-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Roast The AFL aren't taking concussion and head trauma seriously enough. Lalor/Ginbey incident.
- Thread starter Aristotle Pickett the3rd
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Turns out it was Ginbey that hit Bruns, not Matthews...
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Also shot JFK
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I’m not surprised Ginbey got off, but I am surprised there was no clarification on why.
But we do have a weird situation where a player can engage in a ‘legal’ football action of a tackle, get it ever so slightly wrong and have his opponent’s head touch the grass, and his opponent gets up without damage and the tackler is suspended.
But a player can execute an illegal action of a deliberate push in the back, have their opponent break their jaw and get off with no to answer.
It’s a situation the league had the chance to clarify but failed.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
But we do have a weird situation where a player can engage in a ‘legal’ football action of a tackle, get it ever so slightly wrong and have his opponent’s head touch the grass, and his opponent gets up without damage and the tackler is suspended.
But a player can execute an illegal action of a deliberate push in the back, have their opponent break their jaw and get off with no to answer.
It’s a situation the league had the chance to clarify but failed.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
If there's nothing to look at then why bother? Otherwise you get idiots having a whinge about every single tackle wanting the MRO to explain every tiny non-reportable incident every week.
Just unnecessary
Completely agree with Shere Khan - despite being a WC supporter.
Is it the AFL not wanting to set a precedent?
Will be an interesting watch to see if this interpretation changes during this season.
Is it the AFL not wanting to set a precedent?
Will be an interesting watch to see if this interpretation changes during this season.
Some cases that come under scrutiny, a decision is made there is no case to answer.
The reason it would be beneficial to have an explanation in these cases is for transparency.
Imo just saying "nothing to look at, it's not a reportable offence" is enough explanation.
What more do you need?
The media scrutiny on it wasn't justified, the fan scrutiny wasn't justified.
imo the MRO gave an appropriate response
He should have divulged his reasoning. Specifically why he thought that Ginbey had exercised his duty of care to Lalor with the action in question and why.
This would add to both transparency & accountability in the decision making. Something the AFL need to be considering more than ever given legal action they are likely to face due to player concussions.
They've never done it before when Richmond blokes get off with things, why start now? Just because it was a wce player on a Richmond fella?
You'll frame your response as a duty of care thing but we all know you wouldn't really care if Richmond wasn't involved
That is incorrect, they have at times given explanations before, and the Tribunal always gives an explanation.
My stance would be the same regardless of clubs involved. I have for eg written extensive posts in cases such as the McKay (Adelaide) case and the Maynard/Brayshaw case amongst several others that have attracted my interest. I would have been interested in this one regardless, particularly given the unprecedented circumstances. It is disappointing this one was not tested and imo inappropriate in the concussion climate. It invites players to replicate the action in certain circumstances where there is no downside to their team.
They always give a statement if it goes to the tribunal.
They generally don't give statements for non reportable events that aren't even close to being worth getting looked at
Here(below) are 4 explanations for incidents scrutinised that were not reported arising from just one round in 2019. In each case it was explained what the crucial facts and reasons for the lack of a report were.
"Insufficient force" - clearly not the case here>
"action not unreasonable in the circumstances" - would require further explanation in the instant case if relying on this as Ginbey clearly had other reasonable options.
"victim lowered his head as perpetrator was attempting to push him in the chest so not a strike despite high contact" - not applicable in the instant case as Lalor did not contribute to his injuries in any way.
Only a guess but my guess is the MRO knows his reasons will be considered inadequate in the Ginbey case so he doesn't want them to be publicly known.
Match Review Officer's full statement: round 11
MRO Michael Christian reveals all the findings from round 11
www.afl.com.au
Incidents assessed:
The match day report laid against Fremantle's Ethan Hughes for contact on Collingwood's Ben Reid from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The ball is loose at half forward for Collingwood. Ben Reid goes down to collect the ball. Hughes approaches from the opposite direction and makes contact with Reid. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
The match day report laid against Gold Coast SUNS' David Swallow for contact on GWS GIANTS' Lachie Whitfield from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Whitfield handballs the ball to a teammate at half back for GWS GIANTS. Immediately after he disposes of the football he is met by David Swallow who makes body contact. It was the view of the MRO that Swallow's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between North Melbourne’s Marley Wiliams and Richmond’s Jack Higgins in the second quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Higgins takes possession of the football and is immediately tackled by Williams. As Higgins is attempting to dispose of the football, Williams holds Higgins’ left arm and takes him to ground. It was the view of the MRO that Williams’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between Richmond’s Nick Vlastuin and North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson in the fourth quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Vlastuin bumps Thompson as Robbie Tarrant takes his kick in the backline for North Melbourne. Vlastuin then attempts to push Thompson in the chest. Simultaneously, Thompson lowers his body and leans forward towards Vlaustin, and high contact occurs. It was the view of the MRO that the Vlaustin’s action did not constitute a strike. No further action was taken.
