Autopsy Round 4, 2022: Hawthorn v St.Kilda

[SaintsSeptember]

You won't hear people here in Scotland calling it Saint Kilda. The origins of the name are murky. The dutch name is one of a few. No one really knows as there are very few written records. But the litmus test for me is what the locals call it.

And in Melbourne I've never heard anyone call it Saint Kilda Road for example. Nick Riewoldt fought for years to get his name pronounced correctly and eventually most got it right. And the AFL recently had a video feature on the correct pronunciation of a number of player's names.

That is me over and out on the matter. Won't be replying.

Spot on, its pronounced just like this news reader pronounces it.

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

“Pleasing”

 

[pebblesofsand]

Thanks Saints TV

Just confirms what we already knew - MRP and Tribunal is just

 

[gringo2011]

Break a guys jaw with an even poorer action: 0 weeks

Knock a guy out with exactly the same action: 0 weeks

Bump a guy but don't make contact with the head. Guy gets up plays out the game with no concussion: 2 weeks

Guess which club cops the suspensions

If I was a lawyer I tell the club to train to put your arms out as you bump rather than look braced. You can deliberately smash someone into next week as long as you disguise it as going for the ball or attempting to tackle or smother. McKay lines Hunter up but was quick thinking enough to make a scooping gesture with his arms as he did it. It gives the impression that he was ball hunting while his eyes are firmly fixed on Clark and aiming for contact not to take it out in front.

 

[triggering bro]

Thanks Saints TV

A couple of differences. Firstly, English appeared not to come off his line to engage the Swans player. Secondly, the Swans player wasn’t concussed & ruled out of the game & for 12 days. On the first point, English should’ve tackled rather than bump though (if he did get him high???). On the second point, Paddy is stuffed when comparing the two incidents.

 

[Saints TV]

A couple of differences. Firstly, English appeared not to come off his line to engage the Swans player. Secondly, the Swans player wasn’t concussed & ruled out of the game & for 12 days. On the first point, English should’ve tackled rather than bump though (if he did get him high???). On the second point, Paddy is stuffed when comparing the two incidents.

English raised an arm and left the ground. Correct he had time to choose to tackle. Paddy stood still and braced for contact knowing if he did try to tackle it could’ve been worse.

9 times out of 10 the English bump would cause more head injuries would it not? Therefore pin the action not the result.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sammm]

Does PADDY have priors? Does it work like that?

i think he does. i think that was why there was not a 2 down to 1.

 

[sammm]

Happy to serve ️️


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

send it to saints media.

 

[pebblesofsand]

The whole MRO thing is a farce because it's a purely outcome driven process rather than intent/outcome driven.

If the courts operated as the MRO operates, if a person dies as a result of your actions (irrespective of your intent or the circumstances of the action) you must get a life sentence.

 

[triggering bro]

English raised an arm and left the ground. Correct he had time to choose to tackle. Paddy stood still and braced for contact knowing if he did try to tackle it could’ve been worse.

9 times out of 10 the English bump would cause more head injuries would it not? Therefore pin the action not the result.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

 

[prophetic1]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

How does that apply then with CLARK's jaw being broken? Didn't the offending party get off altogether?

Don't worry GRINGO answered it several posts earlier...sorry!

 

[ScrappyDo]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

So where does Long's conviction fit in to that framework?

 

[prophetic1]

So where does Long's conviction fit in to that framework?

His name was LONG! That's a prima facie presumption of guilt an irrebuttable presumption according to the AFL

 

[Joffaboy]

A couple of differences. Firstly, English appeared not to come off his line to engage the Swans player. Secondly, the Swans player wasn’t concussed & ruled out of the game & for 12 days. On the first point, English should’ve tackled rather than bump though (if he did get him high???). On the second point, Paddy is stuffed when comparing the two incidents.

But what about the now one of precedent of 'potential to cause injury'? Or does that only apply to one club?

 

[phantom13]

100 people discussing the complete farce that is the MRPs “process” and 99 saying yeh it’s a joke but there is always that 1 guy who is absolutely positive it makes sense and the world has gone crazy.

Rage on dude.

 

[Ads734]

The whole MRO thing is a farce because it's a purely outcome driven process rather than intent/outcome driven.

If the courts operated as the MRO operates, if a person dies as a result of your actions (irrespective of your intent or the circumstances of the action) you must get a life sentence.

To be fair I don’t really have an issue with that. Like in reality courts do operate quite a bit based on outcome. It’s kinda luck of the draw. If you assault someone but they just get injured/no injury you get assault but if you do the same thing and they die , you get murder or manslaughter so outcome driven decisions are fine. The issue is their rediculous justification. Paddy was bracing not bumping. Ffs

 

[Joffaboy]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

Except if your name is Ben Long

 

[pebblesofsand]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

Yes - it is but only because the MRO determines the charge and guilt in the same action without consideration of intent.

