MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Only Forwards]

LOL wot?

So there is a player who got hit high and concussed and the bloke that bumped him got nothing and Cunners is rubbed out because there is the potential that he caused harm but didn't actually cause harm.

This game is a joke.

 

[archereleven]

The AFLs case -

"Its the vibe your honour!"

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[muttley45]

Not surprised the prosecution is using the "potential to cause injury" clause as it's cornerstone, they have nothing else

 

[Hojuman]

Not surprised the prosecution is using the "potential to cause injury" clause as it's cornerstone, they have nothing else

Jesus. I nearly tripped on the bloody steep Marvel stairs L2 sec 42 ! There's a potential injury !

 

[Mav]

FFS, our judicial system is based on outcome, the MRP based sanctions on outcomes, now they want to use potential outcomes??
Bollocks

 

[Tectonic]

Not surprised the prosecution is using the "potential to cause injury" clause as it's cornerstone, they have nothing else

Is there anything the AFL loves more than rules being open to interpretation?

 

[giantroo]

 

[La Flama Blanca]

FFS, our judicial system is based on outcome, the MRP based sanctions on outcomes, now they want to use potential outcomes??
Bollocks

This isn't really true. You can be charged with dangerous driving, attempted assault, conspiracy to commit an offence, etc.

The real inconsistency here is that the AFL have centred their prosecution on outcomes over potential outcomes in the past.

 

[Mav]

This isn't really true. You can be charged with dangerous driving, attempted assault, conspiracy to commit an offence, etc.

The real inconsistency here is that the AFL have centred their prosecution on outcomes over potential outcomes in the past.

It is very true. You can be charged but the sentencing is determined by the outcome and the victim impact statements.

I can shoot a gun on my farm and not get charged. I can shoot a gun at a road sign just out of town and get fined. I can shoot your car while you drive by and I’ll go to gaol for a few years, or I can shoot you in the head and go to gaol for the rest of my life.

 

[La Flama Blanca]

It is very true. You can be charged but the sentencing is determined by the outcome and the victim impact statements.

I can shoot a gun on my farm and not get charged. I can shoot a gun at a road sign just out of town and get fined. I can shoot your car while you drive by and I’ll go to gaol for a few years, or I can shoot you in the head and go to gaol for the rest of my life.

The AFL would say the same thing is being done here. Dangerfield gets 3 weeks because he actually caused a concussion, Cunnington gets 1 week because he engaged in conduct that had the potential to cause a concussion.

 

[Shinboner1]

Not sure about you guys but I'm really happy about the club taking it to the MRP and publishing what's happening.
Don't think its really happened before and it clearly shows the club shares the same disgust that the fans do about the situation.
Good on them for trying to bridge the gap between the club and fans.

 

[Mav]

The AFL would say the same thing is being done here. Dangerfield gets 3 weeks because he actually caused a concussion, Cunnington gets 1 week because he engaged in conduct that had the potential to cause a concussion.

But it’s bollocks, cause a normal bump has “potential”. Cunnington made sure there was no concussion by easing off. If he potentially wanted to cause damage Laird would be dead.

 

[Only Forwards]

Laird punched Turner in the head.

where was the potential to cause injury on that one?

bunch o' f***in hypocrites.

 

[giantroo]

Cunners is freeeeeee.

 

[Sillygit]

* YEA.

 

[shintemaster]

Close to one of the dumbest potential suspensions I’ve ever seen. On the criteria of this there should have been tens of players cited this week alone. The MRP system is officially broken, the shark has been jumped. We would not be able to field full teams next week if this criteria had been consistently used during this weeks reviews. I dead set thought a free kick was generous.

 

[La Flama Blanca]

But it’s bollocks, cause a normal bump has “potential”. Cunnington made sure there was no concussion by easing off. If he potentially wanted to cause damage Laird would be dead.

That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.

A decade ago the bump was completely fair game.
In more recent times if you have elected to bump and caused concussion, you faced a suspension.
Now we're seeing bumps that don't even cause concussion - but look like they could - face scrutiny.

It's obvious where this is all going. The AFL are concerned about litigation and are slowly phasing the bump out of the game. Unfortunately Cunnington isn't the first and he won't be the last player to find himself in the situation where something he has done his whole footballing life is all of a sudden prohibited.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Close to one of the dumbest potential suspensions I’ve ever seen. On the criteria of this there should have been tens of players cited this week alone. The MRP system is officially broken, the shark has been jumped. We would not be able to field full teams next week if this criteria had been consistently used during this weeks reviews. I dead set thought a free kick was generous.

