MRP / Trib. Jeremy Cameron sent to tribunal - Harris Andrews incident - read Mod announcement at post #67

[Sime11]

So Vlastuins elbow on Parker only gets a week, if Jezza was determined intentional, than Vlaustins is even more intentional- yet only gets a week.... Victorian protected species yet again....

 

[fridgeman]

So Vlastuins elbow on Parker only gets a week, if Jezza was determined intentional, than Vlaustins is even more intentional- yet only gets a week.... Victorian protected species yet again....

Surprised at that and it will be interesting to see what the media are saying about that incident

 

[Giant Strides]

So Vlastuins elbow on Parker only gets a week, if Jezza was determined intentional, than Vlaustins is even more intentional- yet only gets a week.... Victorian protected species yet again....

Well, a significant difference is the level of impact - can't deny that - but no-one can realistically deny Vlastuin's elbow was the definition of an intentional act & IMHO should have been rated medium impact to account for the potential damage it could have caused. But of course no-one up in arms calling it a dog and cowardly act, when it was much more so than Jezza's, which was at least an actual in-game contest.

 

[dlanod]

IMHO should have been rated medium impact to account for the potential damage it could have caused

They do it based off actual damage which is silly but explains both the difference and the outrage.

 

[Giant Strides]

They do it based off actual damage which is silly but explains both the difference and the outrage.

Yes, and agree that it's a reasonable measure of impact; but the Vlastuin case is where there should be some discretion. Vlastuin could have easily smashed Parker's cheekbone - wonder what the outrage would have been like then?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

They do it based off actual damage which is silly but explains both the difference and the outrage.

Actually Phil Davis adressed the thing about the penalty on outcome in Footy Phil after the Geelong game. He supported it on the basis you get more gaol time if you knife someone and they die.
My Reflex is not to like it but It's the players risk, their opinion matters most to me.

 

[dlanod]

Yes, and agree that it's a reasonable measure of impact; but the Vlastuin case is where there should be some discretion. Vlastuin could have easily smashed Parker's cheekbone - wonder what the outrage would have been like then?

Would've been significant I reckon, especially if he knocked him out too.

 

[dlanod]

Actually Phil Davis adressed the thing about the penalty on outcome in Footy Phil after the Geelong game. He supported it on the basis you get more gaol time if you knife someone and they die.
My Reflex is not to like it but It's the players risk, their opinion matters most to me.

Interesting perspective, hadn't considered it like that.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

Actually Phil Davis adressed the thing about the penalty on outcome in Footy Phil after the Geelong game. He supported it on the basis you get more gaol time if you knife someone and they die.
My Reflex is not to like it but It's the players risk, their opinion matters most to me.

While the outcome does impact sentence, intent is the larger factor: murder sentence > attempted murder > manslaughter.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

While the outcome does impact sentence, intent is the larger factor: murder sentence > attempted murder > manslaughter.

I read your post but I haven't seen you make a case. Are you saying the penalty is not more severe if the person dies?

 

[GreaterWeStener]

I read your post but I haven't seen you make a case. Are you saying the penalty is not more severe if the person dies?

Murder = intentionally killing somebody and has the highest possible penalty
Attempted murder = trying to kill somebody but failing has the middle possible penalty
Manslaughter = killing somebody without intending to do so and has the lowest possible penalty

In both murder and manslaughter the person dies, so the maximum outcome isn't because the person died but because they succeeded in their intent. This is confirmed by the fact that intending, but failing, attracts the middle penalty.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Murder = intentionally killing somebody and has the highest possible penalty
Attempted murder = trying to kill somebody but failing has the middle possible penalty
Manslaughter = killing somebody without intending to do so and has the lowest possible penalty

In both murder and manslaughter the person dies, so the maximum outcome isn't because the person died but because they succeeded in their intent. This is confirmed by the fact that intending, but failing, attracts the middle penalty.

Now I see the logic in your argument.
I of course was quitting a comment by Phil Davis, and not withstanding your valid point I still believe the pkayers views matter most in this.
Phil seemed to be speaking for himself and I'm not sure how much, if any, I put the AFLPA had into the change, which has certainly happened.
The discussion around these things generally I find disappointing because it's so emotional and lacks objectivity in many cases.