MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[The Anvil]

Well it looks like it may have hit hard home……..

Suspect not, it's what you do when you've been howled down from all sides.

The real Jimmy is reflected in the social comments from his family.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Fair enough Jimmy. Now let's all move on

There's a bloke who knows he f***ed up badly, feels crap about it and accepts his whack.

The only bad taste remaining in my mouth is his shitmen siblings.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I have no idea how this couldn't be deemed intentional

100%

But it ought not even be listed in the charge (terms like "careless", "intentional", "deliberate" etc.) as these are (a) mostly irrelevant and (b) conjecture on the part of the MRO in any case.

If a person is injured by another person by them performing an act that is outside of the rules then that's the charge. None of this utensil sucker namby-pamby bull-dust where charges include wording such as as "careless conduct". If it wasn't accidental then simply charge the offender with whatever they did (i.e. severe impact and high contact) and the tribunal can determine if they were negligent or if they acted with intent when determining the penalty.

In any case, I actually think that "careless" is worse than "deliberate" in the sense that a person who makes a deliberate decision to strike or bump can presumably make a different decision if they've learned their lesson. Somebody who is careless is possibly just as likely to be careless on future occasions.

Most likely not a lot of support for my opinion here but too bad - it's out there to provoke discussion.

 

[koshari]

got 7 , i was thinking 6 was prolly the right rap, possibly a bit lighter than others baying for blood were looking at but a pretty hefty penalty IMO, i reckon it was a sloppy whack, prolly didnt mean to make head contact but with the rules and science at the moment was foolhardy to even go the action,

 

[The Anvil]

100%

But it ought not even be listed in the charge (terms like "careless", "intentional", "deliberate" etc.) as these are (a) mostly irrelevant and (b) conjecture on the part of the MRO in any case.

If a person is injured by another person by them performing an act that is outside of the rules then that's the charge. None of this utensil sucker namby-pamby bull-dust where charges include wording such as as "careless conduct". If it wasn't accidental then simply charge the offender with whatever they did (i.e. severe impact and high contact) and the tribunal can determine if they were negligent or if they acted with intent when determining the penalty.

In any case, I actually think that "careless" is worse than "deliberate" in the sense that a person who makes a deliberate decision to strike or bump can presumably make a different decision if they've learned their lesson. Somebody who is careless is possibly just as likely to be careless on future occasions.

Most likely not a lot of support for my opinion here but too bad - it's out there to provoke discussion.

Guess the tribunal need to find some mechanism to work out how they apply intent of infringement.

In this particular case, it seems like it was graded as intentional (in terms of the penalty given) even though the charge was careless.

I'm ok with the weeks, but the wording really annoyed me also.

 

[Hatchy1992]

There's a bloke who knows he f***ed up badly, feels crap about it and accepts his whack.

The only bad taste remaining in my mouth is his shitmen siblings.

Agree. Fair play to Jimmy. I respect someone who owns up when they f*** up and accepts the price.

But his siblings definitely leave a bad taste to my mouth.

 

[Junk yard]

One s**t decision doesn't define the man.. at least we'd all hope. I'm sure Jy had accepted the apology and and we move on.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Webster's action was graded by match review officer Michael Christian as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact.

St Kilda's lawyer Adrian Anderson, the AFL's former football operations boss, noted any previous bans of four games or more had been classed as intentional rather than careless.

"What is proposed is a massive, sudden shift in sanction that is out of whack with the evolution over time," Anderson said.

"There is a very significant line between intentional and careless.

"(Gaff's hit on Brayshaw) is in a different category.

"It's not necessary to pick him (Webster) out and pick a sanction that is out of whack to get a message through."

the oxygen thief Christian did not make it easy for the prosecution with his grading of careless conduct, if i saw him in the street and cracked him in the head i wonder if he would deem my action to be careless?

What the aints council forgets is the tribunal don't give a s**t what the action was graded to get him to there. They make their decision based on the action itself, there's no grading table involved.

