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

[Wickzki]

passing the test isnt a silver bullet and to use it as such would set a dangerous precendent.
If he had the test because he was showing some signs, then that is the concern, not the pass or not pass of the test.

Though one does wonder if he had any of these signs before the end of the game, and if not, were there any other incidents which could cause them. This would be a better avenue for CFC to challenge.

This. It demonstrates that there was some concern for the player. Even though he passed it doesn't mean that they didn't observe it over the next few days which in itself could be enough for the AFL to claim "lower-level ongoing treatment(s) required."

It's a real tough gray area because concussion injuries can manifest in the days after the hit. Therefore, I can understand why it was assessed as a medium when it became public knowledge that he required a post-game test (regardless of initial result).

Beyond how it affects Williams and the club, I feel that this is an important case for the AFL that will set precedents with the new concussion protocols. It's important that they get it right. It could determine entire seasons if the same was to happen at the pointy end of the year.

 

[carlton_99]

When do the tribunal meet?

 

[Aphrodite]

When do the tribunal meet?

Tonight 5.30pm.

 

[TheKITC]

Typical AFL, cant even write consistent guidelines.

Low: minimal or no impact on the match
Medium: clearly some impact on the player


passing the test isnt a silver bullet and to use it as such would set a dangerous precendent.
If he had the test because he was showing some signs, then that is the concern, not the pass or not pass of the test.

Though one does wonder if he had any of these signs before the end of the game, and if not, were there any other incidents which could cause them. This would be a better avenue for CFC to challenge.

I don't want to be too dramatic about this, but the bolded bit is very problematic for me and doesn't stack up. If a police officer pulls you over because he has concerns you're exhibiting signs of drunkeness, but you pass the test... that's it. Clark passed the concussion test, so whether or not there was concern is really irrelevant. I would say it's actually incumbent upon medical professionals to check after any form of head contact and it would happen quite frequently to players after playing a game; it just so happens that this test was made public for obvious reasons.

Agree about the AFL having amateur, grey guidelines in their wording. I feel there will be a change after this case.

 

[carlton_99]

Tonight 5.30pm.

Ah ok perfect. Odd that theres nothing on the AFL website about them meeting today...

 

[Aphrodite]

Ah ok perfect. Odd that theres nothing on the AFL website about them meeting today...

That is where I got it from (last paragraph).

UPDATE: Ban stands as Blues fail with Tribunal appeal

Carlton fails in its bid to have gun recruit available for the blockbuster clash with Richmond

www.afl.com.au

The Tribunal hearing will take place on Tuesday evening from 5.30pm AEDT

 

[carlton_99]

That is where I got it from (last paragraph).

UPDATE: Ban stands as Blues fail with Tribunal appeal

Carlton fails in its bid to have gun recruit available for the blockbuster clash with Richmond

www.afl.com.au

Sorey about that dont know how I missed it

 

[Malifice]

Oh boy...

I actually think he has a good chance to get off now. Under the strict interpretation, if the above is still current, Williams should have a very strong case for it to be downgraded to a fine. Again, I think it should be a week but this kind of changes things for me.

With the recent focus on concussion you can expect them to grade the overwhelming number of high contact offences as 'medium' impact at least.

The precedent seems to be even if you play out the match, but required a second concussion test the following day, even if you pass that test, it's now into 'medium' territory.

Looking at this I thought it would be Rough conduct, High contact, Careless and either Low or Medium impact (medical report to be the determining factor there), with a very outside possibility of Intentional instead of Careless (Williams leapt off the ground in the action of hitting him, which to me possibly at least infers a level of intent).

 

[bigbertha5]

This. It demonstrates that there was some concern for the player. Even though he passed it doesn't mean that they didn't observe it over the next few days which in itself could be enough for the AFL to claim "lower-level ongoing treatment(s) required."

It's a real tough gray area because concussion injuries can manifest in the days after the hit. Therefore, I can understand why it was assessed as a medium when it became public knowledge that he required a post-game test (regardless of initial result).

Beyond how it affects Williams and the club, I feel that this is an important case for the AFL that will set precedents with the new concussion protocols. It's important that they get it right. It could determine entire seasons if the same was to happen at the pointy end of the year.

I would expect that precautionary testing of every player who receives a knock to the head after the game would be the bare minimum these days.

I'm not sure it necessarily suggests they had genuine concerns or he was showing any symptoms.

 

[james Dean]

With the recent focus on concussion you can expect them to grade the overwhelming number of high contact offences as 'medium' impact at least.

The precedent seems to be even if you play out the match, but required a second concussion test the following day, even if you pass that test, it's now into 'medium' territory.

Looking at this I thought it would be Rough conduct, High contact, Careless and either Low or Medium impact (medical report to be the determining factor there), with a very outside possibility of Intentional instead of Careless (Williams leapt off the ground in the action of hitting him, which to me possibly at least infers a level of intent).

You’d think that the wording needs to
be updated, wouldn’t you?

 

[AndyLucimitis]

When do the tribunal meet?

When does the tribunal get the message through from the AFL "we want Carlton to be competitive in Round 1 - give him a fine" ?

 

[ajb72]

I don't want to be too dramatic about this, but the bolded bit is very problematic for me and doesn't stack up. If a police officer pulls you over because he has concerns you're exhibiting signs of drunkeness, but you pass the test... that's it. Clark passed the concussion test, so whether or not there was concern is really irrelevant. I would say it's actually incumbent upon medical professionals to check after any form of head contact and it would happen quite frequently to players after playing a game; it just so happens that this test was made public for obvious reasons.

Agree about the AFL having amateur, grey guidelines in their wording. I feel there will be a change after this case.

