MRP / Trib. Tigers appealing 2 staging charges

[sanaya]

You don’t go down like that when you’re pushed.

this is how the tribunal saw it, plus he clips shorts foot with the leg that he's trying to land with which might've helped him not go to ground

 

[SunshineBoy]

Mother******* Boyd Woodcock is the name. That guy has done a couple of outrageous flops, to 0 media coverage.

Also Dan Butler on the weekend doesn't get cited...

Michael Christian has to go end of season. The 1 man MRO hasn't worked because he's wildly inconsistent and still just picks and chooses what incidents to cover based on media coverage. The Grimes/Vlas ones epitomize this.

You mean the ex Richmond player Dan Butler, which is how he was revered to when he fell over, don’t tell me that if he still wore a yellow sash he wouldn’t have got fined.

christian reacted to his media mates, don’t forget he was a media guy before this gig.

and after last night when dangerflop admitted to his double somersault with a pike why wasn’t this looked at back in the semi? What about duck wood?

check the colour of the jumpers.

the OFFAL is the worst officiated competition in the world, mor akin to wrassling than sport

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You don’t go down like that when you’re pushed.

I think that is the initial impression most of us have of this RD. But on closer viewing there are lots of things that at least cast doubt on which of Grimes movements were voluntary and which were involuntary. The final stumble to the ground, as has been pointed out looks a very natural result of the leg tangle with Short. The arm in the air looks a decent chance to be a vain attempt to spoil. So none of that is troublesome.

So the MRO would have to have based his whole case around the initial thrust forward from Grimes after the clear push from Stringer. If you look at his feet he appears to be setting to jump at the ball off his left foot but before his left foot hits the ground Stringer clearly pushes him in the back. There is little doubt Stringer would be trying to push him forward and into Short to create an opportunity out the back for Big Tone or himself.

So the free is correct and the two elements that lend themselves to the appearance of staging, the stumble to the ground and the the flailing arm also have clear explanations.

Poor error this by Christian but admittedly it takes a bit of detailed observation and clear thinking to nut it out correctly. The Vlastuin staging decision by him indicated we are not talking about a clear headed MRO in this instance. And if you needed more weight to add, the Lynch referral to the Tribunal.

As Slug Jordan said of John Burke when he temporarily lost the plot all those years ago....you gotta take the boy off. Get this mess Christian tf outta there before he does any further damage to his own reputation and the world around him.

 

[Foley#41]

Perhaps if you listen to this: https://www.sen.com.au/programs/whateley/ it will help you gain an understanding of why the appeal was upheld.

In full show recording from 01:02 - 01:06 if you want to hear details.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

You don’t go down like that when you’re pushed.

Ahhh so your an expert on bodily motion RD!?
You ought to be giving advice to Christian...

 

[damicky]

Just saw the results ... great outcome

MRO’s reputation is broken

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

RFC broken so many now...
Plenty for us to crow about!

 

[Bojangles17]

Drugs / Bummers sooks still calling into SEN. Get over it. They were all proven not guilty and YOU LOST d1ckheads. go away. concentrate on winning a final.

I love how they contend about the Vlas incident , I tellya u dheads, How about an experiment , jog down the street and without u knowing someone will coat hanger u , we ll measure how long to react , Vlas was 0.125 seconds , I can’t rationalise these mental short people , I really can’t

 

[AlorraVex]

Does Christian even watch all the games? Seems like he just chooses the incidents that are getting media attention.

Even Titus O'Reily watches all the games for his job, and he seems like the laziest campaigner on the planet.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Does Christian even watch all the games? Seems like he just chooses the incidents that are getting media attention.

Even Titus O'Reily watches all the games for his job, and he seems like the laziest campaigner on the planet.

What’s his job?

 

[UntamedTiger]

So have any of these media types have the decency and credibility to apologise for their inexplicable outrage and hysterics?

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Ahhh so your an expert on bodily motion RD!?
You ought to be giving advice to Christian...

