Past #10: Ben Cunnington - will retire from the AFL after * game - 238 games/95+ goals/2x Syd Barker Medalist/Shinboner - thanks for everything Cunners

[scottywiper]

It was an accident, thats all.

If it wasnt, there would have been an all in brawl, as every Hawk player on the ground would be coming at Cunners to have a go at him for hitting their teammate.

But the Hawks didnt have a problem with it....fans at the ground didnt have a problem it....there were no comments about Cunnington's "low act" in the media or twitter....

But guest what.... the MRP didnt like it and thought it deserved media attention and punished Cunnington for a week.

Where is the common sense ? We want kids to be playing the game. And yet we give media attention to incidents that were nothing more than a split second accident and you punish the player, so it gives the perception the AFL has malicious and spiteful acts.

What are the parents going to think ? No wonder so many kids these days are playing basketball and soccer !!!

IMO that is the litmus test, would there have been a reaction if the MRP didn't cite him? Clearly not, there wouldn't have a been a single negative opinion about it being overlooked in the football industry. That tells me all I need to know about whether it should have been cited.
The MRP should be there to pick up nasty incidents that need to be acted on. Not to go through footage with a fine tooth comb to find incidental contact which they can hang a trumped-up charge on (only on low-profile players tho, the game would suffer if the stars aren't playing). Who wants that?
They then frame the charge so you can't appeal...and you get extra punishment if you do. Surprise, surprise, no one challenges their decisions.
Then they can turn around and say they were correct in their charge, as the player accepted it!!!
What a rort.
It's a joke from start to finish. Gobble, gobble, gobble.

 

[muttley45]

I didn't like the way it was reported in today's Hun that Cunners pleaded guilty, accepted the outcome yes, but pleaded guilty, i dont think so.

 

[Only Forwards]

And showing that we are not just copping every crap coming our way...

This is an almost complete misnomer.

people on here make it sound like we have never challenged at all.

We challenge frequently.

Last year the only suspension we copped we challenged.
2014 we challenged for Boomer twice
2012 we challenged on Boomer, Jack and Lindsay

But nah we just roll over and take it.

http://www.nmfc.com.au/club/history/tribunal-history

This is not specific to you J4K, but the idea we just lie down is frogshit of the highest order.

 

[Just4Kicks]

I wouldn't have appealed but I sure as $hit would have had anyone involved at North doing an interview bringing it up.

See, don't think the club would do that unfortunately...

 

[Just4Kicks]

This is an almost complete misnomer.

people on here make it sound like we have never challenged at all.

We challenge frequently.

Last year the only suspension we copped we challenged.
2014 we challenged for Boomer twice
2012 we challenged on Boomer, Jack and Lindsay

But nah we just roll over and take it.

http://www.nmfc.com.au/club/history/tribunal-history

This is not specific to you J4K, but the idea we just lie down is frogshit of the highest order.

To be honest, I can't recall the 2012 (Jack was trying to spoil?) incidents at the moment or any specific suspensions where we should have challenged. But, the perception that we do not challenge enough must be coming from somewhere. I'm not the only one feeling that way and if it wouldn't have been for playing in finals, I don't think the club would have challenged the Boomer suspensions in 2014. But maybe I have a too pessimistic view on this.

 

[Only Forwards]

To be honest, I can't recall the 2012 (Jack was trying to spoil?) incidents at the moment or any specific suspensions where we should have challenged. But, the perception that we do not challenge enough must be coming from somewhere. I'm not the only one feeling that way and if it wouldn't have been for playing in finals, I don't think the club would have challenged the Boomer suspensions in 2014. But maybe I have a too pessimistic view on this.

The club challenge when they feel there is a realistic shot at getting off.

Boomer in 2012 there was no direct video of him striking Kerr, so we challenged. there was 2 weeks additional for doing so, but we were out of finals so we could have just copped it.

in terms of where it is coming from, its because the mechanism to challenge is there.

If we challenge and lose these same people would say we argued the point wrong or were stupid for trying to get off to begin with.

