MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[dwog25]

Well unless we want to throw away legal fees I'm not sure what the point of challenging would be.

You never know though...yes our attempts at challenging have been short of pathetic. There are always technicalities around these incidients regardless. Im no lawyer but surely these decisions aint as clear cut and can be downgraded.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[Val Keating]

It's impossible to win.

Nothing is impossible.

This will happen again this year and I bet a club will challenge. Then we’ll find out

 

[Val Keating]

It doesn't gel with the corporate risk aversion approach that the club has embraced.

******* cowards of the highest order. What this says, is that the club will throw anyone under the bus in order to not upset their AFL overlords.

It doesn’t send a great message that’s for sure. Players are even challenging fines these days.

 

[Tectonic]

Good guy Durds saving the 10k challenge fee to go into the Scott payout kitty

 

[Thndr]

My dear old dad would be turning in his grave ...... what have they done to our beloved game.

 

[Mav]

Nothing is impossible.

This will happen again this year and I bet a club will challenge. Then we’ll find out

I'll take the bet.

 

[fusion]

I am offically done with the AFL. If Fyfe and Ablett are deemed to be not guilty for deliberate thug acts, and Durdin is guilty of playing for a small club then the AFL can go away.

I will watch North games with interest, but my passion for the game is gone.

Oh, and if the club accept this decision and do not appeal, and through the courts if required, they can go away too.

edited by BF should say G.A.G.F

I feel the same. Losing my passion for the game. I dont bother to watch any neutral games anymore, including the grand final. If North relocated ceased to exist I'd find something better to do my time. So many stupid new rules and reactive rule changes.

 

[Grogg]

My dear old dad would be turning in his grave ...... what have they done to our beloved game.

Zero integrity in this league.

Zero.

Im not that stupid to keep handing over hard earned for this rubbish anymore.

 

[Jasemon]

Surely we challenge. Surely. Durdin did not bump. He was looking to shepherd his opponent to protect his team mate. An accidental head clash ensues.
Clear as day. So angry with this.

Club needs to back its players.

 

[Tectonic]

Surely we challenge. Surely. Durdin did not bump. He was looking to shepherd his opponent to protect his team mate. An accidental head clash ensues.
Clear as day. So angry with this.

Club needs to back its players.

Eh, they also need to pick their battles.
The rule sucks but it's there, don't think there's any getting away with this one in a challenge. Push for a rule change instead.

There's also the fact we challenged Luke's suspension and failed. If we fail a few challenges rightly or wrongly we get a reputation and less inclination for the adjudicators to be impartial.

 

[B4Bear]

Eh, they also need to pick their battles.
The rule sucks but it's there, don't think there's any getting away with this one in a challenge. Push for a rule change instead.

There's also the fact we challenged Luke's suspension and failed. If we fail a few challenges rightly or wrongly we get a reputation and less inclination for the adjudicators to be impartial.

Any other justifications you want to throw out there for the club's lack of a spine?

 

[Val Keating]

I'll take the bet.

Let’s say it’s someone like Cripps, do you think they’d suspend him?

 

[Grogg]

Surely we challenge. Surely. Durdin did not bump. He was looking to shepherd his opponent to protect his team mate. An accidental head clash ensues.
Clear as day. So angry with this.

Club needs to back its players.

There are no grounds for a challenge.

The way the rule has been written ensures that.

It's a loaded deck.

You can't beat that.

Ridiculous and beggars belief, but that is the reality of our "sport".

 

[Mav]

Let’s say it’s someone like Cripps, do you think they’d suspend him?

yep

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

Well I suppose it would have been embarrassing to challenge, potentially win and have Durdin available for selection, only to see our stable genius drop him to the VFL because there are some 30+ year olds available this week.

Still, gutless effort by the club. We really should hand the licence to Tasmania. We don't deserve to be called an AFL club. Or at least our current board, administration, and football department don't deserve it.

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

This will be interesting the first time two players brace for contact against each other and both are hit in the head. Technically they should both be penalised.

One of them goes off with concussion, the other has blood pouring out but is able to resume playing after 20 minutes. He's the one who gets suspended.