I didn’t say I was an expert but I know what being pushed is like and I know when something is exaggerated.
Who gives a *?
All players do it being a Richmond player doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The league just have to be more professional if they really want to stamp it out.
They won’t be able to and this discussion right here between us two is proof. You can’t prove if somebody is acting that’s why it’s called acting.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

I think that is the initial impression most of us have of this RD. But on closer viewing there are lots of things that at least cast doubt on which of Grimes movements were voluntary and which were involuntary. The final stumble to the ground, as has been pointed out looks a very natural result of the leg tangle with Short. The arm in the air looks a decent chance to be a vain attempt to spoil. So none of that is troublesome.

So the MRO would have to have based his whole case around the initial thrust forward from Grimes after the clear push from Stringer. If you look at his feet he appears to be setting to jump at the ball off his left foot but before his left foot hits the ground Stringer clearly pushes him in the back. There is little doubt Stringer would be trying to push him forward and into Short to create an opportunity out the back for Big Tone or himself.

So the free is correct and the two elements that lend themselves to the appearance of staging, the stumble to the ground and the the flailing arm also have clear explanations.

Poor error this by Christian but admittedly it takes a bit of detailed observation and clear thinking to nut it out correctly. The Vlastuin staging decision by him indicated we are not talking about a clear headed MRO in this instance. And if you needed more weight to add, the Lynch referral to the Tribunal.

As Slug Jordan said of John Burke when he temporarily lost the plot all those years ago....you gotta take the boy off. Get this mess Christian tf outta there before he does any further damage to his own reputation and the world around him.

Mate I have no issue with it to me it means a player is smart.
As I said to Jak thinking you can stamp out acting is hilarious. Do they know what acting is? The better you are at it the more doubt it creates. Idiots.

 

[Schlurp]

Perhaps it's appropriate to reflect on the fact that there is a bigger system in play than the word of the MRO and it seems to be working well. Michael Christian's role is to be the coarse sieve to adjudicate on first judgement decisions. The point of him being there is to relieve the work, time and cost, of a full Tribunal hearing. Appeal rights exist and from our perspective, they have worked well for all of our players caught up in last weekends decisions. I'm not a cheerleader for Christian, or anyone else for that matter, but I'm no fan of slicing and dicing him when a collection of his decisions turn out to be unsustainable on appeal. It's a crap job and he's had a poor weekend. I'd prefer the AFL Executive to have a quiet chat to him to determine whether he feels he can continue and, if not, support him rather than crucify him. If he's genuinely not up to the job then ease him out with dignity.

 

[Roachy8]

So not really a tangible difference, opinions are still going to be opinions that they are stagers/divers unfortunately from opposition fans regardless of this outcome, that won't change because of a decision reversal.

I was unsure if there was a tangible objective benefit side of things not the reputation/opinion side of things. The damage to those has already been done, they've already copped the abuse.

Sadly correct - to opposition supporters, now not only are they stagers but also stagers who were "let of lightly by AFL Richmond bias"

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I didn’t say I was an expert but I know what being pushed is like and I know when something is exaggerated.
Who gives a fu**?
All players do it being a Richmond player doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The league just have to be more professional if they really want to stamp it out.
They won’t be able to and this discussion right here between us two is proof. You can’t prove if somebody is acting that’s why it’s called acting.

Mate your pretty adamant it was a push...you have to be an expert on bodily motion to be so sure with no room for doubt....

 

[Dr Awkward]

I didn’t say I was an expert but I know what being pushed is like and I know when something is exaggerated.
Who gives a fu**?
All players do it being a Richmond player doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. The league just have to be more professional if they really want to stamp it out.
They won’t be able to and this discussion right here between us two is proof. You can’t prove if somebody is acting that’s why it’s called acting.

Grimes exaggerated it yes, but when you see the replay this was not staging, he was pushed. I said at the time, the umpire had perfect view and there was a little push there so I thought it was a free kick.

