Ginbey/Lalor incident

[Bald]

lol this is going to be beyond funny.

Agreed.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Just to add my own two cents:

Poor action from Mansell. Was unnecessary.

In an ideal world, he gets suspended.

In a world where we look at similar incidents not be suspended, I would be filthy if he was suspended by the AFL.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Agreed.

What would you think about it if:

1. Mansell is charged
2. He is told at the tribunal he cannot rely on the Ginbey case simply because the MRO gave no public explanation for his decision
3. He is suspended for 3 weeks

?

 

[BF Tiger]

Just to add my own two cents:

Poor action from Mansell. Was unnecessary.

In an ideal world, he gets suspended.

In a world where we look at similar incidents not be suspended, I would be filthy if he was suspended by the AFL.

Exactly.

 

[Bald]

What would you think about it if:

1. Mansell is charged
2. He is told at the tribunal he cannot rely on the Ginbey case simply because the MRO gave no public explanation for his decision
3. He is suspended for 3 weeks

?

At the end of the day if teams were provided comms that this action may constitute rough conduct then it is what it is. Personally I don’t want players suspended for this, and the reason I thought Ginbey wouldn’t and shouldn’t be was because the only examples of rough conduct from pushes before was when other things were involved like fences and umpires, and there was no indication that’d change (by way of memo or rule amendments).

That isn’t the case anymore. So annoyed, but understanding would be my answer to your question.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

At the end of the day if teams were provided comms that this action may constitute rough conduct then it is what it is. Personally I don’t want players suspended for this, and the reason I thought Ginbey wouldn’t and shouldn’t be was because the only examples of rough conduct from pushes before was when other things were involved like fences and umpires, and there was no indication that’d change (by way of memo or rule amendments).

That isn’t the case anymore. So annoyed, but understanding would be my answer to your question.

Your post speaks for itself.

 

[bartlettsbaldpatch]

Can I ask, what rule has been breached? A push to the shoulder is not even a free kick. So how can an action like this warrant a suspension ? At most it maybe deserves a suspended fine. The Lalor incident was a rule breach, and not a xxxx was given by the MRO. Saying that these types of incidents will be looked into, means that the rule book needs to be rewritten before they can actually act on this type of play. Please don't get me wrong, but the AFL has painted themselves into a corner here, by not clarifying what action will be taken. I have always always been a believer of fair justice, no matter which team or player is involved, but, if Mansell gets suspended I would take this to the highest jurisdiction that is available. Just claim that the directive does not clarify what rule has been broken. Now I know that you all think that I am just a Tigers fan, trying to get one of the teams players from being suspended, but just go back to the early pages of this thread and see what some Eagles fans, among other teams fans, were saying.

 

[lalorGOAT]

Let me get this straight:

-illegal push in the back = no suspension
-legal push in the side = death penalty

WHAT ARE WE DOING????

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Far out this is a stretch. Mansell barely pushes him at all. O'Connell takes 3 big steps to contest the ball after leaving Mansell. He chose to do this.

Not even similar to the Lalor incident.

 

[Underarm]

Wilke was the one holding Lynch and gave away the free. Why shouldn't he be getting the 3 weeks?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

At the end of the day if teams were provided comms that this action may constitute rough conduct then it is what it is. Personally I don’t want players suspended for this, and the reason I thought Ginbey wouldn’t and shouldn’t be was because the only examples of rough conduct from pushes before was when other things were involved like fences and umpires, and there was no indication that’d change (by way of memo or rule amendments).

That isn’t the case anymore. So annoyed, but understanding would be my answer to your question.

don't hide behind memos

just call it what is it is (if it happens):

double standards and corruption

 

[ferball]

So with that in mind, Mansell shouldn't be suspended, if it's not an offence he can be suspended for.

Mansell shouldn't be suspended because he didn't contribute to the incident. O'Connell ran back with the flight of the ball and tried to mark it.

People are too busy banging on about their own footy club's interests to look at what actually happened.

 

[ferball]

Far out this is a stretch. Mansell barely pushes him at all. O'Connell takes 3 big steps to contest the ball after leaving Mansell. He chose to do this.

Not even similar to the Lalor incident.

