Player Watch Billy Frampton

[76woodenspooners]

So good according to umpires, 3 weeks according to MRO, and tribunal says cleared?? All in alignment, nothing to see here.....

The AFL is an entertainment business, and you have to admit, they maximised the engagement and entertainment from the incident?

 

[anshell]

Just heard the news.It was a commonsense decision,and one that’s hard to argue with.I said earlier in the day I thought Billy would get off,but you just never know with the tribunal,they do make some strange decisions sometimes.

And from the team’s point of view,it”s a very welcome decision.It would have been a nightmare trying to replace Billy when we literally had no viable options to take his place.

 

[76woodenspooners]

So, when is a good time for us to talk about the MRO and what should constitute a report? I know the tribunal is independant of the MRO process, but if the MRO says 3 weeks and the tribunal says none this suggests to me a pretty big disconnect around what's actually considered reasonable and proper.

No, not at all.

The MRO follows a very transparent grading system.

This incident would have been graded:

• Conduct = Careless (The other option is “intentional”, and nobody suggested that)
• Impact = Severe (Given that this led to a severe injury, it’s the only option available)
• Contact = High (The head was involved, so contact was high)

That all equals 3+ weeks. The MRO went on the low side, which was 3 weeks.

There were only basically two outcomes:

• Guilty, 3 weeks
• Not guilty, 0 weeks

If head office can't get this stuff right, what hope do 750-odd listed players have?

Head Office are very clear on it. They’ve published the guidelines. They’re very clear on the guidelines. The guidelines are very simple to follow and very easy to understand, especially considering the very complicated nature of the game itself.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/02/14/24bc7921-5a4b-4ccb-bca6-df93229183c1/149960_2025_AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines_RGB_FA-2-.pdf

Please, can we have some constency from the AFL across … tribunal process. It's got such a "make it up as you go along" vibe.

The AFL followed their published guidelines perfectly.

What more could you possibly ask for?

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

No, not at all.

The MRO follows a very transparent grading system.

This incident would have been graded:

• Conduct = Careless (The other option is “intentional”, and nobody suggested that)
• Impact = Severe (Given that this led to a severe injury, it’s the only option available)
• Contact = High (The head was involved, so contact was high)

That all equals 3+ weeks. The MRO went on the low side, which was 3 weeks.

There were only basically two outcomes:

• Guilty, 3 weeks
• Not guilty, 0 weeks

Head Office are very clear on it. They’ve published the guidelines. They’re very clear on the guidelines. The guidelines are very simple to follow and very easy to understand, especially considering the very complicated nature of the game itself.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2025/02/14/24bc7921-5a4b-4ccb-bca6-df93229183c1/149960_2025_AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines_RGB_FA-2-.pdf

The AFL followed their published guidelines perfectly.

What more could you possibly ask for?

Great summary.

 

[Capital Magpie]

At least tag me in or quote a post if you're going to take a shot. It's like these other cretins on this board who passive agressively 'dislike' posts rather than just acting like an adult and calling me an idiot.

I was wrong. I am often wrong. And front up when wrong. I'll crawl absolutely nowhere. I am sure I will piss you off again.

At no point did I say Billy did anything particularly unreasonable in a split second. My argument was A) an appeal was futile (wrong) and B) blaming Checkers was a bad look given the vision is far less conclusive than some on here thibk and C) Billy getting 3 weeks wouldn't be the end of the world given the stakes of a broken neck.

I also acknowledged that if Billy felt strongly about an appeal, then we were obliged to back him. I just didn't think it being club-led was the right call.

My recent dog in these fights is that the AFL is playing very, very loose with neck and head injuries. Tunnelling being the biggest concern, which nobody seems to give a sh*t about.

I accept that Billy doesn't need to be collectively punished for this and am glad to see him play, particularly when he has been one of our best all season.

Well done mate, having the courage to acknowledge your position on this. Much respect. I may not necessarily agree with your perspective (I couldn't disagree more TBF) on this but I admire the fact that you are willing to front up and own your position. Good stuff!

