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

Remove this Banner Ad

OnceWeWereKings

Premiership Player
Oct 23, 2007
3,445
7,109
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Chook f***ing lotto alright.

MRP “It was the view of the MRO that Henderson was contesting the ball and no further action was taken.”

I thought the tribunal made decisions based on outcome?

Marshall out of the game concussed.
Then why was it paid as a block by the umpire?
Does that not mean in the view of the umpire he wasn’t contesting the ball but blocking the opposition player so that a teammate could mark the ball?
The opposition player, in being blocked by Hendersons’s action, adjudicated by the umpire as an infraction of the rules, is concussed because of this action?
Isn’t this the complete opposite of contesting the ball?
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
17,061
33,837
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm going to go with an alternative take.

What happens inbetween Plowman and Henderson's incidents? Sheppard's KO, in which he neither spoiled, bumped or tackled. He didn't set himself to do anything, he just sort of went in there knowing that he had to make a contest but didn't know what he was allowed to do, and as a consequence failed to protect himself from a player coming in at speed.

The AFL made the wrong call with Plowman, and Sheppard's KO made that abundantly clear; that Henderson got off makes it clear that the message has been received. It's no solace for Plowman, but it serves as a bit of a salve for those who were bemoaning the state of the AFL and the rules.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

manang magoos

Team Captain
Feb 19, 2018
549
721
AFL Club
Carlton
You know, I'm getting seriously hacked off with the preferential clubs getting off at the MRO or the tribunal because they are from a preferred club.
Tom Browne just saying that although O’Meara knocked out Hayward he should not be suspended as he was “contesting the ball”! FFS, isn’t that what plowman was doing?
No not if your Slobbo he said Plow was contesting the contest
 

SkyhorseTamer

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 4, 2016
8,459
21,270
AFL Club
Carlton
Tom Browne just saying that although O’Meara knocked out Hayward he should not be suspended as he was “contesting the ball”! FFS, isn’t that what plowman was doing?
Anyone asked what those hawk hacks think of the incident. They were all high and mighty about protecting the head after the Plow incident, how it had to be a suspension for the good of the game. w***ers.
 

Dramoth

Premium Platinum
Jul 19, 2005
27,652
17,672
Bunbury, WA
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Manchester United
Isn’t the head injury caused when Hayward’s head whips back and clashes with the Hawthorn player behind him?
If O'Meara hadn't gone the bump, then there would have been no whiplash movement because it would have only been the tackler behind Hayward who got him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Love the Drake

Club Legend
Nov 22, 2013
2,964
6,893
Mornington peninsula
AFL Club
Carlton
Here we go again. From the AFL website. The O’ Meara incident was assessed:


Contact between Hawthorn’s Jaeger O’Meara and the Sydney Swans’ Will Hayward from the second quarter of Friday’s match between the Sydney Swans and Hawthorn was assessed. The ball is loose. O’Meara and Hayward approach the ball from opposing directions and high contact is made by O’Meara on Hayward. It was the view of the MRO that O’Meara was contesting the ball and had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball. No further action was taken.

Sigh 😔
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elmer_Judd

#InBielsaWeTrust #MOT
Jul 25, 2019
16,996
29,385
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Leeds United
I am very sorry Hunter Clark has sustained a broken jaw. But honestly, it was not malicious or negligent intent from David Mackay, both players simply had their eyes on the ball.

Would be disappointed if he got weeks for that.. It was just an accident between two courageous players going for the ball (in my opinion)
 

Stamos

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 30, 2010
15,287
25,845
AFL Club
Carlton
Will be interesting how they asses the Hunter Clarke/David Mackay incident. Similar to the Plowman one, except ball was on the deck, not a marking contest.

Clark subbed out with a broken jaw.
It was clearly worse than the Plowman incident, and yet still shouldn't be rubbed out.

