MRP / Trib. Geelong MRO & Tribunal decisions 2023

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

The AFL clearly considers ALL the responsibility to rest with the tackler.

Yes. This is the new reality and players are going to have to adapt.

When I said Close was holding Dawson's left arm, it meant Dawson could not use that arm to help protect himself when he fell, making his head slam into the turf. That's what got Brad done, IMO.

 

[Whiskers]

I’ve lost my marbles.
Newman gets off because his deliberate non footballing strike, ACCIDENTALLY got him high.

However a tackler (a football action) must be responsible for the opponent’s head. Accidental or not, it’s on him to be careful tackling.
A strike, oh that’s ok. If you only meant to get his chest, getting him high is inconsequential.

Same as JVR. Not even considered a strike BUT BUT ummm that’ll be 2 weeks coz well ummm I don’t even know. You tried to spoil and got him with a bicep and he heard a click.
That could’ve been bad. It wasn’t BUT it could’ve been. Don’t spoil, just strike him in the chest, if it goes high that’s ok.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

If people stopped going to games the league will eventually come to their senses.

I'm done with it now.

 

[you pick one]

If people stopped going to games the league will eventually come to their senses.

I'm done with it now.

It's depressing I know but hang in it's what Cats supported do well support their club and I'm pretty sure it's what you will do when this passes as all things do.

 

[Cataholic]

Yes. This is the new reality and players are going to have to adapt.

When I said Close was holding Dawson's left arm, it meant Dawson could not use that arm to help protect himself when he fell, making his head slam into the turf. That's what got Brad done, IMO.

The counter argument is that Dawson could've used his right arm to protect himself.

 

[Cataholic]

I’ve lost my marbles.
Newman gets off because his deliberate non footballing strike, ACCIDENTALLY got him high.

However a tackler (a football action) must be responsible for the opponent’s head. Accidental or not, it’s on him to be careful tackling.
A strike, oh that’s ok. If you only meant to get his chest, getting him high is inconsequential.

Same as JVR. Not even considered a strike BUT BUT ummm that’ll be 2 weeks coz well ummm I don’t even know. You tried to spoil and got him with a bicep and he heard a click.
That could’ve been bad. It wasn’t BUT it could’ve been. Don’t spoil, just strike him in the chest, if it goes high that’s ok.

The game is broken.

 

[Cataholic]

It's depressing I know but hang in it's what Cats supported do well support their club and I'm pretty sure it's what you will do when this passes as all things do.

Exactly what the AFL wants. Acceptance.

They're destroying the fabric of the game by degrees, and are relying on the footy public to become desensitised and just roll with it.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It's depressing I know but hang in it's what Cats supported do well support their club and I'm pretty sure it's what you will do when this passes as all things do.

Na I can't. It's a shadow of what it was. I'm not giving the AFL any more money

 

[Cataholic]

Na I can't. It's a shadow of what it was. I'm not giving the AFL any more money

Lawyers run the game now.

 

[you pick one]

Exactly what the AFL wants. Acceptance.

They're destroying the fabric of the game by degrees, and are relying on the footy public to become desensitised and just roll with it.

We were all saying the same things when Stokes had his legs taken out in a slide in tackle and was the one suspended same when Moon's was suspended when a player ran head first into him standing still to draw the free both those rules were eventually completely reversed today the Geelong players would receive the free kicks.

 

[Cataholic]

We were all saying the same things when Stokes had his legs taken out in a slide in tackle and was the one suspended same when Moon's was suspended when a player ran head first into him standing still to draw the free both those rules were eventually completely reversed today the Geelong players would receive the free kicks.

You hold hope that the evolving rules, and their interpretation, will eventually be completely reversed?

Ok. You have much more faith than I.

 

[Drunkcat]

It is getting harder every year, to have a interest in the AFL at this rate it's only the cats i can follow, and that mite run out in a year or two.

 

[petrolium]

Watching the game live, my first reaction was that Close laid a solid good tackle. If the JVR ban is upheld following its inevitable appeal, we need to ask serious questions about where the game is headed. The only way the AFL will listen will be for fans to boycott all games. AFL is a contact sport and all its participants are fully aware that there is an inherent risk of injury, including to the head. Whilst I am against deliberate acts of violence that cause injury, we cannot outlaw football acts that non-intentionally cause injury. Otherwise we run the serious risk of becoming a game of tig-tag. No doubt the AFL have one eye on potential future litigation.

 

[you pick one]

You hold hope that the evolving rules, and their interpretation, will eventually be completely reversed?

Ok. You have much more faith than I.