I disagree with the last bit of your comment. It was rather - to very - late, so it's a downfield free kick every time. But it was never a suspension.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Veteran Roo free to face Cats after successful Tribunal bid

NORTH Melbourne veteran Ben Cunnington

10

Ben Cunnington

Age

32

Ht

185cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.4

5star

K

9.0

3star

HB

12.4

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.7

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

17.7

4star

K

6.0

2star

HB

11.7

5star

M

2.0

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

4.0

5star

D

15.8

4star

K

6.4

3star

HB

9.4

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

6.2

5star

CL

3.0

5star

is free to play against Geelong this weekend after successfully appealing his one-match ban at the Tribunal.

Cunnington was suspended for engaging in rough conduct after a high bump on Adelaide's Rory Laird

29

Rory Laird

Age

30

Ht

177cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.4

5star

K

12.9

5star

HB

12.5

5star

M

5.4

5star

T

2.3

4star

CL

1.0

3star

D

19.6

5star

K

10.9

4star

HB

8.7

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.4

3star

CL

1.1

3star

D

14.6

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

3.2

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

0.4

3star

at Marvel Stadium last Sunday.

The incident was assessed by Match Review Officer Michael Christian as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.

The Kangaroos argued the charge should be downgraded to low impact, and the Tribunal agreed, meaning Cunnington escaped with a $2000 fine.

The decision means the dual club best and fairest winner can take on the Cats in Sunday's twilight fixture at GMHBA Stadium.

 

[gokangas]

He was still found guilty - just downgraded. Pathetic decision.

 

[shintemaster]

That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.

A decade ago the bump was completely fair game.
In more recent times if you have elected to bump and caused concussion, you faced a suspension.
Now we're seeing bumps that don't even cause concussion - but look like they could - face scrutiny.

It's obvious where this is all going. The AFL are concerned about litigation and are slowly phasing the bump out of the game. Unfortunately Cunnington isn't the first and he won't be the last player to find himself in the situation where something he has done his whole footballing life is all of a sudden prohibited.

I don’t necessarily agree but have no major issue with that policy - I do have an issue with the policy by stealth and attacking soft targets at certain clubs. If they want change, have the guts to change the rules of the game, state the policy and enforce impartially. What occurred is bullshit and we shouldn’t have even had to pay to argue the point.

 

[Only Forwards]

That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.

A decade ago the bump was completely fair game.
In more recent times if you have elected to bump and caused concussion, you faced a suspension.
Now we're seeing bumps that don't even cause concussion - but look like they could - face scrutiny.

It's obvious where this is all going. The AFL are concerned about litigation and are slowly phasing the bump out of the game. Unfortunately Cunnington isn't the first and he won't be the last player to find himself in the situation where something he has done his whole footballing life is all of a sudden prohibited.

The problem here is the AFL are half pregnant.

they have painted these rules about the sanctity of the head. And yet a player can run at another as fast as he can jump knees first into the first players head and it's fine.

in your scenario why does that player who is jumped into have less of a case of litigation. I am not a lawyer, but I would doubt that there is a whole lot of difference from a legal stand point. Especially when you start talking duty of care.

Its smoke and mirrors. If the AFL were realistic about wanting to prevent litigation they would make players sign releases to accept that the sport is contact and dangerous. This is something that would probably protect them legally. Right now we have them adjusting rules to convey the perception that they are doing something, while actually doing 4/5ths of FA. We have Gibbons getting KO'd, May having his eye belted out of his head and Laird playing out the game and the bump that hit Laird was the only one cited? absurd.

If the head was sacrosanct, then they would fundamentally change how the game is contested. Harbrow gets cited and suspended. It kills the high flying mark. May as well up stumps and call the game off.

 

[shintemaster]

I disagree with the last bit of your comment. It was rather - to very - late, so it's a downfield free kick every time. But it was never a suspension.

Well, I disagree that it is a downfield free every time - I do agree it should be though, just that it’s not always. A game of microseconds if we’re being generous, a game of favourites if you’re more cynical.

 

[rickety]

Wonder how long it will be before there is a footy black market, where blokes can play footy and bump and tackle and take hangers? Have to smuggle blokes over the border to get a game Pssssttt, where's the footy at this weekend? Or maybe, the 1st rule of Footy club, is there is no Footy club. Or something.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Wonder how long it will be before there is a footy black market, where blokes can play footy and bump and tackle and take hangers? Have to smuggle blokes over the border to get a game Pssssttt, where's the footy at this weekend? Or maybe, the 1st rule of Footy club, is there is no Footy club. Or something.

You have forgotten the first rule by talking about it...