MRP / Trib. 2021 MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

Remove this Banner Ad

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
14,749
24,055
AFL Club
Carlton
As soon as he elected to brace for contact his focus switched from the ball to the player, and you can see that in the footage. If he genuinely continued at the ball and there was contact, I'd agree with you, that would definitely be "incidental" contact, but that's not what happened here.

And I'm not sure about "only applies to reportable offences", to hear them talk about it, it seems contact with the head is all that's required.

EDIT. Let me ask you this Stam, if Harbrow had broken Gibbon's jaw, do you think it would have been cited?
No. Harbrow did nothing wrong. He was going at the ball, and he's allowed to protect himself. There wasn't a reasonable option for him to take.
Gibbon was unlucky he got hit in the head, but it's a football incident. If he were seriously injured, he would have been more unlucky.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
14,749
24,055
AFL Club
Carlton
Look at the footage again. Harbrow attacks the ball, hands extended down, ball bounces toward Gibbons, Harbrow turns slightly but his hands are still pointing to the ground, rather than lifting his hands upward at point of contact

Right decision by the umpire and MRP
He also lowers his body towards the lower ball
 

OldBlueFan

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2009
2,528
1,821
AFL Club
Carlton
No. Harbrow did nothing wrong. He was going at the ball, and he's allowed to protect himself. There wasn't a reasonable option for him to take.
Gibbon was unlucky he got hit in the head, but it's a football incident. If he were seriously injured, he would have been more unlucky.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that what Harbrow did was "wrong". I'm just wanting (stupidly I know) a consistent application of the rules.

I think you know as well as I do that if Gibbons had suffered any serious damage (concussion or broken jaw) then Harbow would have been cited.
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
14,749
24,055
AFL Club
Carlton
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that what Harbrow did was "wrong". I'm just wanting (stupidly I know) a consistent application of the rules.

I think you know as well as I do that if Gibbons had suffered any serious damage (concussion or broken jaw) then Harbow would have been cited.
I think we all want consistent application of the rules.
I think if Harbrow was cited due to Gibbo being injured, they would fight it at the tribunal. When players get rubbed out on accidents for being 'careless', they have other choices rather than bumping. I just can't see that Harbrow had any other option.
 

djw1952

Club Legend
Oct 28, 2009
1,455
1,448
mentone
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
liverpool
It only applies to a reportable offence though.
At what point is he not going at the ball? They were both going at the ball, he'a allowed to brace.
bollocks!!!........he chose to bump, not brace himself, as you can see him angle his body to make contact with Gibbo without even looking at the ball. If you look at Harbrow in slow motion (the footage from on the couch shows this.....) you can see his eyes are not looking at the ball, but they certainly are focused on Gibbons. He initiated the contact while Gibbo was looking at the pill on the ground, so Gibbons was wide open and not bracing himself at all!!! His shoulder hits Gibbo in the side of the head, so Harbrow should have got a week for choosing to bump!!!
 

FRUMPY

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2006
23,130
25,472
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
bollocks!!!........he chose to bump, not brace himself, as you can see him angle his body to make contact with Gibbo without even looking at the ball. If you look at Harbrow in slow motion (the footage from on the couch shows this.....) you can see his eyes are not looking at the ball, but they certainly are focused on Gibbons. He initiated the contact while Gibbo was looking at the pill on the ground, so Gibbons was wide open and not bracing himself at all!!! His shoulder hits Gibbo in the side of the head, so Harbrow should have got a week for choosing to bump!!!
FFS, 'if you watch it in slow motion' - watch it in full speed as the gamer is played and as players make decisions - nothing in it.

But, if you watch it in slow motion, which way did the ball bounce? towards gibbons, so harbrow follows the ball and gibbons slows down, hence the differential in bumps (and all this happens at high speed) - nothing in it ffs.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Jul 19, 2005
26,773
15,878
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United
Not Carlton related, but Carlton related.

Ed and Charlie make slight contact with the umpires, they are treated like they had slaughtered a dozen chooks while praying to satan... or santa... I can never remember which, by the media which lead to the AFL appealing the original decision and getting Ed's charge upgraded. They ignored Charlie's contact with the umpire.

Tom Hawkins plead guilty to deliberately touching an umpire. One week ban by the tribunal.

Lachie deliberately makes contact with an umpire to try and blag a free kick because his head accidently got slammed into Eddie's shin during a tackle. Instantly offered a 1500 buck fine.

So, I'm expecting the AFL to come streaming out an appeal the decision and get Neale in front of the tribunal... but they won't because he's from one of their favoured teams and a brownlow medal winner and is going to be out for multiple weeks because of an ankle injury.

