MRP / Trib. 2015 MRP/ Carlton Tribunal News & Reports (aka Chook lotto)

Remove this Banner Ad

Club is not challenging.

Gibbs to miss 2 weeks.

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2015-06-23/gibbs-to-miss-two-games

Carlton's Head of Football Andrew McKay says the decision not to challenge was made because going to the tribunal would have been a risk.

"While we believe Bryce executed a fair tackle and it was never his intention to cause injury, given the Match Review Panel's history around similar incidents we thought it was in the best interests of both Bryce and the Club that was accept the sanction," McKay said.
"Had we challenged the charge and lost we would have been without Bryce for three weeks."

Gibbs will next be available for selection for Carlton's Round 15 clash with Richmond.
Click to expand...
 
So Robbie Gray will play two weeks from now, and was a good chance to play this week had they not had the bye, but a bloke who lays a pretty damn good, but unfortunate, tackle gets to sit the next two weeks on the pine? Righto.
 
I'm glad the club and Gibbs have chosen to take the two weeks, it isn't the end of the world, and unfortunately the fact Gray was concussed is the main reason why BG got the vacation.

I think a Melbourne player (Trengove) got three weeks for a similar tackle a few years ago.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

1 week would have been an appropriate punishment considering the following:
Camera work showing both arms were not pinned

Gray passed a concussion test but was subbed as a precaution

Tackle should be judged dangerous or not dangerous due to the action of the tackle, NOT the injury/non injury that derived from it

It's like saying "oh you went through a stop sign I'll let you off because no one was hurt"......
 
DaVillaBlues said:
I'm glad the club and Gibbs have chosen to take the two weeks, it isn't the end of the world, and unfortunately the fact Gray was concussed is the main reason why BG got the vacation.

I think a Melbourne player (Trengove) got three weeks for a similar tackle a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Gray was not concussed, though he was knocked out briefly. They are not the same thing.
 
Loved the statement from Buckley today basically saying we will take the medicine but we won't stop tackling hard. I re-watched the Port game last night. Wow, it was incredible to watch our physical presence in the midfield. Was so great to watch Bell, Crippa and co throwing their weight around and bullying the opposition. Loved it! I want a repeat week in and out.
 
fizzkakz said:
Loved the statement from Buckley today basically saying we will take the medicine but we won't stop tackling hard. I re-watched the Port game last night. Wow, it was incredible to watch our physical presence in the midfield. Was so great to watch Bell, Crippa and co throwing their weight around and bullying the opposition. Loved it! I want a repeat week in and out.
Click to expand...
I have watched the relay several times too, those final couple of minutes were fantastic.
Good decision by the club not to challenge, would only have cost him an extra week.
It sucks, but that is the AFL system.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

'duty of care' has always struck me as arse-about - it ends up completely dependent on an injury to say it wasn't shown. if someone gets injured, the question 'could they have prevented this?' is invariably, yes.

and i would love for the afl to realize bad luck and accidents happen, but players have been suspended for it before. feel kind of defeatist about it really and understand why the penalty exists.
 
fizzkakz said:
Loved the statement from Buckley today basically saying we will take the medicine but we won't stop tackling hard. I re-watched the Port game last night. Wow, it was incredible to watch our physical presence in the midfield. Was so great to watch Bell, Crippa and co throwing their weight around and bullying the opposition. Loved it! I want a repeat week in and out.
Click to expand...
Well said.
Barker said that he wanted this to be the benchmark now. Fingers crossed we get to see it.
 
poor bugger, laid the best tackle of this career and got pinged for it..the AFL wants to implement touch footy.
 
Head over to the CFC page and watch the "Tackle of the Week" video.

Surely Graham running Wines down and driving him head-first into the turf has just as much (if not more) potential for injury - and the result was a free-kick to Graham! Not criticising Graham either, just illustrates the "result-based" nature of the MRP.

Gibbs is very stiff, and were I in the position to be deciding whether or not to appeal. I'd be appealing every day of the week.

- Gray had one arm free, but made no effort to shield himself with it.
- Gray was not concussed (as per the PAFC).
- Gibbs was obligated to bring Gray to ground to ensure he wasn't able to execute a kick.
- Gibbs did not sling Gray around and throw him to the ground, he used his momentum to bring Gray to ground with him.
- Not a single umpire on field deemed the incident worthy of even a free kick.