People may get charged by police or the PP with a serious crime but in court are then found guilty of a less serious charge after further consideration of proving "intent".

Interesting thing (for those people weird enough to find this s*** interesting) is that the AFL Tribunal guidelines don't actually define what constitutes "Severe, High, Medium, Low" impact.

No wonder its a dogs breakfast.

 

[phantom13]

To be fair I don’t really have an issue with that. Like in reality courts do operate quite a bit based on outcome. It’s kinda luck of the draw. If you assault someone but they just get injured/no injury you get assault but if you do the same thing and they die , you get murder or manslaughter so outcome driven decisions are fine. The issue is their rediculous justification. Paddy was bracing not bumping. Ffs

I think the issue is that intent is very difficult to prove on a footy field.

If someone ran into you on the street (as in you stood perfectly still and they ran into you) and they KOd themselves and then whacked their head on the ground and died you can be damn sure you wouldn’t get jail time. If you clotheslined that same person then kicked them in the ribs but they remained miracously uninijured you probably would get jail time (and rightly so).

In our scenario Paddy is getting more time for the first scenario whilst we have seen instances of the second get nothing.

Again, I said from the get go he probably gets a week and that’s fine but my issue is that the mrp has no consistency, you can’t apply precedent and process or logic to any of their decisions. They are trying to be part court, part public opinion purveyor, part single judge and combining a whole bunch of inputs and it’s just a complete mess.

 

[triggering bro]

Yes all agree re Long. That was just weird

 

[Ads734]

I think the issue is that intent is very difficult to prove on a footy field.

If someone ran into you on the street (as in you stood perfectly still and they ran into you) and they KOd themselves and then whacked their head on the ground and died you can be damn sure you wouldn’t get jail time. If you clotheslined that same person then kicked them in the ribs but they remained miracously uninijured you probably would get jail time (and rightly so).

In our scenario Paddy is getting more time for the first scenario whilst we have seen instances of the second get nothing.

Again, I said from the get go he probably gets a week and that’s fine but my issue is that the mrp has no consistency, you can’t apply precedent and process or logic to any of their decisions. They are trying to be part court, part public opinion purveyor, part single judge and combining a whole bunch of inputs and it’s just a complete mess.

I couldn’t agree more intent is exceptionally difficult to prove. Also shows the stupidity of the insufficient intent rule. I also have no doubt if his name was Paddy Selwood or someone from a ‘sexy’ team he’d be off it’s just bs.

 

[D2D3]

That’s why I’d hire Bucks. Had some strong points on SEN this morning

I used to hate Bucks as a player. But damn it he’s won me over in the media he is almost always on our side

 

[D2D3]

I couldn’t agree more intent is exceptionally difficult to prove. Also shows the stupidity of the insufficient intent rule. I also have no doubt if his name was Paddy Selwood or someone from a ‘sexy’ team he’d be off it’s just bs.

Changing his surname to “Selwood”, “Cotchin” or “Fyfe” may be the strongest defence possible.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes - it is but only because the MRO determines the charge and guilt in the same action without consideration of intent.

People may get charged by police or the PP with a serious crime but in court are then found guilty of a less serious charge after further consideration of proving "intent".

Interesting thing (for those people weird enough to find this s*** interesting) is that the AFL Tribunal guidelines don't actually define what constitutes "Severe, High, Medium, Low" impact.

No wonder its a dogs breakfast.

The results driven thing is pretty old and based on years of legal precident.

Now we get people in the USA walking round , shooting their guns off, and only getting manslaughter when they kill someone, because they weren't actually trying to kill someone, even though they didn't give a crap if they did kill someone.

Mum's had it right. They said "stop that or you'll take an eye out", now it wasn't often someone actually took an eye out , but the idea was to avoid risky behaviour. Pretty stupid to only stop after you take an eye out.

 

[pebblesofsand]

To be fair I don’t really have an issue with that. Like in reality courts do operate quite a bit based on outcome. It’s kinda luck of the draw. If you assault someone but they just get injured/no injury you get assault but if you do the same thing and they die , you get murder or manslaughter so outcome driven decisions are fine. The issue is their rediculous justification. Paddy was bracing not bumping. Ffs

Yes - would make for an interesting argument at the tribunal given the guidelines relating to "Impact" also say

"In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact."

In the end, Christensen just applies the algorithm and leaves it to the clubs to decide if they want to argue subtlety and nuances of intent at the Tribunal if they want to go that way.