 

[76woodenspooners]

I also acknowledged that if Billy felt strongly about an appeal, then we were obliged to back him. I just didn't think it being club-led was the right call.

My guess is that the likelihood of players having any input into whether a MRO charge would be challenged or not would be about as likely as club leadership / lawyers lining up in the back half next game. The club would consider that the stakes are way too high.

 

[leon123]

Disagree. Needed to go to the tribunal. To me it was simply a case of if Frampton had pulled him backwards to take him to ground when he was in a position where he was going to ground head first - it's a suspension. If it occured through Mihocek driving forward - then he rightly got off. I don't think you could tell from the footage. So a hearing was the right way to do it.

Agreed, and its the only way

 

[cfc19902010]

Good news today
Billy free
Maynard no surgery
Maybe its turning

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'm not entirely sure Billy felt like it was a non issue to be told he was getting three weeks unless the club took it forward.

Entirely unnecessary process that can be done in far better ways.

Edit: Just to be clear, it's the broader system that I take issue with, which is what the AFL has oversight and control of. And I've had more than my say on this so I'll leave it here. Get well Brody!

It was a perfectly proper process.

Definitely important and significant enough to be heard by a tribunal.

It also helps create a precedent.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Should never have been cited in the first place.

Billy's only contribution to the injury was simply being there.

Incorrect imo

Definitely needed to be worked through at the tribunal

 

[granniewolf]

I hope Billy can let go of some of the distress and no doubt some guilt he must have been feeling with this result.
I also hope he doesn't get flashbacks in future when he is about to tackle a player, is that at all likely?
There are really two victims in this horrible event.
I do hope Brody doesn't suffer any long term effects.

 

[Horaceg]

Common sense prevails here……….hope Checkers has no long term concerns.

I hope this doesn’t offend but it can’t just be on the defensive player, if you drive into a tackle with your head, duck, lower or go searching for head contact, the player with the ball needs to be accountable also. Not saying this is what Checkers did, realise there was a slip but they need more accountability on the ball carrier. I think players should be cited after the game, like defensive actions are, if they contribute.

 

[sr36]

It also helps create a precedent.

There's no precedents in the tribunal process.

It was simply a decision on whether Billy's action was reportable or not.

 

[sideswipe]

There's no precedents in the tribunal process.

It was simply a decision on whether Billy's action was reportable or not.

There are most definitely precedents allowed in the tribunal process. The prescribed video examples are allowed to be adduced anytime and leave can be sought to introduce similar incidents in the same season.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There's no precedents in the tribunal process.

It was simply a decision on whether Billy's action was reportable or not.

True but also not true. Coming via a tribunal still sends a message far more than the MRO does

The verdict clearly stated that Mihocek contributed significantly to the situation by “ trying to drive through Frampton”

For mine there’s a lot in that message to the next guy who decides to charge into a tackle head first.

 

[sideswipe]

True but also not true. Coming via a tribunal still sends a message far more than the MRO dies

The verdict clearly stated that Mihocek contributed significantly to the situation by “ trying to drive through Frampton”

For mine there’s a lot in that message to the next guy who decides to charge into a tackle head first.

Nah, it's just not true.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Nah, it's just not true.

The messaging was very pointed regardless. Dive at your own peril

 

[Chunky Steak]

It was a perfectly proper process.

Definitely important and significant enough to be heard by a tribunal.

It also helps create a precedent.

Fair enough, that's your view.

 

[sr36]

True but also not true. Coming via a tribunal still sends a message far more than the MRO does

The verdict clearly stated that Mihocek contributed significantly to the situation by “ trying to drive through Frampton”

For mine there’s a lot in that message to the next guy who decides to charge into a tackle head first.

The Mihocek injury hopefully sent that message. Don't think there's any message for ducking players in whether Billy got suspended or not - I don't think they'd care.

 

[jimmy35]

Good news today
Billy free
Maynard no surgery
Maybe its turning

Matter of time for Bruzzy unfortunately but just maybe he can get through the season.
Common sense prevailed with Billy thank ****.