MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Windy Cindy]

SPP gets FOUR.

So that's the new benchmark that the AFL will apply with its usual consistency across the season.

lets see how long that lasts, if they are consistent there are going to be some massive sentences handed out.

on another note, lets hope a port player isn't the first to get reported for a sling tackle and cop a massive suspension

 

[Jonts]

I'm looking forward to round 6-13 when a Pies/Cats/Tigers/Blues player does a very similar thing and gets away with 2 weeks

 

[Windy Cindy]

You can't brace to protect yourself if you are going at speed it seems.

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

www.foxsports.com.au

Tribunal reasons:

We do not accept that the conduct involved minimal culpability.

Powell-Pepper ran to Keane, who was in the process of being tackled. We accept he was seeking to assist with the tackle. We don’t accept Keane moved in such a way when being tackled by Rioli that Powell-Pepper could not have reasonably anticipated the movement.

As contact was about to occur, Powell-Pepper altered the position of his right shoulder and with his right arm tucked in made heavy and high contact with Keane.

Even if the shoulder movement was a reflex action, that fact does not mean that the conduct as a whole involved minimal capability.

We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring.

If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.

He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Even if we accept the shoulder movement was a reflex action, the reflex action occurred because he ran at speed at a player who was already being tackled. Powell-Pepper took no steps to avoid high contact with the player being tackled. In all of those circumstances we consider four weeks to be an appropriate sanction.

so running at high speed to a contest sounds the problem, especially if circumstances change

massive change for how some players will attack a contest.

 

[longdonkey]

Compare these statements:

Maynard Decision: It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

Powell -Pepper Decision: We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring. If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.
He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Its nothing short of corrupt.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

If Powell-Pepper is coached not to approach a contest at speed does he have enough other weapons to remain relevant?

That is pretty much his best asset, approaching contest at speed and impacting them.

 

[cretinboy]

4 weeks for that. Australian rules football is dead.

 

[RossFC]

Why are people talking about consistency of bans in the future? It's already been proven to be rubbish.

There was a head high bump in the exact same game that was not even looked at.

 

[RangaInTeal]

I thought 4, early plea down to 3, all parties be happy there…

 

[John the Butcher]

Ah yes the old match simulation training run. Watch out boys, don't do anything bad in your next 6 quartered game.

 

[Spadge]

Also, our our legal teams any good, ever?

Ports legal team....

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I thought 4, early plea down to 3, all parties be happy there…

Early plea hasn't been party of the system since 2018, with respect to games suspension yet the media still talk about it.

Financial sanctions offences, you get the lower fine if you don't challenge the MRO and waste the Tribunals time, so that is an effective early plea.

 

[longdonkey]

My outrage isn't so much the penalty its reasoning. Its exactly the opposite of what they said in the Maynard case.

 

[dav3]

If Powell-Pepper is coached not to approach a contest at speed does he have enough other weapons to remain relevant?

That is pretty much his best asset, approaching contest at speed and impacting them.

Maybe Ken was right when everyone claimed he was telling players to "be careful"

 

[tribey]

If a similar incident to this happens with Dusty, De Goey, Petracca or Warner in a Qualifying Final we can totally expect their season to be over then, right?

Right?!

 

[Tredrea1870]

Did we expect anything less?
The Port Adelaide tax in full effect nice and early

 

[Ford Fairlane]

You can't brace to protect yourself if you are going at speed it seems.

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

www.foxsports.com.au

Tribunal reasons:

We do not accept that the conduct involved minimal culpability.

Powell-Pepper ran to Keane, who was in the process of being tackled. We accept he was seeking to assist with the tackle. We don’t accept Keane moved in such a way when being tackled by Rioli that Powell-Pepper could not have reasonably anticipated the movement.

As contact was about to occur, Powell-Pepper altered the position of his right shoulder and with his right arm tucked in made heavy and high contact with Keane.

Even if the shoulder movement was a reflex action, that fact does not mean that the conduct as a whole involved minimal capability.

We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring.

If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.

He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Even if we accept the shoulder movement was a reflex action, the reflex action occurred because he ran at speed at a player who was already being tackled. Powell-Pepper took no steps to avoid high contact with the player being tackled. In all of those circumstances we consider four weeks to be an appropriate sanction.

I look forward to this context being applied consistently throughout the year.

If two players go in hard for a ground ball and one gets there a fraction of a second sooner and hits the other high with a resulting concussion then that's 4 weeks.

Minority Report empaths will say he should have anticipated that result.

 

[Spadge]

oh well i'll look at the positives.. if we lose a few more games because of this suspension then its closer to Hinkley getting sacked... right? looks at watch

 

[manureid]

Lol. What a sport!

 

[EskimoPAFC]

You can't brace to protect yourself if you are going at speed it seems.

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

www.foxsports.com.au

Tribunal reasons:

We do not accept that the conduct involved minimal culpability.

Powell-Pepper ran to Keane, who was in the process of being tackled. We accept he was seeking to assist with the tackle. We don’t accept Keane moved in such a way when being tackled by Rioli that Powell-Pepper could not have reasonably anticipated the movement.

As contact was about to occur, Powell-Pepper altered the position of his right shoulder and with his right arm tucked in made heavy and high contact with Keane.

Even if the shoulder movement was a reflex action, that fact does not mean that the conduct as a whole involved minimal capability.

We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring.

If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.

He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Even if we accept the shoulder movement was a reflex action, the reflex action occurred because he ran at speed at a player who was already being tackled. Powell-Pepper took no steps to avoid high contact with the player being tackled. In all of those circumstances we consider four weeks to be an appropriate sanction.

Pretty incredible that they accept Pep wasn't looking to bump and was trying to tackle, that he made a reflex action as Keane was slung in to him, and still got 4 weeks.

If they really do use that as the standard this year by round 20 a lot of clubs will be struggling to field a team. Let's see what happens.

 

[tribey]

Lol. What a sport!

Sherrin Gaelic within 3 years. 5 at the most.

 

[Kenny_Powers]

Compare these statements:

Maynard Decision: It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

Powell -Pepper Decision: We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring. If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.
He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Its nothing short of corrupt.

100%, the double standards are striking, Maynard decided to launch at speed into an oncoming player to attempt to "spoil" and resultantly missed, braced, and knocked someone out. If he didn't anticipate that the player running with the ball would've been moving towards him, he should have.

Fairdinkum how can SPP have a duty of care to avoid head high contact, and Maynard not?




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PAFC66]

oh well i'll look at the positives.. if we lose a few more games because of this suspension then its closer to Hinkley getting sacked... right? looks at watch

No kens got more excuses

 

[Ah12]

Why are we so soft at the tribunal? We basically bend over and accept what we get. Its f*cking embarrassing how spineless we have become as an organisation. You just know Collingwood, Carlton etc would have taken the fight to the afl and got 2-3 weeks.

We are the AFL’s guinea pigs.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If a similar incident to this happens with Dusty, De Goey, Petracca or Warner in a Qualifying Final we can totally expect their season to be over then, right?

Right?!

Absolutely. This finding will be applied with total objectivity in every case.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Compare these statements:

Maynard Decision: It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

Powell -Pepper Decision: We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring. If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.
He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Its nothing short of corrupt.

Mindblowing and directly contradictory.