-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
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.
MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
3 weeks is very harsh. If that’s 3 weeks what do you give actual dangerous intentional shit?
Looked like a football collision by a player who should have shown more care to a player in dbjs position. 1 week would have been enough of a message. 2 would have been harsh. 3 is insane. We’ve seen port players cop the same.
We know certain players at certain clubs and certain times of the year would get off without games tho.
GremioPower
Sack Richo/Cardone/Koch
- May 26, 2017
- 24,530
- 50,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
The key is the miscalculation. He missed the time of the ball and bumped a defenseless opponent.
If this were following precedent, I’d be ok.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I see the Swans player only got one week for his jumping bump.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #3,781
Ok some quotes from Pearce case proceedings.
Alex Pearce has pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Dockers argue this was not careless conduct and that all times Pearce acted reasonably.
The AFL contends Pearce's condcut was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Fremantle's legal representative is reassured Alex Pearce doesn't need to be sworn in. That is because this is not a real legal hearing.
Pearce says he was attempting to impact the contest and thought he could take a chest mark as he sprinted at the contest.
Pearce: At the very last moment, I become aware Byrne-Jones is close to me and I'm going to make impact. I dropped my left arm and met the contact with my body to try limit the impact as much as possible.
Pearce: Given my role as a defender and as captain of our club, I don't think in that situation again I would make a different decision other than to go at the ball and at that contest at 100% and make a play at the ball.
Pearce: It's possible I could have just not gone for that contest, but given the context ... being a captain of our club who has an obligation to set the standard ... to give 100% at all contests. If you can make a play on the ball and imapct a contest, you do that.
Pearce admits at the "last split second" he braced for impact.
From the Greene-Boyd case last year: "If a player has ceased to attempt to mark prior to impact, and is bracing for impact in circumstances such as this, that player is not contesting the ball."
The AFL suggests Pearce could've slowed his momentum much earlier.
Pearce: "My role as a defender in that situation isn't to let the opponent mark the ball."
Pearce: When it was clear at the very last split second I wasn't going to mark the ball, I made an action to limit the contact as much as possible.
The AFL suggests Pearce could've elected to not leave the ground.
Pearce: My frame of mind in that situation was to take the ball on my chest and get to the ball at the highest point.
AFL: Do you accept you should've been aware much earlier of Byrne-Jones?
Pearce: No, I don't.
Pearce: It would not sit well with me if I was to pull out of that contest and not impact it. The way that would look and the way my teammates would see it and to be honest the way the broader football public would view me as a footballer.
Sally Flynn (AFL): Pearce has engaged in conduct which it was reasonably forseeable doing so would result in committing a reportable offence. [Bullshit sally]
Flynn (AFL): The AFL aruges it was inevitable Pearce was going to be second to that contest.
Flynn (AFL): A reasonable player would've attempted to slow his momentum and do so much earlier.
Dockers: Both players attempted to gain possession, both players each ran into space, both players have run at pace and both players had fully and equally committed to gaining possession of the football.
Dockers: At no point in time did Pearce ever deviate from his line.
Dockers: You could literally get a ruler out and rule a line to show Pearce has at all times made a line without deviation for the football.
Dockers: The real blow here for Byrne-Jones, sadly, is when his head hits the ground.
Dockers: You need to prove or demonstrate that there was a practical response to the risk ... there was simply no practical response to the risk other than what Pearce did.
Flynn (AFL): Wihtout trying to get too legalistic in this sports tribunal, it really comes down to what's known as the eggshell skull rule. That is, you take your victim as you find them.
wtf is an eggshell skull
The Tribunal is now deliberating. -36 minutes ago which is 7.26pm AEST when they went to deliberate.
Alex Pearce has pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Dockers argue this was not careless conduct and that all times Pearce acted reasonably.
The AFL contends Pearce's condcut was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Fremantle's legal representative is reassured Alex Pearce doesn't need to be sworn in. That is because this is not a real legal hearing.
Pearce says he was attempting to impact the contest and thought he could take a chest mark as he sprinted at the contest.
Pearce: At the very last moment, I become aware Byrne-Jones is close to me and I'm going to make impact. I dropped my left arm and met the contact with my body to try limit the impact as much as possible.
Pearce: Given my role as a defender and as captain of our club, I don't think in that situation again I would make a different decision other than to go at the ball and at that contest at 100% and make a play at the ball.
Pearce: It's possible I could have just not gone for that contest, but given the context ... being a captain of our club who has an obligation to set the standard ... to give 100% at all contests. If you can make a play on the ball and imapct a contest, you do that.
Pearce admits at the "last split second" he braced for impact.
From the Greene-Boyd case last year: "If a player has ceased to attempt to mark prior to impact, and is bracing for impact in circumstances such as this, that player is not contesting the ball."
The AFL suggests Pearce could've slowed his momentum much earlier.
Pearce: "My role as a defender in that situation isn't to let the opponent mark the ball."
Pearce: When it was clear at the very last split second I wasn't going to mark the ball, I made an action to limit the contact as much as possible.