So arguing the semantics of careless vs intentional and what that usually means weeks wise from the MRO, means exactly * all to the tribunal.

 

[gustaaf]

Agree. Fair play to Jimmy. I respect someone who owns up when they f*** up and accepts the price.

But his siblings definitely leave a bad taste to my mouth.

Webster and St Kilda however didn't accept the price of his in my opinion deliberate dog act as they said they would before the hearing. They had even said there was no defence for what he had done, but then fought The AFL's decision of 8 weeks with a counter of 4 weeks. They even argued the incident was in some aspects a little bit worse but very very similar to the 4 week suspension Sam Powell-Pepper bump, which is clearly garbage because there were zero mitigating circumstances for what he did.

Webster said all the usual rehearsed words about being sorry, being concerned for Jy and how much he wants to see concussions stamped out of he game, but they sound a bit hollow and self-serving to me. He hadn't even bothered to watch the footage back until it was shown at the hearing. His and St Kilda's efforts in not accepting the AFL's initial decision contrary to earlier commitments were rewarded with a 1 week deduction, so they will probably think it was still worthwhile putting on a defence.

 

[The Anvil]

I'm not overly bothered on the penalty, my concern is for Jy only.

There were a lot of off the ball incidents happening though, which to me looked like a team tactic from Ross Lyon.

I suspect Webster was just trying to fill his part of that team tactic but went too far.

It certainly worked for the Saints when we got a sure goal changed to a free kick in the middle of the ground for the Saints.

 

[kool kangas]

It should have been 7 weeks + 1 week for Simpkin having to miss the 1st round..

 

[The Dingrel]

Suspect not, it's what you do when you've been howled down from all sides.

The real Jimmy is reflected in the social comments from his family.

So available round 8 vs us...1 question, who leads the "C_____ks_______r" chant whenever he's near the ball?

 

[The Anvil]

So available round 8 vs us...1 question, who leads the "C_____ks_______r" chant whenever he's near the ball?

Although it feels like the right thing to do, it's hard to explain to my kids what this means when they ask.

 

[shintemaster]

I think 7 is fair.

At the end of the day the action was still a “bump” …. Which is a footy action ( albeit horribly executed) . You could argue he had intent to do damage and maybe not knock him out? …. imo

8,10 weeks stuff should be for king-hits via behind the play punches , elbows etc ( eg plugger on Caven, Barry hall etc)

I disagree completely. There is no football action in this incident at all. That's akin to saying that kicking someone in the head on the field is a footy action because kicking the ball is allowed.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I disagree completely. There is no football action in this incident at all. That's akin to saying that kicking someone in the head on the field is a footy action because kicking the ball is allowed.

Spot on.

Years ago when Jack Ziebell made a bump that knocked his opponent into the next day there was rage amongst the AFL reporter community that his feet were off the ground and as a result, a severe penalty was mandated. Subsequently, whenever a lesser player or one from a smaller team has done similar, it's been, "feet off the ground = penalty!!!". I agree that there are genuine bumps that are football actions. I doubt there are many people playing these days (at AFL level) who have not had it drummed into them during tackling and spoiling sessions at training that they need to stay grounded, tuck the elbows in and make every possible effort to avoid head-high contact during a bump or spoil.

Launching at an opponent, raising the elbow, leading with the shoulder against an opponent who might be bending down for the ball etc. have to be considered non-football actions.

The days of Choppy swinging his hips like Shakira into a sitting duck opponent are well and truly gone.

I've scoffed at players wearing helmets in the past but I really would like to see genuine unbiased evidence about their effectiveness in reducing head injuries. Having said that, the deflection of Jy's head in that clash on Sunday would not be something a helmet could prevent. My gut feeling is that direct blows may be muffled a little (that has to be a good thing) but it is unlikely that the ones we currently see can prevent the majority of concussions or whiplash type injuries.

Of course, I could google and hey, at some point in time I might actually do that.

