MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Passmore]

Pretty much everyone except the club said it would get thrown out and we didn't want to challenge the decision because of little to no hope of getting it over turned.
If we had a decent lawyer who we backed in then I'm sure we'd get a result.
Yeh taking one is better than two but that seems to be instilled off our past lessons of challenging and losing not on each cases merit.

By everyone I assume you mean media types who will shrug it off and move on to the next topic when the appeal gets thrown out.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Pretty much everyone except the club said it would get thrown out and we didn't want to challenge the decision because of little to no hope of getting it over turned.
If we had a decent lawyer who we backed in then I'm sure we'd get a result.
Yeh taking one is better than two but that seems to be instilled off our past lessons of challenging and losing not on each cases merit.

You're a lawyer, then? So, qualified to criticise the professional legal advice that the club took?

Lots of people teeing off here in ignorance of the facts. Look at the grading table and you'll note they assessed it as careless, the lower of the two Conduct categories and medium force, the 2nd lowest of the 4 impact categories. Given it was high (no one is disputing that) it must fall into the two down to one sanction - there is no wriggle room there.

Given there is no lower Conduct category to argue, and the fact that 'one match down to a fine' is not included as an option, once the MRP made the ruling, we could only appeal on the basis of it being low impact. Personally, I think it was but almost impossible to prove as it was borderline. The blood didn't help.

The whole system is fundamentally flawed, since an accident on the football field shouldn't lead to officialdom questioning the "Conduct" of a player when there is an unfortunate outcome. It shouldn't come to that because the onus of being Careful only applies in limited circumstances, i.e. you can be seriously careless sometimes (Cyril's swinging boot while marking?) but if you are lucky enough to avoid injuring someone, it doesn't fall within the MRP framework.

I agree that as a general rule, we should challenge MRP s**t when the chances of success are high. Under the current ridiculous system, the odds of success were low, so we have had to grit our teeth and cop it. Like many other clubs have in the past couple of years.

 

[Mav]

You're a lawyer, then? So, qualified to criticise the professional legal advice that the club took?

Lots of people teeing off here in ignorance of the facts. Look at the grading table and you'll note they assessed it as careless, the lower of the two Conduct categories and medium force, the 2nd lowest of the 4 impact categories. Given it was high (no one is disputing that) it must fall into the two down to one sanction - there is no wriggle room there.

Given there is no lower Conduct category to argue, and the fact that 'one match down to a fine' is not included as an option, once the MRP made the ruling, we could only appeal on the basis of it being low impact. Personally, I think it was but almost impossible to prove as it was borderline. The blood didn't help.

The whole system is fundamentally flawed, since an accident on the football field shouldn't lead to officialdom questioning the "Conduct" of a player when there is an unfortunate outcome. It shouldn't come to that because the onus of being Careful only applies in limited circumstances, i.e. you can be seriously careless sometimes (Cyril's swinging boot while marking?) but if you are lucky enough to avoid injuring someone, it doesn't fall within the MRP framework.

I agree that as a general rule, we should challenge MRP s**t when the chances of success are high. Under the current ridiculous system, the odds of success were low, so we have had to grit our teeth and cop it. Like many other clubs have in the past couple of years.

Why cant the conduct be downgraded from "careless" to "Reasonable"? The charge is based on the decision to grade the conduct as unreasonable and this is what should be argued. We should be making the AFL define what conduct is reasonable. Is any conduct resulting in injury unreasonable? How can it be determined that when you run to a contest, and stop before reaching that contest, only to have a player lunge at you at the last millisecond deemed unreasonable conduct? What exactly would have been reasonable conduct in that situation? To stop a metre from the contest and say. "go ahead fine sir, take your time to get to your feet and collect the ball, I wouldn't want to accidentally hurt you now"?

There's too many bloody questions and the AFL should be made to answer them.

 

[Le Grille]

Incidental would be an appropriate grading if it existed.

 

[Saintly35]

Would have been ridiculous to challenge.

Only meant an extra week for Cunners.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Why cant the conduct be downgraded from "careless" to "Reasonable"? The charge is based on the decision to grade the conduct as unreasonable and this is what should be argued. We should be making the AFL define what conduct is reasonable. Is any conduct resulting in injury unreasonable? How can it be determined that when you run to a contest, and stop before reaching that contest, only to have a player lunge at you at the last millisecond deemed unreasonable conduct? What exactly would have been reasonable conduct in that situation? To stop a metre from the contest and say. "go ahead fine sir, take your time to get to your feet and collect the ball, I wouldn't want to accidentally hurt you now"?

There's too many bloody questions and the AFL should be made to answer them.

I agree with the sentiment, but in essence that is the first decision the MRP makes. Whilst the majority of us think it was Reasonable (though some have suggested the MRP was correct with Careless), once the MRP review an incident and decide it is Careless, then the process has to be followed. The inconsistency arises because you only get done for Careless if the other player is hurt.