The AFL suggests Pearce could've elected to not leave the ground.
Pearce: My frame of mind in that situation was to take the ball on my chest and get to the ball at the highest point.
AFL: Do you accept you should've been aware much earlier of Byrne-Jones?
Pearce: No, I don't.
Pearce: It would not sit well with me if I was to pull out of that contest and not impact it. The way that would look and the way my teammates would see it and to be honest the way the broader football public would view me as a footballer.
Sally Flynn (AFL): Pearce has engaged in conduct which it was reasonably forseeable doing so would result in committing a reportable offence. [Bullshit sally]
Flynn (AFL): The AFL aruges it was inevitable Pearce was going to be second to that contest.
Flynn (AFL): A reasonable player would've attempted to slow his momentum and do so much earlier.
Dockers: Both players attempted to gain possession, both players each ran into space, both players have run at pace and both players had fully and equally committed to gaining possession of the football.
Dockers: At no point in time did Pearce ever deviate from his line.
Dockers: You could literally get a ruler out and rule a line to show Pearce has at all times made a line without deviation for the football.
Dockers: The real blow here for Byrne-Jones, sadly, is when his head hits the ground.
Dockers: You need to prove or demonstrate that there was a practical response to the risk ... there was simply no practical response to the risk other than what Pearce did.
Flynn (AFL): Wihtout trying to get too legalistic in this sports tribunal, it really comes down to what's known as the eggshell skull rule. That is, you take your victim as you find them.
wtf is an eggshell skull
The Tribunal is now deliberating. -36 minutes ago which is 7.26pm AEST when they went to deliberate.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
Yeah, cool, cool. Super consistent. Lovely.
Can we get Freo's lawyers on our books?
Can we get Freo's lawyers on our books?
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Three weeks to none seems pretty dumb lol
Waspy79
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 14, 2008
- 12,819
- 14,247
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sack Koch
0 games is the right outcome for Pearce. He had no reasonable alternative and did something anyone in the same position would be expected to do. This was not a careless act but an unfortunate one.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #3,788
Excellent result for footy. I was at the game I was sitting on that side of the ground on level 5 and saw the collision clearly and I didn't think Pearce could do much more to not clean up DBJ and he had no realistic alternative.
You have a duty of care to yourself as much as someone else and a player running back with the flight of the ball has no more right to get to the ball than the player running straight at the ball.
Wish our players and lawyers were as definitive about their evidence as Pearce and the Freo lawyers were.
Reasons:
This charge of rough conduct arises in the context of a marking contest.
Alex Pearce has been charged with rough conduct as a result of a collateral with Darcy Byrne-Jones at Port Adelaide.
The circumstances were as follows.
Byrne-Jones was loose on the forward flank and leading towards the boundary.
It was raining at the time, and the kick was misdirected.
Byrne-Jones had to change course and head back inwards and towards the goal with the flight of the ball.
Pearce, whose evidence was given thoughtfully and with an obvious endeavour to answer truthfully, said that he was aware that Byrne-Jones was loose, and that when he saw the kick, he thought he was a reasonable chance to mark the ball. He headed off at full pace.
Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time.
That last point is critical.
Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.
He had his arms out to attempt to take a chest mark, and if not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, would likely have taken the mark.
Pearce said that he didn't deviate from his line to the ball and the vision supports that evidence.
Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence.
Pearce said that he dropped his arms further at the last moment so as to attempt to minimise the harm to Byrne-Jones. The vision supports that evidence.
It follows that we do not find that this was rough conduct.
It’s important to highlight two matters.
First, the AFL quite properly conceded that if, contrary to their submissions, Pearce had a realistic chance of marking the ball until the last moment, this was not rough conduct.
This concession was made in circumstances where it was not suggested that Pearce’s method of attempting the mark was itself inherently dangerous, and where it was not suggested that Pearce’s eyes had left the ball until the last split second.
Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct. [Bullshit Mr Gleeson KC]
Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.
If a collision results in a concussion to a player, but that collision was not caused or contributed to by a failure by the reported player to take reasonable care, there is no reportable offense
Here, from numerous angles, it appeared that this incident might have involved a bump that constituted rough conduct.
However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:
A) he intended to mark the ball.
B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball
C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late
D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player
E) This was not in fact a bump
The AFL properly and expressly stated that it did not rely on the rough conduct high bump provision, but only the rough conduct general provision.
Evidence showed that what Pearce did was not to bump Byrne-Jones, rather, to move in a way to attempt not to bump him.
The charge is dismissed.
You have a duty of care to yourself as much as someone else and a player running back with the flight of the ball has no more right to get to the ball than the player running straight at the ball.
Wish our players and lawyers were as definitive about their evidence as Pearce and the Freo lawyers were.
Reasons:
This charge of rough conduct arises in the context of a marking contest.
Alex Pearce has been charged with rough conduct as a result of a collateral with Darcy Byrne-Jones at Port Adelaide.