****en finally, someone else who uses their eyes.

 

[STPer18]

The boy will have to be suspended unfortunately. The AFL has form with changing rules on the fly, we saw it back in 2017 when Cotchin got away with a $1000 fine for jumper punching Neale only for the AFL to take a stand against jumper punches just two weeks later with big Tommy Hawkins being offered a 2-down-to-1 week penalty.

Just like Trent and Neale back then, we should be thanking Lalor and Ginbey for bringing this dangerous act into the spotlight. 2-3 weeks for the boy.

GEELONG'S Tom Hawkins is the first victim of the AFL's crackdown on punching, with the Match Review Panel slapping the key forward with a one-match ban for his jumper punch on Adelaide's Matt Crouch....two weeks ago after Richmond captain Trent Cotchin and North Melbourne midfielder Ben Cunnington escaped suspension for intentional hits.

 

[Bald]

don't hide behind memos

just call it what is it is (if it happens):

double standards and corruption

I’m not hiding behind anything. I’ve been pretty consistent that this action shouldn’t be a suspension, and I still have the same feeling.

But if I’m being asked what I think will happen, then yeah I think there’s a chance he’s rubbed out.

 

[BF Tiger]

Quite stunning the amount of commentary from the media about the Mansell-O'Connell incident compared to the Ginbey-Lalor (and other) incidents that occurred in the pre-season. Almost like the AFL have asked the boys club to get on-board.

 

[jdisc]

why bother even arguing about this, the tribunal is a black box that not even our brightest minds have been able to crack. every susbendable action that occurs on the football field exists in a quantum super position. embrace the chaos and make your peace with it

 

[Sam_100]

Far out this is a stretch. Mansell barely pushes him at all. O'Connell takes 3 big steps to contest the ball after leaving Mansell. He chose to do this.

Not even similar to the Lalor incident.

That's how I see it.

I can't see where the rough conduct is in this case. The push by Mansell is incidental. O'Connell is still moving under his own steam. He is not in the process of falling uncontrollably into the marking competition and getting collected by a hip or a knee.

O'Connell was brave competing for the mark, but running back into a pack with zero awareness of what's coming from the other side puts you at high risk of injury.

 

[skipper kelly]

Did nothing wrong.
No name player.
3 weeks.
We care about concussion.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

why bother even arguing about this, the tribunal is a black box that not even our brightest minds have been able to crack. every susbendable action that occurs on the football field exists in a quantum super position. embrace the chaos and make your peace with it

hahaaa, well yes, but in Young's classic double-slit experiment, when a particle is confronted with two different but identical paths ('suspend' and 'not suspend') the super-position has an equal 50% composition associated with each path.

Here the same experiment is repeated in a 6 week time frame, the super-position is completely de-phased, and the outcomes diametrically opposed at 0/100 and 100/0...

...and the only thing we changed from Young's original experiment was to paint one of the slits yellow-and-black!

 

[Sam_100]

Did nothing wrong.
No name player.
3 weeks.
We care about concussion.

They only care about concussion in the context of tinplating their arses so they don't get sued.

If they were really concerned about concussion they would have suspend Maynard for his hit on Brayshaw (which forced him into retirement), they would come down more heavily on punches to the head rather handing down one week suspensions or fines. With all the money coming into the competition, the AFL is reactionary at best. Never on the front foot to in terms of addressing negative trend developing on the field, always reacting.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Mansell shouldn't be suspended because he didn't contribute to the incident. O'Connell ran back with the flight of the ball and tried to mark it.

People are too busy banging on about their own footy club's interests to look at what actually happened.

Not relevant to mention this but I have to; I was one of the few Richmond supporters who was flying the flag for Gibney getting off.

I agree with you on this one. It looks like two players who were wrestling for position, both push off each other and O'Connell ran back with the flight of the ball. I would really love to see more angles because the Fox Footy ones where tiny, however based on what is available it doesn't seem like Mansell's contact actually contributed to the velocity of O'Connell.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Did nothing wrong.
No name player.
3 weeks.
We care about concussion.

Tribunal all rolled up in a nice bite sized post.

 

[Hollow Knight]

3 weeks for Mansell.

MATCH REVIEW: Tigers, Bombers to challenge MRO findings

The Match Review Officer's findings for the Saturday games in round three are in

www.afl.com.au

 

[STPer18]

Called it.