If the AFL was actually run by people who actually gave a sh*t about the game, Neale would be banned for a week as well. But Gill the Dill and his a-hole buddy SHocking are not competent and are guided by the gambling organisations they are in bed with.
 

Aphrodite

Moderator
Aug 26, 2004
80,197
125,485
CHANEL BOUTIQUE!
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
"Goddess"
Not Carlton related, but Carlton related.

Ed and Charlie make slight contact with the umpires, they are treated like they had slaughtered a dozen chooks while praying to satan... or santa... I can never remember which, by the media which lead to the AFL appealing the original decision and getting Ed's charge upgraded.They ignored Charlie's contact with the umpire.

Tom Hawkins plead guilty to deliberately touching an umpire. One week ban by the tribunal.

Lachie deliberately makes contact with an umpire to try and blag a free kick because his head accidently got slammed into Eddie's shin during a tackle. Instantly offered a 1500 buck fine.

So, I'm expecting the AFL to come streaming out an appeal the decision and get Neale in front of the tribunal... but they won't because he's from one of their favoured teams and a brownlow medal winner and is going to be out for multiple weeks because of an ankle injury.

If the AFL was actually run by people who actually gave a sh*t about the game, Neale would be banned for a week as well. But Gill the Dill and his a-hole buddy SHocking are not competent and are guided by the gambling organisations they are in bed with.

That was Patrick Dangerflog Dram.


 

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Jul 19, 2005
26,773
15,878
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United

found object

Senior List
Apr 1, 2010
191
470
AFL Club
Carlton
Dangerflog might have started it, but the media (Witless and Slobbo) jumped all over it and trial by media'd it to death.
Barrett article saying he should get a week.

Levi was fined $2,000 for kneeing. Presume it was the one from the marking contest?
 

LanceRomance

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2011
18,768
27,829
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Not Carlton related, but Carlton related.

Ed and Charlie make slight contact with the umpires, they are treated like they had slaughtered a dozen chooks while praying to satan... or santa... I can never remember which, by the media which lead to the AFL appealing the original decision and getting Ed's charge upgraded. They ignored Charlie's contact with the umpire.

Tom Hawkins plead guilty to deliberately touching an umpire. One week ban by the tribunal.

Lachie deliberately makes contact with an umpire to try and blag a free kick because his head accidently got slammed into Eddie's shin during a tackle. Instantly offered a 1500 buck fine.

So, I'm expecting the AFL to come streaming out an appeal the decision and get Neale in front of the tribunal... but they won't because he's from one of their favoured teams and a brownlow medal winner and is going to be out for multiple weeks because of an ankle injury.

If the AFL was actually run by people who actually gave a sh*t about the game, Neale would be banned for a week as well. But Gill the Dill and his a-hole buddy SHocking are not competent and are guided by the gambling organisations they are in bed with.

I expect whately to chime in like he did with the curnows
 

OldBlueFan

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2009
2,528
1,821
AFL Club
Carlton
Not Carlton related, but Carlton related.

Ed and Charlie make slight contact with the umpires, they are treated like they had slaughtered a dozen chooks while praying to satan... or santa... I can never remember which, by the media which lead to the AFL appealing the original decision and getting Ed's charge upgraded. They ignored Charlie's contact with the umpire.

Tom Hawkins plead guilty to deliberately touching an umpire. One week ban by the tribunal.

Lachie deliberately makes contact with an umpire to try and blag a free kick because his head accidently got slammed into Eddie's shin during a tackle. Instantly offered a 1500 buck fine.

So, I'm expecting the AFL to come streaming out an appeal the decision and get Neale in front of the tribunal... but they won't because he's from one of their favoured teams and a brownlow medal winner and is going to be out for multiple weeks because of an ankle injury.

If the AFL was actually run by people who actually gave a sh*t about the game, Neale would be banned for a week as well. But Gill the Dill and his a-hole buddy SHocking are not competent and are guided by the gambling organisations they are in bed with.
Personally, I don't think any of the "touching the umpire" fines/suspensions were warranted, they've been so inconsequential.

But ... If you're going to suspend Ed Curnow for basically resting his hand on the ump's chest while turning to walk away, effectively saying "yeah, whatever ump, I'm leaving" (ie. doing what you want, being compliant), then you have to suspend Neale. He was ******* grabbing the umpire to spin him around and say "hey you fu**, don't you ignore me, look at this!!".

The difference in meaning behind the two actions is huge. But of course, the AFL isn't about "intent", they are about "outcomes".
 

Remove this Banner Ad