The circumstances were as follows.
Byrne-Jones was loose on the forward flank and leading towards the boundary.
It was raining at the time, and the kick was misdirected.
Byrne-Jones had to change course and head back inwards and towards the goal with the flight of the ball.
Pearce, whose evidence was given thoughtfully and with an obvious endeavour to answer truthfully, said that he was aware that Byrne-Jones was loose, and that when he saw the kick, he thought he was a reasonable chance to mark the ball. He headed off at full pace.
Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time.
That last point is critical.
Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.
He had his arms out to attempt to take a chest mark, and if not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, would likely have taken the mark.
Pearce said that he didn't deviate from his line to the ball and the vision supports that evidence.
Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence.
Pearce said that he dropped his arms further at the last moment so as to attempt to minimise the harm to Byrne-Jones. The vision supports that evidence.
It follows that we do not find that this was rough conduct.
It’s important to highlight two matters.
First, the AFL quite properly conceded that if, contrary to their submissions, Pearce had a realistic chance of marking the ball until the last moment, this was not rough conduct.
This concession was made in circumstances where it was not suggested that Pearce’s method of attempting the mark was itself inherently dangerous, and where it was not suggested that Pearce’s eyes had left the ball until the last split second.
Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct. [Bullshit Mr Gleeson KC]
Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.
If a collision results in a concussion to a player, but that collision was not caused or contributed to by a failure by the reported player to take reasonable care, there is no reportable offense
Here, from numerous angles, it appeared that this incident might have involved a bump that constituted rough conduct.
However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:
A) he intended to mark the ball.
B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball
C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late
D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player
E) This was not in fact a bump
The AFL properly and expressly stated that it did not rely on the rough conduct high bump provision, but only the rough conduct general provision.
Evidence showed that what Pearce did was not to bump Byrne-Jones, rather, to move in a way to attempt not to bump him.
The charge is dismissed.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 34,579
- 118,409
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Pearce got off for the incident that concussed DBJ. I'm pretty surprised, this looked like the kind of hit you'd only see a Vic club player get off of with a GF spot potentially on the line.
I don't begrudge Pearce getting off, I think he's a fair and respectable player, but he's gotta show more of a duty of care there. We lose a player for almost 2 full games because he was reckless into the contest.
The appeal adjudication sounds like they were able to prove that Pearce effectively didn't know DBJ was there, which is poppycock, a long term AFL player can reasonably expected to have peripheral vision, surely.
I don't begrudge Pearce getting off, I think he's a fair and respectable player, but he's gotta show more of a duty of care there. We lose a player for almost 2 full games because he was reckless into the contest.
The appeal adjudication sounds like they were able to prove that Pearce effectively didn't know DBJ was there, which is poppycock, a long term AFL player can reasonably expected to have peripheral vision, surely.
- Mar 26, 2007
- 23,295
- 50,482
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- SA Spurs, Anaheim Ducks, White Sox
SPP was running into a contest to tackle a player, in the last microsecond, the player was spun and head thrown into him. Copped 4.
Pearce forgets the ball a second or so before, braces and just takes the player out, in a collision coming for a little while.
I dont understand how in the world one got off and one got 4, when it should've been the other way around. Its such a ridiculous lottery. All based on whether the media runs a smear campaign or a passionate defence. We're always on the case of the former.
Pearce forgets the ball a second or so before, braces and just takes the player out, in a collision coming for a little while.
I dont understand how in the world one got off and one got 4, when it should've been the other way around. Its such a ridiculous lottery. All based on whether the media runs a smear campaign or a passionate defence. We're always on the case of the former.
Waspy79
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 14, 2008
- 12,819
- 14,247
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sack Koch
The Houston ban was also Port tax. Deserved 3 not 5. I think zero for Pearce is right though. Pepper was stiff but it was a far more obvious decision to bump than Pearce who was clearly playing the ball.
I'm astonished. I don't see much difference between this and the SPP incident from early last year. One was in a marking contest, the other a would-be tackle that turned bump. I thought 3 weeks was right.
Waspy79
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 14, 2008
- 12,819
- 14,247
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sack Koch
You have demonstrated far better judgement than that over the years PJ.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
GremioPower
Sack Richo/Cardone/Koch
- May 26, 2017
- 24,530
- 50,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
This to me is the key. I thought he was late.
GremioPower
Sack Richo/Cardone/Koch
- May 26, 2017
- 24,530
- 50,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
Yep. It does look like this is the main reason.
GremioPower
Sack Richo/Cardone/Koch
- May 26, 2017
- 24,530
- 50,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
If it wasn’t right, at least, it was fair.
GremioPower
Sack Richo/Cardone/Koch
- May 26, 2017
- 24,530
- 50,474
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
RussellEbertHandball , 1954, Ford Fairlane , et al., when the older folks here talk about our SANFL days, I have the impression that there was also a “Port tax” or something like that.
Was it so? Or was the SANFL fairer than the AFL?
Was it so? Or was the SANFL fairer than the AFL?