The problem as I see it is we don't know the contents of the medical report. All we (I) know is he passed a concussion test. What if he has a depressed fracture of a cheekbone, a black eye, or a cracked tooth. Concussion is significant, but it isn't the only injury that can happen.

I bolded the two bits because they should match. The impact happens to a player. Everything which happens during a game has an impact on the match so you cant use it as a measure and it is unmeasureable because sliding doors.

 

[Ash24]

The AFL really needs to start televising the tribunal hearings, would be interesting to watch. I’m sure fox will chuck in some money for exclusivity

I second this. Kayo already pretty expensive, considering I only really watch the footy.

 

[Brackets]

If nothing else going to the tribunal should mean they are on record arguing either leaving the ground and bumping the head, or any bump that requires a concussion test is going to be at least 1 match.

The only concern is the emphasis placed on 'how it looked' in BAs examples - very much a discretionary factor that can be used to garner different outcomes.

I could accept Williams' suspension if I believed it sets precedent, but it won't, and we'll continue to see cheap shots without repercussion. I'd sooner they stamp out any type of punch before a bump that causes no injury.

 

[TheKITC]

The problem as I see it is we don't know the contents of the medical report. All we (I) know is he passed a concussion test. What if he has a depressed fracture of a cheekbone, a black eye, or a cracked tooth. Concussion is significant, but it isn't the only injury that can happen.

I think the bump deserves a week. What I'm saying is that the requirement of a test should in no way warrant force upgrades when they probably give multiple tests every week, based on many different things. Plainly, the test should not and by the current rules does not, make the force automatically medium. If they want to change that that's one thing, but under the current guidelines the need for a test after the game that was subsequently passed, should make no difference and really, it should be a more than probable chance that it's downgraded to low. Given the AFL are involved, my confidence in that is shaky at best.

If nothing else going to the tribunal should mean they are on record arguing either leaving the ground and bumping the head, or any bump that requires a concussion test is going to be at least 1 match.

Massively exploitable in multiple circumstances. Would hate to see that be a hard and fast rule...

 

[katmanblue]

I'm on standby - and will do it for free!

I'll do it for fee.

 

[katmanblue]

Honestly Zac Williams deserves the 1 week, like why is it necessary trying to k.o someone.

If that was his intention, Clark would have been stretchered off.

Would you like some chips with your mayo?

 

[katmanblue]

Biden on his way via Airforce one

Murphy got on the phone, did he?

 

[katmanblue]

This. It demonstrates that there was some concern for the player. Even though he passed it doesn't mean that they didn't observe it over the next few days which in itself could be enough for the AFL to claim "lower-level ongoing treatment(s) required."

It's a real tough gray area because concussion injuries can manifest in the days after the hit. Therefore, I can understand why it was assessed as a medium when it became public knowledge that he required a post-game test (regardless of initial result).

Beyond how it affects Williams and the club, I feel that this is an important case for the AFL that will set precedents with the new concussion protocols. It's important that they get it right. It could determine entire seasons if the same was to happen at the pointy end of the year.

No precedents can be brought up at the tribunal.

 

[TheKITC]

Live updates thus far...

- Jeff Gleeson QC (representing the AFL) is getting us underway. Everyone being shown the Zac Williams incident from multiple angles.
- There's been a guilty plea from Williams for careless conduct and high contact, but he is claiming LOW impact rather than medium.
- Barrister Peter O'Farrell is representing Carlton and Zac Williams.

 

[TheKITC]

- Carlton Football Club have dropped out of the call so we're working on reconnecting them. Pre-season cobwebs extend to the Tribunal hearings too it seems!

AFL cutting us off so they can talk about how to fix Williams up

 

[jj1978]

We wonder about outcome! So what about retrospective reports/suspensions.

MRO comes up with a verdict now generally within 24 hours, an incident occurs where player X hits player Y in the head, MRO says low contact, fine... club accepts it and moves on. 5 day later, player Y is nauseous, headaches, throwing up... diagnosed with delayed concussion, does the MRO come back and upgrade the penalty?? We keep hearing about outcome impacts the suspension but does it really?? Curnow's throat injury, bet ya MRO would've changed their tune there given a few more days.

Medium impact here is horse-sh!t... AFL should mandate if club doctors DO NOT see fit to take the player off to assess for concussion then it should be low impact... to suddenly go Medium indicates some force or potential to harm, the doctors would then be negligent to not test a player immediately after the event in the case of a medium graded impact.

 

[TheKITC]

"The extent of force is the first thing that has to be considered and the extent of force is considerable"
" This was not somebody 2 or 3 steps away coming into contact with a moving player - he met him at some speed having travelled some considerable distance."
" He turns his face away from the player ... you remove any prospect of softening the blow if you're turning your face away. You turn away to protect your face, so Williams knew this had the potential to cause serious injury."

- Gleeson

What is that 3rd one based on other than just some trumped up opinion? Absolute crock of s**t. We don't need to argue to or fro on that, simply what is stated in the laws of the game IMO. Fingers crossed.

 

[Ash24]

Follow updates live here:

Arena App

Sports are more fun when you chat in the moment.

go.arena.im

 

[Aphrodite]

"The extent of force is the first thing that has to be considered and the extent of force is considerable"
" This was not somebody 2 or 3 steps away coming into contact with a moving player - he met him at some speed having travelled some considerable distance."
" He turns his face away from the player ... you remove any prospect of softening the blow if you're turning your face away. You turn away to protect your face, so Williams knew this had the potential to cause serious injury."

- Gleeson

What is that 3rd one based on other than just some trumped up opinion? Absolute crock of sh*t. We don't need to argue to or fro on that, simply what is stated in the laws of the game IMO. Fingers crossed.

Please include a link where you are getting this from.