News Dahlhaus to challenge 1 match suspension - challenge successful, free to play against Dogs

[cats_09]

AFL Tribunal, Tuesday August 25, 6.30pm AEST:

Luke Dahlhaus, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Matt Crouch, Adelaide Crows, during the first quarter of the Round 13 match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 23.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction.



If you wish to follow proceedings, head here: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...n/news-story/cf91dceda83c2ad03506533e9ec6e226

 

[Partridge]

AFL Tribunal, Tuesday August 25, 6.30pm AEST:

Luke Dahlhaus, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Matt Crouch, Adelaide Crows, during the first quarter of the Round 13 match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 23.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction.



If you wish to follow proceedings, head here: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...n/news-story/cf91dceda83c2ad03506533e9ec6e226

They should challenge. Hope he gets off.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

They should challenge. Hope he gets off.

They are challenging

 

[STPer18]

Powel-Pepper case has gone for half a day. What are they doing in there?

 

[STPer18]

Finally, probably a good sign for us.

 

[cats_09]

Is this good or bad news for us

Sam Powell-Pepper's appeal has been SUCCESSFUL. He is free to play this week against the Swans. Details to follow.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Is this good or bad news for us

Sam Powell-Pepper's appeal has been SUCCESSFUL. He is free to play this week against the Swans. Details to follow.

Probably bad. They can't let them all off

 

[Sparkle]

This is the wording from the tribunal of Powell-Pepper's successful challenge:

Tribunal Chairman David Jones:

The jury are not clearly satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of Powell-Pepper was unreasonable in all the circumstances, therefore the jury finds him not guilty of the charge of rough conduct.

The jury notes McEvoy being a big ruckman, considers that he was leaning in and rotating away. His arms became free and in the jury's view, he was riding the tackle. Looking at all the circumstances the jury is of the view Powell-Pepper executed a good tackle. It all happened in a split second. In the jury's view excessive force was not involved.

The final sentence could be key for us, if we can argue that the action was to pull Crouch away from the ball and was not excessive in the circumstances

 

[frggr]

Is this good or bad news for us

Sam Powell-Pepper's appeal has been SUCCESSFUL. He is free to play this week against the Swans. Details to follow.

GOod news. SPPs tackle was 'worse' than Dahlhaus' imho

 

[Hamingja]

Probably bad. They can't let them all off

I don't follow it that closely but seems more than the fair share of cases get overturned at the tribunal.

A lot of the MRP charges seem to be optics things put out there by the AFL to show they are doing something from a PR perspective and then the tribunal can overturn them and everyone is a winner.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I don't follow it that closely but seems more than the fair share of cases get overturned at the tribunal.

A lot of the MRP charges seem to be optics things put out there by the AFL to show they are doing something from a PR perspective and then the tribunal can overturn them and everyone is a winner.

That's not really all that unexpected; given the financial disincentive, clubs generally only take the "best" most winnable cases to the tribunal.

 

[frggr]

"Medical report from Adelaide:

Immediate treatment required: No

Ongoing treatment required: No

Expected missed days training and matches: 0"

Hard to argue anything other than 'no impact'

 

[cats_09]

Are we arguing no high contact?

Mr Ihle: You couldn't be satisfied on the footage there was high contact

 

[STPer18]

Are we arguing no high contact?

Mr Ihle: You couldn't be satisfied on the footage there was high contact

Worked last time...

 

[ChookNorris]

Don’t know, it’s one arm pinned and slung. Only difference between this and Neal bullen was crouch didn’t land on his head. Action is very similar. Don’t hold your breath here folks.

 

[cats_09]

Now we're arguing it's not a sling tackle

Seconds Ago

Mr Ihle is showing situations where players' heads hit the ground and then bounce up, saying Luke Dahlhaus' tackle is in "a way different category" to what constitutes a sling tackle.

 

[frggr]

I'm mentally preparing for the Tribunal to maintain the ban

 

[cats_09]

I kinda feel like we should have been arguing down the level of impact to medium or low impact

Not sure trying to argue no high contact and not a sling tackle are necessarily going to work

 

[STPer18]

Mr Ihle is pleading guilty on behalf of Dahlhaus to careless conduct, low impact, body contact.

Dahlhaus initial charge is one of careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.

 

[frggr]

"Mr Gleeson: The more logical and obvious and natural interpretation of the video is that Crouch's head snaps back up again because it hits the ground and hits it with some force. I'm concluding there was contact and meaningful contact with the ground."

Ugh

 

[cats_09]

"Mr Gleeson: The more logical and obvious and natural interpretation of the video is that Crouch's head snaps back up again because it hits the ground and hits it with some force. I'm concluding there was contact and meaningful contact with the ground."

Ugh

Don't forget he also argued that Hawkins was close to decapitating the poor Freo lad with his viscous elbow

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not overly fussed either way. Rule was changed after the Burgoyne tackle and if he misses no biggie. Reckon he's been a bit underwhelming as a cat.

 

[cats_09]

Mr Gleeson: Forceful in this context need only be something more than negligible, slight or brushing contact with the ground and that is what the vision reveals. He is not only rotated into the ground, he is leveraged into the ground.


And now I'm off to eat dinner. Fingers crossed for Luke

 

[winty]

"Mr Gleeson: The more logical and obvious and natural interpretation of the video is that Crouch's head snaps back up again because it hits the ground and hits it with some force. I'm concluding there was contact and meaningful contact with the ground."

Ugh

Just watched it again. Crouch's head didn't snap back up, nor did it hit the ground. Gleeson is full of crap.

Cats to challenge forward's ban at Tribunal

Geelong bids to overturn Luke Dahlhaus' one-match ban on Tuesday

www.afl.com.au

 

[STPer18]

This is truly sigworthy.

Mr Gleeson: We got lucky here and we're all to be grateful that (injury) was not the outcome, but that level of surprise should not benefit Mr Dahlhaus. The force with which he was brought to the ground would typically result in injury. I'm not saying Mr Dahlhaus wanted that, he is a very clean player, but that was the likely result of the impact with the ground.