Someone forgot to tell AFL.com.au it wasn't even close to being looked at, because it is the only unreported case that got a mention.
To be clear here, no explanation is required if a player is charged by the MRO as the player is free to challenge the charge at the Tribunal.
But because no avenue exists for anyone to pursue cases where no charge is laid, reasons should be given for every such case the MRO has considered. Beyond that if there was a footy media that actually did their job and questioned any dubious reasoning it would be useful. But we all know why that doesn't happen.
MATCH REVIEW: Eagle learns fate for Tiger push, Crow cops ban
Two players have been suspended and another two fined after the match simulations
www.afl.com.au
Last edited:
Only because of the media attention, not because it deserved a mention
To be clear here, no explanation is required if a player is charged by the MRO as the player is free to challenge the charge at the Tribunal.
But because no avenue exists for anyone to pursue cases where no charge is laid, reasons should be given for every such case the MRO has considered. Beyond that if there was a footy media that actually did their job and questioned any dubious reasoning it would be useful. But we all know why that doesn't happen.
MATCH REVIEW: Eagle learns fate for Tiger push, Crow cops ban
Two players have been suspended and another two fined after the match simulations
Not reading all thisHere(below) are 4 explanations for incidents scrutinised that were not reported arising from just one round in 2019. In each case it was explained what the crucial facts and reasons for the lack of a report were.
"Insufficient force" - clearly not the case here>
"action not unreasonable in the circumstances" - would require further explanation in the instant case if relying on this as Ginbey clearly had other reasonable options.
"victim lowered his head as perpetrator was attempting to push him in the chest so not a strike despite high contact" - not applicable in the instant case as Lalor did not contribute to his injuries in any way.
Only a guess but my guess is the MRO knows his reasons will be considered inadequate in the Ginbey case so he doesn't want them to be publicly known.
Match Review Officer's full statement: round 11
MRO Michael Christian reveals all the findings from round 11
Incidents assessed:
The match day report laid against Fremantle's Ethan Hughes for contact on Collingwood's Ben Reid from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The ball is loose at half forward for Collingwood. Ben Reid goes down to collect the ball. Hughes approaches from the opposite direction and makes contact with Reid. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
The match day report laid against Gold Coast SUNS' David Swallow for contact on GWS GIANTS' Lachie Whitfield from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Whitfield handballs the ball to a teammate at half back for GWS GIANTS. Immediately after he disposes of the football he is met by David Swallow who makes body contact. It was the view of the MRO that Swallow's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between North Melbourne’s Marley Wiliams and Richmond’s Jack Higgins in the second quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Higgins takes possession of the football and is immediately tackled by Williams. As Higgins is attempting to dispose of the football, Williams holds Higgins’ left arm and takes him to ground. It was the view of the MRO that Williams’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between Richmond’s Nick Vlastuin and North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson in the fourth quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Vlastuin bumps Thompson as Robbie Tarrant takes his kick in the backline for North Melbourne. Vlastuin then attempts to push Thompson in the chest. Simultaneously, Thompson lowers his body and leans forward towards Vlaustin, and high contact occurs. It was the view of the MRO that the Vlaustin’s action did not constitute a strike. No further action was taken.
TY24
Cripps and Bloods
Here(below) are 4 explanations for incidents scrutinised that were not reported arising from just one round in 2019. In each case it was explained what the crucial facts and reasons for the lack of a report were.
"Insufficient force" - clearly not the case here>
"action not unreasonable in the circumstances" - would require further explanation in the instant case if relying on this as Ginbey clearly had other reasonable options.
"victim lowered his head as perpetrator was attempting to push him in the chest so not a strike despite high contact" - not applicable in the instant case as Lalor did not contribute to his injuries in any way.
Only a guess but my guess is the MRO knows his reasons will be considered inadequate in the Ginbey case so he doesn't want them to be publicly known.