Here's the point though, people who make broad sweeping statements to the effect of " us just copping every crap coming our way" are not looking at data. They are taking their feeling of injustice at a flawed system and venting it at the club, the club who have looked at the data, they know the data, they make informed decisions based upon facts with guidance from legal council.

 

[Tas]

Can you lose a brownlow for a pre-season suspension? :stern look

 

[Only Forwards]

Can you lose a brownlow for a pre-season suspension? :stern look

Ineligibility[edit]
The fairest component of the medal is achieved by making ineligible any player who is suspended by the AFL Tribunal during the home-and-away season. An ineligible player cannot win, place or be classified in the final Brownlow Medal rankings, regardless of the number of votes he has received.

A player remains eligible for the Brownlow Medal under the following circumstances:

• if he is suspended during the finals or pre-season;
• if he serves a suspension in the current season which was earned for an offence committed late in the previous season;
• he receives any sort of club-imposed suspension which is not recognised by the AFL Tribunal;
• if he is found guilty by the AFL Tribunal of an offence which attracts only a financial penalty.

The application of the ineligibility criteria has remained fairly consistent throughout the history of the award, with some subtle changes. For example, from 2005 until 2014, whether or not a player was ineligible was based on the penalty determined by the Tribunal's Match Review Panel before applying adjustments based on a player's good or bad record, or for accepting an early guilty plea or a player's existing good record – meaning that a player could be ineligible based on an infringement which was worthy of a one-game suspension, but still avoid suspension by taking an early guilty plea on the charge. Since 2015, the criteria has been solely based upon whether or not the player is suspended during the season

 

[Johnny99]

IMO that is the litmus test, would there have been a reaction if the MRP didn't cite him? Clearly not, there wouldn't have a been a single negative opinion about it being overlooked in the football industry. That tells me all I need to know about whether it should have been cited.
The MRP should be there to pick up nasty incidents that need to be acted on. Not to go through footage with a fine tooth comb to find incidental contact which they can hang a trumped-up charge on (only on low-profile players tho, the game would suffer if the stars aren't playing). Who wants that?
They then frame the charge so you can't appeal...and you get extra punishment if you do. Surprise, surprise, no one challenges their decisions.
Then they can turn around and say they were correct in their charge, as the player accepted it!!!
What a rort.
It's a joke from start to finish. Gobble, gobble, gobble.

Spot on.

MRP has a role to play....

To pick up the NASTY incidents that on occasion, come up during a game.

But they have now evolved into, lets pick up every single issue that causes harm, be it malicious or not....

If there was a punch thrown, I could understand. But when a player is going for the ball and his leg hits another and causes harm, I cant call that malicious or nasty.

Its just part of the game. It can happen and thats the risk you take playing the game. Its one of the reasons you are getting paid $300K plus pa, because there is a risk you may get hurt....

 

[Hearts to hearts]

To be honest, I can't recall the 2012 (Jack was trying to spoil?) incidents at the moment or any specific suspensions where we should have challenged. But, the perception that we do not challenge enough must be coming from somewhere. I'm not the only one feeling that way and if it wouldn't have been for playing in finals, I don't think the club would have challenged the Boomer suspensions in 2014. But maybe I have a too pessimistic view on this.

The perception comes from people repeating things in outraged tones based on no evidence whatever.

 

[Just4Kicks]

The perception comes from people repeating things in outraged tones based on no evidence whatever.

That's a little harsh - because nobody said anything based on their gut-feel instead of well researched evidence on bigfooty ever... Anyway, I can't be arsed looking for evidence to argue my point so you win. Happy?

 

[Just4Kicks]

The club challenge when they feel there is a realistic shot at getting off.

Boomer in 2012 there was no direct video of him striking Kerr, so we challenged. there was 2 weeks additional for doing so, but we were out of finals so we could have just copped it.

in terms of where it is coming from, its because the mechanism to challenge is there.

If we challenge and lose these same people would say we argued the point wrong or were stupid for trying to get off to begin with.