First of all the AFL is no longer a game it's a multi billion dollar business with business responsibilities and they will do everything to protect and progress their product I don't envy them their job in coming up with a solution to this current problem as they may not be a one fix suits all but rest assured they will want if fixed, it's early days.

 

[Cataholic]

First of all the AFL is no longer a game it's a multi billion dollar business with business responsibilities and they will do everything to protect and progress their product I don't envy them their job in coming up with a solution to this current problem as they may not be a one fix suits all but rest assured they will want if fixed, it's early days.

Game / Business.......I think we all understand that, and both terms are interchangeable with that understanding.

The solution? The application of commonsense.

Instead, we've got an MRO / Tribunal butchering the interpretation of sensible laws, and a game / business held hostage by the fear of litigation, as Browny said.

The suspension of Close and Van Rooyen is the clearest demonstration we've had yet that they've lost their grip.

The lawyers are circling like vultures, and I'd almost guarantee they're actively designing AFL policy and decisions.

Anyway, rant over.

I hope you're proven correct and the new CEO somehow rights the ship and returns the game to somewhat enjoyable viewing.

 

[bombersboy]

Anyone know if the AFL had advised clubs that it was the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that the player they are tackling has an arm free if going to ground? If not surely that is grounds for appeal.

 

[Cataholic]

Anyone know if the AFL had advised clubs that it was the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that the player they are tackling has an arm free if going to ground? If not surely that is grounds for appeal.

They'll just say that 'a reasonable player would foresee that'

 

[Cataholic]

Watching the game live, my first reaction was that Close laid a solid good tackle. If the JVR ban is upheld following its inevitable appeal, we need to ask serious questions about where the game is headed. The only way the AFL will listen will be for fans to boycott all games. AFL is a contact sport and all its participants are fully aware that there is an inherent risk of injury, including to the head. Whilst I am against deliberate acts of violence that cause injury, we cannot outlaw football acts that non-intentionally cause injury. Otherwise we run the serious risk of becoming a game of tig-tag. No doubt the AFL have one eye on potential future litigation.

Well, the JVR ban WAS upheld, and yes, it prompts serious questions about where the game is heading.

They justified it by saying 'a reasonable player would foresee the contact'.......

So a 'reasonable player' will now avoid punching the ball away to avoid contacting his opponent's head, he'll avoid flying high into a pack because he'll foresee possible contact to a player's head, and he won't take a player down after foreseeing the player's head hit the ground.

What are we left with?

A hybrid version of soccer essentially.

 

[Mr Meow]

Na I can't. It's a shadow of what it was. I'm not giving the AFL any more money

Will you still watch free to air Geelong games on TV? But not kayo?

 

[bombersboy]

Well, the JVR ban WAS upheld, and yes, it prompts serious questions about where the game is heading.

They justified it by saying 'a reasonable player would foresee the contact'.......

So a 'reasonable player' will now avoid punching the ball away to avoid contacting his opponent's head, he'll avoid flying high into a pack because he'll foresee possible contact to a player's head, and he won't take a player down after foreseeing the player's head hit the ground.

What are we left with?

A hybrid version of soccer essentially.

I think we are headed to something closer to Gaelic Football.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Will you still watch free to air Geelong games on TV? But not kayo?

Probably radio.

 

[cats_09]

Anyone know if the AFL had advised clubs that it was the responsibility of the tackler to ensure that the player they are tackling has an arm free if going to ground? If not surely that is grounds for appeal.

I would say yes, as per the Tribunal guidelines, this is one condition for a dangerous tackle:

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

 

[Cataholic]

I would say yes, as per the Tribunal guidelines, this is one condition for a dangerous tackle:

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

So by definition you cannot pin the arms if there is any risk of the player going to ground.

So you tackle standing up, and / or concede the handball.

 

[allrighty]

First of all the AFL is no longer a game it's a multi billion dollar business with business responsibilities and they will do everything to protect and progress their product I don't envy them their job in coming up with a solution to this current problem as they may not be a one fix suits all but rest assured they will want if fixed, it's early days.

Fiduciary duty is a BIG deal for directors and officers of the league and clubs. THIS is ruining the game as much as anything.

Plus the ridiculous 4 umpires which has just introduced much more uncertainty around decision-making.

GFC really needs to take this one on and appeal. Otherwise where are we headed as a game?

 

[you pick one]

Fiduciary duty is a BIG deal for directors and officers of the league and clubs. THIS is ruining the game as much as anything.

Plus the ridiculous 4 umpires which has just introduced much more uncertainty around decision-making.

GFC really needs to take this one on and appeal. Otherwise where are we headed as a game?

No idea what Fiduciary is but totally agree with everything after that.