Match Review Officer's full statement: round 11
MRO Michael Christian reveals all the findings from round 11
Incidents assessed:
The match day report laid against Fremantle's Ethan Hughes for contact on Collingwood's Ben Reid from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The ball is loose at half forward for Collingwood. Ben Reid goes down to collect the ball. Hughes approaches from the opposite direction and makes contact with Reid. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
The match day report laid against Gold Coast SUNS' David Swallow for contact on GWS GIANTS' Lachie Whitfield from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Whitfield handballs the ball to a teammate at half back for GWS GIANTS. Immediately after he disposes of the football he is met by David Swallow who makes body contact. It was the view of the MRO that Swallow's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between North Melbourne’s Marley Wiliams and Richmond’s Jack Higgins in the second quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Higgins takes possession of the football and is immediately tackled by Williams. As Higgins is attempting to dispose of the football, Williams holds Higgins’ left arm and takes him to ground. It was the view of the MRO that Williams’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between Richmond’s Nick Vlastuin and North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson in the fourth quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Vlastuin bumps Thompson as Robbie Tarrant takes his kick in the backline for North Melbourne. Vlastuin then attempts to push Thompson in the chest. Simultaneously, Thompson lowers his body and leans forward towards Vlaustin, and high contact occurs. It was the view of the MRO that the Vlaustin’s action did not constitute a strike. No further action was taken.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Its almost like you have seen this ending all before.
The term 'one eyed supporter' is certainly get a decent run in this thread I must say.
Not so much common sense from the losing side of the argument though.
Here(below) are 4 explanations for incidents scrutinised that were not reported arising from just one round in 2019. In each case it was explained what the crucial facts and reasons for the lack of a report were.
"Insufficient force" - clearly not the case here>
"action not unreasonable in the circumstances" - would require further explanation in the instant case if relying on this as Ginbey clearly had other reasonable options.
"victim lowered his head as perpetrator was attempting to push him in the chest so not a strike despite high contact" - not applicable in the instant case as Lalor did not contribute to his injuries in any way.
Only a guess but my guess is the MRO knows his reasons will be considered inadequate in the Ginbey case so he doesn't want them to be publicly known.
Match Review Officer's full statement: round 11
MRO Michael Christian reveals all the findings from round 11
Incidents assessed:
The match day report laid against Fremantle's Ethan Hughes for contact on Collingwood's Ben Reid from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. The ball is loose at half forward for Collingwood. Ben Reid goes down to collect the ball. Hughes approaches from the opposite direction and makes contact with Reid. It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
The match day report laid against Gold Coast SUNS' David Swallow for contact on GWS GIANTS' Lachie Whitfield from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Whitfield handballs the ball to a teammate at half back for GWS GIANTS. Immediately after he disposes of the football he is met by David Swallow who makes body contact. It was the view of the MRO that Swallow's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between North Melbourne’s Marley Wiliams and Richmond’s Jack Higgins in the second quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Higgins takes possession of the football and is immediately tackled by Williams. As Higgins is attempting to dispose of the football, Williams holds Higgins’ left arm and takes him to ground. It was the view of the MRO that Williams’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Contact between Richmond’s Nick Vlastuin and North Melbourne’s Scott Thompson in the fourth quarter of Friday night’s match was assessed. Vlastuin bumps Thompson as Robbie Tarrant takes his kick in the backline for North Melbourne. Vlastuin then attempts to push Thompson in the chest. Simultaneously, Thompson lowers his body and leans forward towards Vlaustin, and high 1contact occurs. It was the view of the MRO that the Vlaustin’s action did not constitute a strike. No further action was taken.
Clearly this case didnt require a detailed explination.
99.9% of people can understand why there wasnt a case to answer.
You and AP are the 0.01 % who are struggling.
Thats fine. Everyone thinks differently.
It wasnt a deliberate push in the back.
If it was deemed deliberate with malicious intent he would have got weeks.
Not difficult to comprehend.
In your mind it was deliberate. 99% dont agree. Including the MRP.
jannissary
AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
can't believe the CMRO (corrupt mro) and CFL would plot against richmond's chances of finishing in the top 16 this season...
the state of this game is absolutely dire, i'm glad we have reasonable, level headed and comprehensively informed posters like Aristotle Pickett & Meteoric Rise providing us with an unbiased and logic based perspective on why Rueben "Adolf Hitler" Ginbey should've been suspended.
WeSSt KKKoast should be ashamed for having let this happen and not sacking Ginbey immediately.
the state of this game is absolutely dire, i'm glad we have reasonable, level headed and comprehensively informed posters like Aristotle Pickett & Meteoric Rise providing us with an unbiased and logic based perspective on why Rueben "Adolf Hitler" Ginbey should've been suspended.
WeSSt KKKoast should be ashamed for having let this happen and not sacking Ginbey immediately.
- Banned
- #849
Oh well, we live with the decision. And when a player from the Eagles (or other clubs) gets injured in a similar manner I don't want to hear any whining because the MRO didn't think it worthy of any penalty. The standard for 2025 has now been set.
Barrass broke his back from Riewoldt tunneling and Richmond players have form for pushing players into others and injuring them, yet here we are with Richmond supporters stinking up the thread the moment it happens to one of their own.
Similar threads