 

[William Caresser]

Sorry, I'm just a lot more cynical about these apologies. There's no taking back the deliberate nature of what he did and the potential effects on Jy. That's what's important. Everyone makes mistakes sure but very few do that type of thing.

The apologies are stage-managed, media-trained, contrived events designed to limit the PR damage to the player and ST Kilda. There was no remorse from the player on the day.

 

[fusion]

Spot on.

Years ago when Jack Ziebell made a bump that knocked his opponent into the next day there was rage amongst the AFL reporter community that his feet were off the ground and as a result, a severe penalty was mandated. Subsequently, whenever a lesser player or one from a smaller team has done similar, it's been, "feet off the ground = penalty!!!". I agree that there are genuine bumps that are football actions. I doubt there are many people playing these days (at AFL level) who have not had it drummed into them during tackling and spoiling sessions at training that they need to stay grounded, tuck the elbows in and make every possible effort to avoid head-high contact during a bump or spoil.

Launching at an opponent, raising the elbow, leading with the shoulder against an opponent who might be bending down for the ball etc. have to be considered non-football actions.

The days of Choppy swinging his hips like Shakira into a sitting duck opponent are well and truly gone.

I've scoffed at players wearing helmets in the past but I really would like to see genuine unbiased evidence about their effectiveness in reducing head injuries. Having said that, the deflection of Jy's head in that clash on Sunday would not be something a helmet could prevent. My gut feeling is that direct blows may be muffled a little (that has to be a good thing) but it is unlikely that the ones we currently see can prevent the majority of concussions or whiplash type injuries.

Of course, I could google and hey, at some point in time I might actually do that.

Helmets aren't particularly good at preventing concussion. They mainly stop facial injuries and skull fractures. If they were more effective, then we would not have seen the issues in the NFL, where helmets have been worn forever.

From a medical viewpoint, the brain is like jelly, encased in a rigid box. If you hit the box bloody hard, the jelly can still move and bang against the skull. Putting a stiffer box around the box doesn't really reduce the force to the brain, as there's still that sudden acceleration and deceleration. Unless there's a way of wearing a massive helmet with padding all over it, which is impractical.

To stop concussions, outlaw the bump. Put stiff penalties for tackles that lead to concussion, and players will effectively have to learn to tackle "more gently". Someone in the media spoke about Wardlaw, and how his attack on the ball is great, but it's only time before someone like him collides with someone, and he'll get 4+ weeks. This is how the AFL want the game to be played.

 

[The Anvil]

Sorry, I'm just a lot more cynical about these apologies. There's no taking back the deliberate nature of what he did and the potential effects on Jy. That's what's important. Everyone makes mistakes sure but very few do that type of thing.

The apologies are stage-managed, media-trained, contrived events designed to limit the PR damage to the player and ST Kilda. There was no remorse from the player on the day.

I'm inclined to agree in this instance, particularly given the Saints were so eager to use Clarkson's spray as a deflector by going to Morris with the story.

 

[giantroo]

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Ahh yes.

One of the lands finest legal minds.

Sniveling weasel that he is.

 

[shintemaster]

Ahh yes.

One of the lands finest legal minds.

Sniveling weasel that he is.

The mistake was attempting to defend the indefensible.

 

[William Caresser]

Ahh yes.

One of the lands finest legal minds.

Sniveling weasel that he is.

Ahh yes - Gerard is actually a graduate of the University of American Samoa's Correspondence Law School so it's all good man.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

The mistake was attempting to defend the indefensible.

After publicly stating that there would be no defence.

 

[Masked Avenger]

I can't work out what's the biggest joke Redman getting one week for push to the face or Sicily getting the same penalty for kicking.

Bad to worse.

 

[The Nostradamus]

So no fine for miers throwing a players boot away?
Guess that’s allowed now, I’d throw it 50 rows back into the crowd then

Yet Simpkin got fined for throwing away a gps