The Vlastuin one I will defend as well, when you are running back like that you don't expect a swinging arm at your neck it's fairly natural to throw your head back. Maybe exaggerated and not worth a 50, but again not staging.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Perhaps it's appropriate to reflect on the fact that there is a bigger system in play than the word of the MRO and it seems to be working well. Michael Christian's role is to be the coarse sieve to adjudicate on first judgement decisions. The point of him being there is to relieve the work, time and cost, of a full Tribunal hearing. Appeal rights exist and from our perspective, they have worked well for all of our players caught up in last weekends decisions. I'm not a cheerleader for Christian, or anyone else for that matter, but I'm no fan of slicing and dicing him when a collection of his decisions turn out to be unsustainable on appeal. It's a crap job and he's had a poor weekend. I'd prefer the AFL Executive to have a quiet chat to him to determine whether he feels he can continue and, if not, support him rather than crucify him. If he's genuinely not up to the job then ease him out with dignity.

Perfectly good points Schlurp. The problem here is there are probably up to 5 main levels of adjudication on reportable/rule breaking incidents available:

1. umpires, the coursest of course sieves as you so neatly put it. They adjudicate summarily usually on one single viewing of an incident. Of course we now get score reviews etc, but the man in green normally gets one go at it.

2. The MRO. He gets as good a look at it as the tribunal does but doesn’t get to hear all the evidence or arguments. So he has to impute the arguments in each case, and gather what evidence he can.

3. The Tribunal.

4. The Appeals Tribunal.

5. The legal Tribunal and Court system which in itself has levels of appeal.

And we assume at each level, the case will get closer scrutiny, going into finer detail and therefore each succeeding level you get to should have more chance of reaching a good decision than the preceding level.

The trouble here is level 3 has found that level 2 has got something wrong where level 1 got it right. Three somethings wrong. Against one team. From one game. So you would normally expect maybe a 80-90% correct decision rate by the MRO. So let’s say 15% incorrect decisions. 15% x 15% x 15% = approx 0.34%. That should be the normal chances of him looking at three randomly selected cases consecutively and being found by the Tribunal to be wrong. Here he has done that in one match. Against players from one team.

But that 0.34% chance that is for randomly selected cases scrutinised by the MRO. Here, you are selecting cases where he disagrees with the instant umpiring of the situation. So this would be like the odds of 3 goal reviews in succession overturning the goal umpire’s call INCORRECTLY. The odds of that occurring without bias would be infinitesimal. This is the crux of the issue here, it is palpable incompetence or bias. Or maybe once in a lifetime variance....

So if level 3 is correct - and I for one think that is obvious, then level 2 has just acted as a reverse sieve, adding cases back in that level 1(the unpires) had already sieved out with correct decisions from good vantage points. From where I sit that is a really bad breakdown at level 2(the MRO.) He may warrant sympathy for workload, or stress, or whatever reason but the starting position here is he has created a mess that he needs to explain. This is not one case. Most of us would get one wrong somewhere along the line no matter how much care we took. This is 3 simultaneous cases involving one team’s players from one match. I suspect the umpires saw all three incidents clearly. By accident or design they certainly adjudicated them all correctly. At first glance. So it needs to be explained how tf the MRO gets all three clearly wrong, all against one team’s players in one match. It speaks to unreasonable bias, lack of care or effort or just total malfunction. But whatever has caused it the correct action I have no doubt is to stand him down, whether temporarily or permanently.

I cannot recall any precedent to this three patently incorrect adjudications from one match against one team, that would be almost impossible to do for a drunk off a park bench let alone someone who is supposed to be impartial and know what he is doing.

I agree witch-hunting is not desirable but incompetence no matter what causes it needs to be recognised and dealt with when you are talking about positions like this.

 

[Bojangles17]

Grimes exaggerated it yes, but when you see the replay this was not staging, he was pushed. I said at the time, the umpire had perfect view and there was a little push there so I thought it was a free kick.

The Vlastuin one I will defend as well, when you are running back like that you don't expect a swinging arm at your neck it's fairly natural to throw your head back. Maybe exaggerated and not worth a 50, but again not staging.