Here's the point though, people who make broad sweeping statements to the effect of " us just copping every crap coming our way" are not looking at data. They are taking their feeling of injustice at a flawed system and venting it at the club, the club who have looked at the data, they know the data, they make informed decisions based upon facts with guidance from legal council.

I was talking about external perception with that statement, not by the fans. It is not just about when we challenge, also about how we react if we don't. I like data by the way, I work with it every day. But thanks for the pep talk. I see myself out.

 

[Roozee]

IMO that is the litmus test, would there have been a reaction if the MRP didn't cite him? Clearly not, there wouldn't have a been a single negative opinion about it being overlooked in the football industry. That tells me all I need to know about whether it should have been cited.
The MRP should be there to pick up nasty incidents that need to be acted on. Not to go through footage with a fine tooth comb to find incidental contact which they can hang a trumped-up charge on (only on low-profile players tho, the game would suffer if the stars aren't playing). Who wants that?
They then frame the charge so you can't appeal...and you get extra punishment if you do. Surprise, surprise, no one challenges their decisions.
Then they can turn around and say they were correct in their charge, as the player accepted it!!!
What a rort.
It's a joke from start to finish. Gobble, gobble, gobble.

 

[naturally north]

s**t a week for kneeing T. "runny" Duryea.

Really just wanted to use runny.

 

[Only Forwards]

I was talking about external perception with that statement, not by the fans. It is not just about when we challenge, also about how we react if we don't. I like data by the way, I work with it every day. But thanks for the pep talk. I see myself out.

External perception from who? Other clubs? The media?

Other clubs have no real grounds to point fingers. Most of them follow a bloody similar process to what we do. Besides not challenging isn't what rolling over and taking it looks like.

Rolling over and taking it is when the AFL appoint admin staff because your staff are inept. Having the AFL appoint a coach because the club lack the ability to choose a good one. Melbourne, Melbourne are a club that had to roll over and take it.

As for the media, these bunch of mouth breathing hypocrites are definitely not who we should pander to.

As far as I can see the vast majority have been pretty f***ing disrespectful of where we are at.

 

[scottywiper]

It seems a tad incongruous that a suspension incurred in pre season must be served in the regular season. But does not affect the Brownlow.

 

[Turkey Tom]

You dare to touch a Hawthorn player you have to take the consequences!

Seriously, what a joke. What was Cunnington suppose to do, jump over him instead of making an attempt on the ball?

 

[Zondor]

I'm still outraged. :angry head

 

[Just4Kicks]

External perception from who? Other clubs? The media?

Other clubs have no real grounds to point fingers. Most of them follow a bloody similar process to what we do. Besides not challenging isn't what rolling over and taking it looks like.

Rolling over and taking it is when the AFL appoint admin staff because your staff are inept. Having the AFL appoint a coach because the club lack the ability to choose a good one. Melbourne, Melbourne are a club that had to roll over and take it.

As for the media, these bunch of mouth breathing hypocrites are definitely not who we should pander to.

As far as I can see the vast majority have been pretty f***ing disrespectful of where we are at.

Jeez... I thought I made myself clear that I'm done arguing my point and do not want a s**t fight - but apparently not. Did I take a wrong turn and end up on the main board?

Anyway, if you really want to know, external perception by the MRP in this case. The basic idea is that if we would make enough fuss, which might not always mean challenging by the way, they might think twice before suspending our players. Seems to work for other clubs.

Again, this is not based on evidence WHATSOEVER, which might be a little hard to obtain by the way, just a gut-feel. Which could be wrong.

If you are aiming to prove that this idea is wrong and want to change the perception of some supporters that we do not do enough to fight against unfair decisions, knock yourself out. As I said before, I'm done.

 

[Donkey Chop]

We're really going to miss him against the eagles. They've got one of the best midfields in the comp.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Jeez... I thought I made myself clear that I'm done arguing my point and do not want a s**t fight - but apparently not. Did I take a wrong turn and end up on the main board?