The AFL has ham-fistedly placed an onus on players that is completely and utterly inappropriate given the nature of the game. Of course I'm f***ing careless of my opponent if I'm trying to get the ball from him, I don't give a f*** if it hurts him (or me, by the way) I just want the ball. Any player without this attitude doesn't get a game. So, on that basis, there are probably 100 incidents a game where you can say a player was careless, because that's the way the game is played and has been for more than a century. The bullshit system only kicks in where someone is hurt and even then, only in limited circumstances - as pointed out, you can knee someone in the back of the head but it's OK if you take or attempt a mark (this is as it should be). Unfortunately under the farcically stupid system we have in place, technically Ben was careless as he ran in to get the ball and his knee struck a player in the head. Everyone knows it was an accident, but stupidity has won the day. Not an uncommon outcome for the AFL commission.

 

[muttley45]

I'm sure i have said it before, but why did we not challenge the "engaged in rough conduct" aspect of the charge, and argued it was incidental, and unavoidable contact (with the end result of drawing blood) as 2 players contested a loose ball, wont be the last time a bit claret is spilt as a result of similar circumstances, however, a standard 2 weeks down to one penalty for every such occurrence is highly unlikely.

 

[Mav]

I'm sure i have said it before, but why did we not challenge the "engaged in rough conduct" aspect of the charge, and argued it was incidental, and unavoidable contact (with the end result of drawing blood) as 2 players contested a loose ball, wont be the last time a bit claret is spilt as a result of similar circumstances, however, a standard 2 weeks down to one penalty for every such occurrence is highly unlikely.

When there is accidental head clashes no one is sited. Why not? Surely they should both be sited as they are both careless.

 

[Only Forwards]

When there is accidental head clashes no one is sited. Why not? Surely they should both be sited as they are both careless.

Surely you recall that Lindsay did change the rules around being cited for accidental head clashes when he bumped Reid.

 

[shintemaster]

When there is accidental head clashes no one is sited. Why not? Surely they should both be sited as they are both careless.

If you're a smart player and you run into another player (accidentally or not) it would most definitely be in your best interests to spend a minute or looking like it hurt like hell - particularly if the other player is doing so. Don't want to be the guy hurt less in one of these incidents or you will be left without a chair when the music stops.

 

[Mav]

Surely you recall that Lindsay did change the rules around being cited for accidental head clashes when he bumped Reid.

nope. I only remember the 7 goals against Carlton.

Anyway, I'm not talking about accidental, I'm talking about careless

 

[Only Forwards]

nope. I only remember the 7 goals against Carlton.

Anyway, I'm not talking about accidental, I'm talking about careless

that was the whole debate.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clubs-split-on-review-of-bump-rules-20130516-2jpd6.html

 

[Mav]

that was the whole debate.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clubs-split-on-review-of-bump-rules-20130516-2jpd6.html

i'm not talking about a bump, I'm talking about when the ball is in dispute, or someone blind turns or two guys just get their hugs all f***ed-up.

 

[Arthur Cloke]

If I wasn't' Catholic, which I'm not, I would guess that one of the Ten Commando's should be:
MRP=Circus.

 

[tazaa]

By everyone I assume you mean media types who will shrug it off and move on to the next topic when the appeal gets thrown out.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

To discredit the influence the media has on Tribunal decisions would be naive. Of course backlash is taken into account. We just didnt want to kick up a fuss and cost Ben an extra week.

 

[tazaa]

You're a lawyer, then? So, qualified to criticise the professional legal advice that the club took?

Lots of people teeing off here in ignorance of the facts. Look at the grading table and you'll note they assessed it as careless, the lower of the two Conduct categories and medium force, the 2nd lowest of the 4 impact categories. Given it was high (no one is disputing that) it must fall into the two down to one sanction - there is no wriggle room there.

Given there is no lower Conduct category to argue, and the fact that 'one match down to a fine' is not included as an option, once the MRP made the ruling, we could only appeal on the basis of it being low impact. Personally, I think it was but almost impossible to prove as it was borderline. The blood didn't help.

The whole system is fundamentally flawed, since an accident on the football field shouldn't lead to officialdom questioning the "Conduct" of a player when there is an unfortunate outcome. It shouldn't come to that because the onus of being Careful only applies in limited circumstances, i.e. you can be seriously careless sometimes (Cyril's swinging boot while marking?) but if you are lucky enough to avoid injuring someone, it doesn't fall within the MRP framework.

I agree that as a general rule, we should challenge MRP s**t when the chances of success are high. Under the current ridiculous system, the odds of success were low, so we have had to grit our teeth and cop it. Like many other clubs have in the past couple of years.

Should have used Dumonts and Majaks lawyer. He cant lose.

 

[Passmore]

To discredit the influence the media has on Tribunal decisions would be naive. Of course backlash is taken into account. We just didnt want to kick up a fuss and cost Ben an extra week.

You can kick up all the fuss you want, unless you can present valid evidence you're just going to cost one if your best players an extra week.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Incidental would be an appropriate grading if it existed.

It does exist. But only when the charge is thrown out.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Arden]

It even needed to be looked at?

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

It even needed to be looked at?

Considering they looked at the Cunnington one, I'm not surprised.

 

[giantroo]

 

[GeordieRoo]

And both the GWS players fine for Rd 1.