player shall not be automatically entitled to a 25% discount.
The rules have been amended to allow the Match Review Panel greater
investigative powers for the purpose of ensuring so far as is possible and
regardless of the apparent conclusiveness or otherwise of any video, that
the Match Review Panel can still classify offences, as it sees fit.
The Match Review Panel may also refer a matter to the Tribunal
if it considers it appropriate to do so based on the circumstances
of the offence, the record of any player involved, any suspected
mitigating factors or other unusual features of any report such as
a hit ‘off the ball’ on an unsuspecting opponent.

Are they considering it is off the ball? Otherwise the point system deals with it. Reckless, high impact, high contact - 425 points. Less 25% good record and 25 % early plea, 239 points = 2 games suspension.

In my view the Crows need to argue the point system deals with the charge and this should be applied.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Honestly, what I reckon has happened here is that the MRP has wanted to book him but had no idea what to do about the unprecedented situation where a completely fair (or perhaps illegal by 1-2m) bump has caused a player serious injury. I don't think Dougy will be out for 4+ weeks.

One thing is that the AFL creates a rod for its own back by its selective application of certain rules. If umpires EVER pinged the 5m shepherd rule (which gets broken about 50 times a game) this probably wouldn't have happened. They can't very well now say "this shepherd was 7m from the ball and was therefore completely unreasonable and unnecessary".

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Ward wasn't looking where he was running, and he ran into Douglas. Douglas was almost stationary, trotting across Ward's path (not at Ward, but across his path), then standing his ground, although he did brace for the impact.

You got the first bit right that Ward wasn't looking and didn't expect contact but to suggest that Ward ran into Douglas is ridiculous and bordering on stupidity.

Watch the vision and you will see Dougie looking at Ward and as Ward continued to move forward Dougie gave him a hip and shoulder.

Dougie didn't hit him with great force, it was that Ward was caught off guard and it also looked like their heads hit. Dougie certainly didn't hit Ward in the head with his shoulder but I would suspect it was either Wards head movement when he was hit or when he hit the ground and possibly a combination of both that caused his concussion.

One thing is clear though and that is Ward did not run into Dougie.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hmm, that bit is interesting:

The Match Review Panel may also refer a matter to the Tribunal
if it considers it appropriate to do so based on the circumstances
of the offence, the record of any player involved, any suspected
mitigating factors or other unusual features of any report such as
a hit ‘off the ball’ on an unsuspecting opponent.

Is it going to the tribunal purely because they are trying to decide whether it is a hit off the ball or a hit in play? I wonder what difference that would make to the ban.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

The first step is to decide if he is guilty of Rough Conduct



Think the answer to that is yes. Then it is up to the tribunal to deal with a penalty. There is an interesting last line here;



Are they considering it is off the ball? Otherwise the point system deals with it. Reckless, high impact, high contact - 425 points. Less 25% good record and 25 % early plea, 239 points = 2 games suspension.

In my view the Crows need to argue the point system deals with the charge and this should be applied.

Good analysis.

First thing we should be doing is asking the AFL to confirm in writing the basis for the matter being referred directly to the Tribunal. Tie them to the position that it's being treated as an "off the ball" incident and argue that it wasn't and the points system should apply.

 

[spenze]

Ward wasn't looking where he was running, and he ran into Douglas. Douglas was almost stationary, trotting across Ward's path (not at Ward, but across his path), then standing his ground, although he did brace for the impact.

C'mon man, Douglas moved into him. You make it sound like Douglas was walking along with his nose in a book when the big bad Ward ran into him and came off second best

 

[radiojake]

I don't think it makes a difference if Douglas hit him high in the head (which it doesn't look like he did) or if the damage was done from the head hitting the groun -

I understand if he gets a game or two but anymore than that would be a joke

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Gerard Wheatley reckons this has gone to the tribunal purely so the new interpretation of the rule can be tested, with both sides arguing their case.

 

[pjcrows]

Gerard Wheatley reckons this has gone to the tribunal purely so the new interpretation of the rule can be tested, with both sides arguing their case.

Well I know who will win.

 

[Elite Crow]

The write up on the afl website says the hit was some 10 metres off the ball. Bullshit. What's the legal distance for a kick? 10 or 15 metres? That would have not been paid a mark if it was a pass.

 

[rocket18]

Gerard Wheatley reckons this has gone to the tribunal purely so the new interpretation of the rule can be tested, with both sides arguing their case.

yeh, just saw that and it makes some sort of sense, so may not be 4-5 games. The MRP just want a determination from the tribunal on what to do it these instances.

Who do we use for our advocate - Smart used to be good arguing for himself.

 

[CrowAboutIt]

Just before contact made.

View attachment 52553

Ward jogging in no way in the play yet Douglas lining him up... Pretty simple

Edit - I take that back ward was definitely in the play/area but was not going to be part of the play. So is it his fault or dougys that he was just ball watching?

I think it's obvious dougie wants revenge for not being able to father us some father son picks

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Well I know who will win.

We got McKernan one week remember!