Ginbey/Lalor incident

[Bald]

The AFL consistently didn't suspend people for poor tackles, high bumps, racism,… but they now they consistently do.

Times change.

I am aware.

So you’re on board with a suspension here then?

 

[BF Tiger]

I am aware.

So you’re on board with a suspension here then?

Precedence dictates that this is a not suspendable action this season. Which is unfortunate.

 

[ferball]

So all richmond fans will be consistent with their demands that players who do this be suspended, so every single Richmond fan who posted in this thread will return and demand Mansell be given 3+ weeks suspension.

The player Mansell pushed, O'Connell, ran back with the flight of the ball for three metres under his own power before he got cleaned up.

 

[Bald]

Precedence dictates that this is a not suspendable action this season. Which is unfortunate.

Precedence isn’t used at the MRO, a memo was also sent out three weeks ago advising the league would be looking at these.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Good to see you're in full support of Mansell being punished for this dangerous action, especially since the AFL sent the clubs a warning

At least we will have incontrovertible evidence that it was all about the colour of the jersey of the pusher

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Precedence isn’t used at the MRO, a memo was also sent out three weeks ago advising the league would be looking at these.

The rules haven’t changed.

The only way Mansell can be found guilty would be the AFL admitting our arguments were completely correct, the MRO was completely wrong and they would never admit either.

Only possible outcome:

Mansell 3 weeks for the push.

Lynch 3 weeks for forearm to the head.

First ever time two people suspended for one incident.

 

[bzparkes]

At least we will have incontrovertible evidence that it was all about the colour of the jersey of the pusher

Not really.

The argument was that it wasn't a rule and that Ginbey didn't mean to push Lalor into his teammate's unprotect back, whilst he was in midair.

It's also not a suspend able offence.

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

 

[Bald]

The rules haven’t changed.

The only way Mansell can be found guilty would be the AFL admitting our arguments were completely correct, the MRO was completely wrong and they would never admit either.

Only possible outcome:

Mansell 3 weeks for the push.

Lynch 3 weeks for forearm to the head.

First ever time two people suspended for one incident.

I’m not going to argue with you over why your player should be suspended. I don’t think players should be suspended for this action - at least not until rules are changed, it’s just disappointing that some supporters can be so keen on a suspension for an opposition player, but when it’s their own player offending they’re not so keen.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Not really.

The argument was that it wasn't a rule and that Ginbey didn't mean to push Lalor into his teammate's unprotect back, whilst he was in midair.

It's also not a suspend able offence.

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

now I'm really confused!! lol

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I’m not going to argue with you over why your player should be suspended. I don’t think players should be suspended for this action - at least not until rules are changed, it’s just disappointing that some supporters can be so keen on a suspension for an opposition player, but when it’s their own player offending they’re not so keen.

You made that up.

Most(not all) of our supporters wanted Ginbey suspended.

The current rules allow for that.

We got zero explanation from the MRO to justify his decision, not one syllable.

Now, with no change in the rules, and precedents in-season being binding under the rules, we now see about the 5th player concussed since after a player was pushed into a marking contest.

If they follow the precedent we get no charge, no explanation, no case to answer. If they do something different to that it is an admission they got at least the Ginbey decision wrong.

What decision do you expect?

 

[bzparkes]

now I'm really confused!! lol

I mean that if there's no penalty for it, either they make one(not by making an example of a player) and use an incident such as this as the precedent for the rule and say any future actions like this will incur a suspension.

I really hate AFL penalising players for non-existent rules.

 

[maskmcgee]

it’s just disappointing that some supporters can be so keen on a suspension for an opposition player, but when it’s their own player offending they’re not so keen.

I know. I was 100% behind Maynard getting off for his spoil on Brayshaw, but where were all those people when Peter Wright got railroaded? All fell to 'he's Essendon so suspend him'. I stand alone as actually having consistant opinions on things.

 

[Bald]

You made that up.

Most(not all) of our supporters wanted Ginbey suspended.

The current rules allow for that.

We got zero explanation from the MRO to justify his decision, not one syllable.

Now, with no change in the rules, and precedents in-season being binding under the rules, we now see about the 5th player concussed since after a player was pushed into a marking contest.

If they follow the precedent we get no charge, no explanation, no case to answer. If they do something different to that it is an admission they got at least the Ginbey decision wrong.

What decision do you expect?

I made what up?

Richmond supporters seem to have wanted the rules to change for them, but are now happy they didn’t so it won’t work against them.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I made what up?

Richmond supporters seem to have wanted the rules to change for them, but are now happy they didn’t so it won’t work against them.

How do you know?

 

[Bald]

How do you know?

Using “seem to” isn’t stating fact it’s offering an observation.

Hope that helps.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I mean that if there's no penalty for it, either they make one(not by making an example of a player) and use an incident such as this as the precedent for the rule and say any future actions like this will incur a suspension.

I really hate AFL penalising players for non-existent rules.

yes and for every new rule there must be a moment when it wasn't a rule, and the last person to do it legally, did it.

and a moment when it becomes a rule and the first person to do it illegally, does it.

but 6 weeks between those moments, and a Richmond players jaw broken as the victim, then a Richmond player suspended as the perp...

only the CFL.

 

[bzparkes]

yes and for every new rule there must be a moment when it wasn't a rule, and the last person to do it legally, did it.

and a moment when it becomes a rule and the first person to do it illegally, does it.

but 6 weeks between those moments, and a Richmond players jaw broken as the victim, then a Richmond player suspended as the perp...

only the CFL.

When was a Richmond player suspended?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Using “seem to” isn’t stating fact it’s offering an observation.

Hope that helps.

What makes it seem to be the case?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

When was a Richmond player suspended?

well, we will see in 3 days time!

 

[bzparkes]

well, we will see in 3 days time!

Alright, well let's not get too worked up over it then, eh?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Alright, well let's not get too worked up over it then, eh?

haha true, I believe Ginbey and Mansell should both go for their pushes, only the CFL could manufacture what's likely coming, but will wait till Monday to see!

 

[Bald]

What makes it seem to be the case?

I’m sharing an observation. If you don’t agree then that’s totally fine mate. Good luck for the rest of the year.

 

[BF Tiger]

Precedence isn’t used at the MRO, a memo was also sent out three weeks ago advising the league would be looking at these.

Could you provide a link to any media about this memo. Even better... a link to the actual memo. It'd be good to know what was actually addressed and if anything changed within the rules. Because if it's just a few words from the AFL saying "we don't like the look of these incidents and we'd rather not see them" then that carries no weight.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Could you provide a link to any media about this memo. Even better... a link to the actual memo. It'd be good to know what was actually addressed and if anything changed within the rules. Because if it's just a few words from the AFL saying "we don't like the look of these incidents and we'd rather not see them" then that carries no weight.

“Please note such conduct may also be subject to a charge of rough conduct as a reportable offence, if it constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the player to their opponent,” the memo reportedly outlined last Thursday.

“Please inform your players of this ahead of your first match.

‘Inform your players’: Tribunal cases loom as AFL warns clubs over charges for pushing trend

‘Inform your players’: Tribunal cases loom as AFL warns clubs over charges for pushing trend

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Meteoric Rise]

lol this is going to be beyond funny.

In the Tribunal Guidelines it says you can rely on incidents where the MRO has not layed a charge - providing the MRO gave a public explanation.

We now know why the MRO gave no public explanation for the extremely controversial Ginbey no charge. Because the AFL Footy Ops Department knew the decision was wrong even as they were making it and if they made any public statement explaining the decision it would be able to be relied upon in subsequent cases this season.

This organisation is pathetic..