I don’t believe he did exaggerate , his hand was vertical to touch incoming ball he then tripped and went for a sixer, there’s no acting req when you go for a sixer

 

[SunshineBoy]

Perfectly good points Schlurp. The problem here is there are probably up to 5 main levels of adjudication on reportable/rule breaking incidents available:

1. umpires, the coursest of course sieves as you so neatly put it. They adjudicate summarily usually on one single viewing of an incident. Of course we now get score reviews etc, but the man in green normally gets one go at it.

2. The MRO. He gets as good a look at it as the tribunal does but doesn’t get to hear all the evidence or arguments. So he has to impute the arguments in each case, and gather what evidence he can.

3. The Tribunal.

4. The Appeals Tribunal.

5. The legal Tribunal and Court system which in itself has levels of appeal.

And we assume at each level, the case will get closer scrutiny, going into finer detail and therefore each succeeding level you get to should have more chance of reaching a good decision than the preceding level.

The trouble here is level 3 has found that level 2 has got something wrong where level 1 got it right. Three somethings wrong. Against one team. From one game. So you would normally expect maybe a 80-90% correct decision rate by the MRO. So let’s say 15% incorrect decisions. 15% x 15% x 15% = approx 0.34%. That should be the normal chances of him looking at three randomly selected cases consecutively and being found by the Tribunal to be wrong. Here he has done in one match. Against players from one team.

So if level 3 is correct - and I for one think that is obvious, then level 2 has just acted as a reverse sieve, adding cases back in that level 1(the unpires) had already sieved out with correct decisions from good vantage points. From where I sit that is a really bad breakdown at level 2(the MRO.) He may warrant sympathy for workload, or stress, or whatever reason but the starting position here is he has created a mess that he needs to explain. This is not one case. Most of us would get one wrong somewhere along the line no matter how much care we took. This is 3 simultaneous cases involving one team’s players from one match. I suspect the umpires saw all three incidents clearly. Ny accident or design they certainly adjudicated them all correctly. At first glance. So it needs to be explained how tf the MRO gets all three clearly wrong, all against one team’s players in one match. It speaks to unreasonable bias, lack of care or effort or just total malfunction. But whatever has caused it the correct action I have no doubt is to stand him down, whether temporarily or permanently.

I cannot recall any precedent to this three patently incorrect adjudications from one match against one team, that would be almost impossible to do for a drunk off a park bench let alone someone who is supposed to be impartial and know what he is doing.

I agree witch-hunting is not desirable but incompetence no matter what causes it needs to be recognised and dealt with when you are talking about positions like this.

should be sent on leave disgusting human being with his bias

 

[Bojangles17]

Not being smart but genuine question, what does appealing achieve in the big scheme of things? Is it just to avoid a fine?

DIGNITY, if it was meaningless, they wouldn’t have been deluged by vile comments and death threats

 

[Bojangles17]

Just dont get how when examining the footage it is so clearly obvious it wasn't staging. All the subsequent controversy and the social media backlash towards Grimes could have been avoided if the MRO had simply done their job correctly in the first place, amateur hour at best.

I believe a formal apology should be forthcoming from the AFL to especially Grimes given the circumstances but in both cases given the old adage that you throw enough mud some of it sticks.

Well that’s why many are so pissed , you can’t go making half arsed accusations Like this that intimate cheating without examining all available evidence , this is an embarrassment to the afl and a very poor reflection on their level of professionalism

 

[SunshineBoy]

Well that’s why many are so pissed , you can’t go making half arsed accusations Like this that intimate cheating without examining all available evidence , this is an embarrassment to the afl and a very poor reflection on their level of professionalism

Sepp blatter for the CEO role, he will clean things up

 

[TJTIGER]

Apparently the tribunal didn’t have 15 mins to review the written submissions last night. Might get around to it today if they can be bothered.

Just occasionally avatars go so well with a post. This is one of those times.....

 

[SunshineBoy]

Amazing Tom I went to melb uni sooking it up that papley got fined whilst grimes got off, won’t accept the umpires decision the flog