Legal tackle, no concussion, play on.
 
DaVillaBlues said:
I'm glad the club and Gibbs have chosen to take the two weeks, it isn't the end of the world, and unfortunately the fact Gray was concussed is the main reason why BG got the vacation.

I think a Melbourne player (Trengove) got three weeks for a similar tackle a few years ago.
Click to expand...

It didn't look similar to me. Trengrove slang Dangerfield to the ground after the ball was knocked free. The other so called similar tackle that got 3 weeks and has been shown on TV is the Brisbane Lions player, Merritt I think. His sling tackle was on a player who also had the ball knocked free.

So both of these so called similar tackles that got 3 weeks were not the same as the Gibbs tackle. Gibbs tackled a player who had the ball and dumped that player to the ground with the ball. The ball was not knocked free. That is great tackling. Gray gets knocked out and that is sad. It was incidental to a great tackle. The umpire states. "there was nothing in it". Gibbs gets the same penalty as Trengrove and Merritt who did sling opponents to the ground without the ball.

The MRP decision is a shocker. If the MRP had no discretion in applying common sense because of the way the rules are written then the rules need to be rewritten so the MRP is not locked into making stupid and unfair decisions. It is also a sad indictment that the rules seem to be written in such a way that the player and the Club can't risk an appeal because it doesn't come down to common sense due to having an argument based on the legal meaning of words.

Very sad for Gibbs as it is completely unfair for him to receive the same penalty as two other blokes who sling opponents to the ground without the ball.
 
rsz_20150623_082812.jpg


Photo 1 - you can see Gibbs' left hand just about to grab the ball. This is after he had repositioned his arm and slid it inside Gray's left arm and around his torso. He was clearly trying to secure the ball in the midst of the tackle. So you can see that just before this point Gray's left arm was not pinned at all. Those that say Gray had no opportunity to free his arm are wrong. Gray was protecting the ball at all costs. The fact that Gibbs had to readjust his left arm just prior to the extra effort that brought Gray to ground could be damning and follow the second motion logic. It could also suggest he did not have full control of the tackle and had to make the extra effort to ensure Gray could not get the ball out.


rsz_120150623_084714.jpg

Photo 2 - You can see Gibbs hands clasping each other over the ball here. His left arm is the bottom arm coming up. The detractors after figuring out Gibbs did not have both of Gray's arms pinned during the tackle said instead that he had Gray pinned at the wrist. You can see in this photo that part of Gray's fingers were the only thing covered by Gibbs' hands and he could have pulled free if he wanted to. He opted to take the fall and protect the ball instead of himself. Doesn't necessarily reflect on whether a second action was there or warranted, but it does show intent from both and it does show that Gibbs' did not have Gray fully wrapped up during that tackle which may be the reason why a second action was warranted.

Carlton are dirty on it, but know the AFL will make it stick regardless but I would have loved to challenge their logic and let their be more debate out there amongst media scribes who declared him in the wrong from the outset.
 
My question is why Gray has not be booked for deliberately ducking, leading him to deliberately head-butt the hallowed turf of the MCG. His actions were inappropriate and have brought the tackle laid by an innocent B.Gibbs into disrepute!!! Gray deserves 5-6 weeks for mine.

Shame Port Adelaide, shame!:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aphrodite
MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
406
Views
17K
BlueJet
B
Aphrodite
  • Locked
MRP / Trib. 2023 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
116 117 118 119 120
Replies
3K
Views
122K
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
MRP / Trib. 2023 - AFLW MRO Chook Lotto - Tribunal News & Reports
Replies
6
Views
840
Aphrodite
Aphrodite
The Blueseum
1906 Annual Report - Carlton Football Club - Free to Download and Share
Replies
13
Views
1K
The Blueseum
The Blueseum
Aphrodite
Universal Love Carlton Celebrates 160th Anniversary
Replies
4
Views
212
Sqotty from office works
Sqotty from office works
skadoosh
News Carlton's 2024 Leadership Group
Replies
15
Views
700
My Hat
My Hat
ferrisb
  • Poll
Competitions 2024 Carlton goal-kicking comp
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
139
Views
4K
Revenant1965
Revenant1965

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top