It is an absolute disgrace that Plowman was suspended.
 

djw1952

Club Legend
Oct 28, 2009
1,472
1,472
mentone
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
liverpool
You know, I'm getting seriously hacked off with the preferential clubs getting off at the MRO or the tribunal because they are from a preferred club.
I have noticed also that chook lotto is often more severe on the interstate clubs as well, Like that tackle laid by Holman (G.C.) on Duncan where bloody Christian described it as over aggressive and handed out a two week penalty, until everyone bitched and they threw it out because it was crap in the first place!!!
 

OnceWeWereKings

Premiership Player
Oct 23, 2007
3,445
7,109
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Here we go again. From the AFL website. The O’ Meara incident was assessed:


Contact between Hawthorn’s Jaeger O’Meara and the Sydney Swans’ Will Hayward from the second quarter of Friday’s match between the Sydney Swans and Hawthorn was assessed. The ball is loose. O’Meara and Hayward approach the ball from opposing directions and high contact is made by O’Meara on Hayward. It was the view of the MRO that O’Meara was contesting the ball and had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball. No further action was taken.

Sigh 😔
Farcical inconsistency.
Three seperate incidents (Plowman, Henderson, O’Meara) three different adjudications.

The Plowman & O’Meara incidents bear an uncanny similarity - the main difference, one being a marking contest, the other a ground ball contest. Both incidents deems the players coming from opposite directions.

Both players braced for contact in the contest resulting in the opposing player receiving head trauma from this contact .
— One is deemed the player chose to bump, the other determined they were “contesting the ball” yet the player clearly moves his body to initiate contact with a bumping / brace for contact action.

Player O’Meara afforded the leniency to do so as he was deemed contesting the ball, yet player Plowman not afforded the same leniency.

Complete inconsistency.

Henderson, adjudicated on the night by the game official to have infringed the rules when blocking an opposing player from contesting a mark - this action resulting in the player being infringed receiving a head trauma - is then determined by the MRO to be “contesting the ball”

Complete inconsistency.
 

FlowersByIrene

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 29, 2012
20,056
25,665
Perth via Carlton Land
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Knicks, Giants, Man U
Farcical inconsistency.
Three seperate incidents (Plowman, Henderson, O’Meara) three different adjudications.

The Plowman & O’Meara incidents bear an uncanny similarity - the main difference, one being a marking contest, the other a ground ball contest. Both incidents deems the players coming from opposite directions.

Both players braced for contact in the contest resulting in the opposing player receiving head trauma from this contact .
— One is deemed the player chose to bump, the other determined they were “contesting the ball” yet the player clearly moves his body to initiate contact with a bumping / brace for contact action.

Player O’Meara afforded the leniency to do so as he was deemed contesting the ball, yet player Plowman not afforded the same leniency.

Complete inconsistency.

Henderson, adjudicated on the night by the game official to have infringed the rules when blocking an opposing player from contesting a mark - this action resulting in the player being infringed receiving a head trauma - is then determined by the MRO to be “contesting the ball”

Complete inconsistency.
There's no inconsistency because you're forgetting the added factor that one is a Carlton player and we are adjudicated by different rules.
 

RAPPA

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 20, 2008
11,059
21,053
Victoria
AFL Club
Carlton
Farcical inconsistency.
Three seperate incidents (Plowman, Henderson, O’Meara) three different adjudications.

The Plowman & O’Meara incidents bear an uncanny similarity - the main difference, one being a marking contest, the other a ground ball contest. Both incidents deems the players coming from opposite directions.

Both players braced for contact in the contest resulting in the opposing player receiving head trauma from this contact .
— One is deemed the player chose to bump, the other determined they were “contesting the ball” yet the player clearly moves his body to initiate contact with a bumping / brace for contact action.

Player O’Meara afforded the leniency to do so as he was deemed contesting the ball, yet player Plowman not afforded the same leniency.

Complete inconsistency.

Henderson, adjudicated on the night by the game official to have infringed the rules when blocking an opposing player from contesting a mark - this action resulting in the player being infringed receiving a head trauma - is then determined by the MRO to be “contesting the ball”

Complete inconsistency.
The only consistency to come out of it is that all of those incidents have been assessed and adjudicated upon by the same peanut.
 

Remove this Banner Ad