Anyway, if you really want to know, external perception by the MRP in this case. The basic idea is that if we would make enough fuss, which might not always mean challenging by the way, they might think twice before suspending our players. Seems to work for other clubs.

Again, this is not based on evidence WHATSOEVER, which might be a little hard to obtain by the way, just a gut-feel. Which could be wrong.

If you are aiming to prove that this idea is wrong and want to change the perception of some supporters that we do not do enough to fight against unfair decisions, knock yourself out. As I said before, I'm done.

Pretty sure exactly what you asked for actually happened - a post presented the evidence that North's MRP record isn't especially craven. Also maybe the media fuss is exactly the "don't challenge but don't take it lying down" you suggested.

 

[Donkey Chop]

The thing is, it doesn't matter if Cunnington meant to make contact with his head. Cunnington (or anyone) has a responsibility to not make contact with a players head, especially when the player has his head over the ball.

That's the rules. Cunnington should have been more careful. It was an accident but players need to realise they can't make contact with a players head.

It's kind of like how you can't just run into, push or fall onto a players back. Except of course there's only a free kick at risk and not a suspension.

 

[blackshadow]

There needs to be an avenue for incidents like these to allow some discretion outside the cookie cutter the MRP uses. Perhaps an option to seek leave to appeal to the tribunal when the incident clearly involves no malicious intent. In this instance I think the way cunners pulls up shows he is trying to avoid illegal contact but the MRP matrix doesn't consider that.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[GarnerSmash]

The thing is, it doesn't matter if Cunnington meant to make contact with his head. Cunnington (or anyone) has a responsibility to not make contact with a players head, especially when the player has his head over the ball.

That's the rules. Cunnington should have been more careful. It was an accident but players need to realise they can't make contact with a players head.

It's kind of like how you can't just run into, push or fall onto a players back. Except of course there's only a free kick at risk and not a suspension.

That’s all well and good but it assumes that a player can anticipate the actions of other players before they happen and enter into a contest accordingly.

Duty of care assumes an understanding of responsibility in a controlled environment. A footy field is not a controlled environment, so the onus must then come back to the player to act in a reasonable manner in a given situation given the dynamic nature of the arena.

To a rational person I assume that reasonable = not flailing about like a dick, not diving in recklessly, not intentionally lifting an arm or knee or foot or whatever to make contact with the head or other area of an opponent.

To the MRP reasonable appears to be a destination arrived at via a reverse process where they start at the effect of the impact and work backwards from there. For example: Was there blood? Yes. Was it from the noggin? Yes. Was this caused by contact from another player? Yes. Could this impact have reasonably been prevented by the other player (when looking at the replay in ******* slow motion)? Yes. Suspension.

But footy takes place, like everything else in our known universe, in normal, forward moving time, so to apply a framework that looks at outcome first is simply mind bogglingly arse about. What it does is it tells players that there are no room for accidents and I think that is just bullshit. s**t happens on a footy field even when people act reasonably and safely.

A scenario:

Player A and player B going in for a ball side by side. The ball bounces to player B’s advantage, but means that to bend down to pick it up he must also slightly change direction by planting his leg and pushing off at an angle of 45 degrees to the contest. This happens whilst player A is enacting his decision, made in advance of player B planting his foot, to dive on the ball. Unfortunately in the time it has taken player A to dive the leg of player B is now directly beneath his dive and as a consequence he goes across a knee in a planted leg and destroys the ACL and PCL.

This is just s**t luck, but according to the MRP, based on the Cunnington decision, player B must now be suspended. Neither player intended to hurt the other, both ‘victims’ have contributed to the injury due to their actions and these incidents took place in the blink of an eye in contested situations. The determinations of ‘duty of care’ and ‘responsibility’ in these situations is remarkably unclear in the real world, whereas with the MRP these seems to lie clearly with the person who is not injured, which is patently unfair.



In short, the system in place is utter bollox and needs to be changed.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Just to take this thread on a tangent, I'd be willing to bet that Dec Mountford is secretly happy with the MRP outcome.