 

[Horace]

Well unless we want to throw away legal fees I'm not sure what the point of challenging would be.

There is a thing called principle and the principle here is that an "accidental" contact to the head causing concussion should not be grounds for suspension.

This was an opportunity for the AFL to be challenged on the absurdity of their rules when it comes to "accidental" contact.

Surely there has to be a difference between a "deliberate" action and an "accidental" action.

There are so many instances on a football field where "accidental" contact occurs. Marking contests in particular. In my view there are nowadays far fewer "deliberate" actions taken by players which might lead to injury.

The definition of "accidental" is "happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly".

The definition of "deliberate" is "done consciously and intentionally"

Surely a "deliberate" action, which may foreseeably lead to injury, is a far more serious action than an "accidental" action which cannot foreseeably lead to injury, even though the injury outcome may be worse from the "accidental" action.

Irrespective of what the rules state, being that the outcome, rather than the intent of the action, is far more important in making a judgement as to the penalty, this was an opportunity to force the AFL to rethink their rules.

Instead the football public has been given the message that "deliberate" actions, such as those performed by Ablett and Fyfe, which had and have the potential to cause serious injury are quite okay because no adverse consequences occurred, whereas an action that could not foreseeably have predicted an "accidental" adverse consequence is not okay.

Should all players now conduct a "risk analysis" before they perform any action on the field? It seems like they should to me.

 

[B4Bear]

There is a thing called principle and the principle here is that an "accidental" contact to the head causing concussion should not be grounds for suspension.

This was an opportunity for the AFL to be challenged on the absurdity of their rules when it comes to "accidental" contact.

Surely there has to be a difference between a "deliberate" action and an "accidental" action.

There are so many instances on a football field where "accidental" contact occurs. Marking contests in particular. In my view there are nowadays far fewer "deliberate" actions taken by players which might lead to injury.

The definition of "accidental" is "happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly".

The definition of "deliberate" is "done consciously and intentionally"

Surely a "deliberate" action which may foreseeably lead to injury, is a far more serious action, than an "accidental" action, even though the injury outcome may be worse from the "accidental" action.

Irrespective of what the rules state, being that the outcome, rather than the intent of the action, is far more important in making a judgement as to the penalty, this was an opportunity to force the AFL to rethink their rules.

Instead the football public has been given the message that "deliberate" actions, such as those performed by Ablett and Fyfe, which had and have the potential to cause serious injury are quite okay because no adverse consequences occurred, whereas an action that could not foreseeably have predicted an "accidental" adverse consequences is not okay.

Should all players now conduct a "risk analysis" before they perform any action on the field? It seems like they should to me.

Words of wisdom.

 

[Royal Flush]

Your kidding right ?
The Teflon player's

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[scottywiper]

We heard last year on multiple occasions that the AFL had the power to overrule any manifestly unjust tribunal decisions.
And last week we heard they have a good bloke clause if needed, are we expected to really swallow that this decision cannot possibly be altered???

 

[Val Keating]

yep

You have more faith in them then me

 

[Chadwiko]

North are not contesting.

Have accepted the 1 match ban.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Ablett- Elbows players in head in consecutive weeks. All good.

Fyfe- Elbows player in head. All good.

Hawthorn no name- Elbows player in head earlier in season. Suspended.

Seems all fair and above board.

 

[hcd199]

I'm fine with the club not challenging Durdin's suspension, because the rule leaves no grounds for appeal in this case, and the ridiculous biases of the system (which favour deliberate violence off the play over accidental injury within the context of a contact sport) have been plain enough over the years for us to know that we don't stand a chance. Still, it's a blatant injustice to have the rules be so warped that he gets a week (and, as others have said, probably two by the book) whilst Ablett and Fyfe get off completely - the whole system needs a complete overhaul, so that decisions are actually about what is and isn't reasonable in the course of a game of football, which it clearly isn't at present. If I thought we'd get anywhere with a challenge, I'd want to see us make the case, but the tribunal isn't going to change the rules; that needs to happen higher up.

 

[nicko74]

The game truly is in a sad state of affairs!! And so is our club