MRP / Trib. Joel Selwood V Rliey Knight- no case to answer

[Boxhead_31]

So its ok to run passed the ball and hit Dangerfield in the head.

But its not ok to lose your balance and accidentally land on a player.

What a joke.

The pub talk was that Shuey had run past the ball, electing to bump and hit Dangerfield in the head. He was, according to most, in trouble.

As the vision rolled, the conversation between panel members instantly corrected some of the myths surrounding such incidents.

For instance, Shuey was entitled to bump, as the ball was within five metres – regardless of whether he had run past the ball – so there was no problem with bumping being his intention.

Therefore, the action had to be, in the view of the panel, classified as careless. To grade an action intentional, the MRP must be satisfied the player intended to commit a reportable offence.

That explains why it's very rare for a player's bump to be classified as intentional.

In the flash of an eye, the bump was categorised as careless and high, ensuring the only task left for the panel was assessing impact.

It doesn't take long, after hearing the medical report and watching Dangerfield in action soon after taking the hit, to classify the impact as low.

From that point, based on the table guidelines, the penalty is straightforward: a fine that begins at $1500 and ends at $1000, once Shuey's record is examined.

All that is needed now is for Shuey to accept the decision, which he later does.

 

[MaybeItsGreg]

The pub talk was that Shuey had run past the ball, electing to bump and hit Dangerfield in the head. He was, according to most, in trouble.

As the vision rolled, the conversation between panel members instantly corrected some of the myths surrounding such incidents.

For instance, Shuey was entitled to bump, as the ball was within five metres – regardless of whether he had run past the ball – so there was no problem with bumping being his intention.

Therefore, the action had to be, in the view of the panel, classified as careless. To grade an action intentional, the MRP must be satisfied the player intended to commit a reportable offence.

That explains why it's very rare for a player's bump to be classified as intentional.

In the flash of an eye, the bump was categorised as careless and high, ensuring the only task left for the panel was assessing impact.

It doesn't take long, after hearing the medical report and watching Dangerfield in action soon after taking the hit, to classify the impact as low.

From that point, based on the table guidelines, the penalty is straightforward: a fine that begins at $1500 and ends at $1000, once Shuey's record is examined.

All that is needed now is for Shuey to accept the decision, which he later does.

I appreciate the breakdown, but I find the grading odd.

 

[catempire]

Want to know how the MRP came to their finding in Joel's case?


The vision rolls from several different angles for the five panel members with 1143 games experience between them.

As one panel member said after watching the incident several times: "One angle is bad; the other one tells the real story."

The camera angle the panel determined showed the real story was slowed down and showed Selwood's palms being the first point of contact into the top of Mitchell's back after he tripped over his feet.

It is more illuminating than the broadcast vision most punters watched in the three days before judgment was passed.

"He (Selwood) was always going to land in the middle of his back. The first action is hands on the middle of his back and then he makes him earn it," a panel member said.

At the MRP's discretion, the action is changed from striking to rough conduct.

Further viewing creates more debate, as the MRP was clearly uncomfortable with Selwood's action.

"It's not a good action, let's be honest," a panel member said.

The debate must, however, centre around whether the act was intentional or careless, rather than whether it was good or bad.

"He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

"But does that make it intentional?"

Selwood tripped over Mitchell's feet, so it could not be argued he intended to commit a reportable offence. Therefore, the Cats' skipper was given the benefit of the doubt.

His action was graded as careless, high and low impact.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-20/big-calls-on-big-monday-a-day-with-the-mrp

The kind of pragmatism we need to see more of.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I appreciate the breakdown, but I find the grading odd.

Can't do much if Danger got up and played on straight away and the medical report says no lingering effects.

 

[allrighty]

Can't do much if Danger got up and played on straight away and the medical report says no lingering effects ...

... in the short term.

The issue is Shuey ran past the ball, which last time I knew was the object of the game, to poleaxe another player. How TF is that acceptable?

 

[Boxhead_31]

... in the short term.

The issue is Shuey ran past the ball, which last time I knew was the object of the game, to poleaxe another player. How TF is that acceptable?

Was within 5m of the ball, so it's not intentional, that he hit him in the head means it's careless

 

[Tony Barber]

... in the short term.

The issue is Shuey ran past the ball, which last time I knew was the object of the game, to poleaxe another player. How TF is that acceptable?

I've always liked players that run past the ball. It's a preemptive block.
It's smart.

But I still don't think danger was 100% after that.

 

[Mahlepi]

I've always liked players that run past the ball. It's a preemptive block.
It's smart.

But I still don't think danger was 100% after that.

the afl says the head is protected
except when its not

 

[lionbear]

The pub talk was that Shuey had run past the ball, electing to bump and hit Dangerfield in the head. He was, according to most, in trouble.

As the vision rolled, the conversation between panel members instantly corrected some of the myths surrounding such incidents.

For instance, Shuey was entitled to bump, as the ball was within five metres – regardless of whether he had run past the ball – so there was no problem with bumping being his intention.

Therefore, the action had to be, in the view of the panel, classified as careless. To grade an action intentional, the MRP must be satisfied the player intended to commit a reportable offence.

That explains why it's very rare for a player's bump to be classified as intentional.

In the flash of an eye, the bump was categorised as careless and high, ensuring the only task left for the panel was assessing impact.

It doesn't take long, after hearing the medical report and watching Dangerfield in action soon after taking the hit, to classify the impact as low.

From that point, based on the table guidelines, the penalty is straightforward: a fine that begins at $1500 and ends at $1000, once Shuey's record is examined.

All that is needed now is for Shuey to accept the decision, which he later does.

This is the issue, its now ok to target Selwood, Dangerfield, and even players from other clubs like Luje Hodge because the ball is within 5 meters and they will always get up again.

But we better get rid of the jumper punch, that's more important.

As I heard on the radio this morning, the brain when shocked from the hit doesn't know the ball is within 5 meters.

 

[cats_09]

Want to know how the MRP came to their finding in Joel's case?


The vision rolls from several different angles for the five panel members with 1143 games experience between them.

As one panel member said after watching the incident several times: "One angle is bad; the other one tells the real story."

The camera angle the panel determined showed the real story was slowed down and showed Selwood's palms being the first point of contact into the top of Mitchell's back after he tripped over his feet.

It is more illuminating than the broadcast vision most punters watched in the three days before judgment was passed.

"He (Selwood) was always going to land in the middle of his back. The first action is hands on the middle of his back and then he makes him earn it," a panel member said.

At the MRP's discretion, the action is changed from striking to rough conduct.

Further viewing creates more debate, as the MRP was clearly uncomfortable with Selwood's action.

"It's not a good action, let's be honest," a panel member said.

The debate must, however, centre around whether the act was intentional or careless, rather than whether it was good or bad.

"He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

"But does that make it intentional?"

Selwood tripped over Mitchell's feet, so it could not be argued he intended to commit a reportable offence. Therefore, the Cats' skipper was given the benefit of the doubt.

His action was graded as careless, high and low impact.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-20/big-calls-on-big-monday-a-day-with-the-mrp

I love this line from the article: "He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

Does that mean that if there player in question was less talented, say maybe a little uncoordinated, a little unaware or clumsy that the MRP would dismiss the report?

If that happened a few years ago with say Kosi instead of Selwood, would the MRP decide that Kosi was just unaware and clumsy enough that there was no intent in the action?

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

The pub talk was that Shuey had run past the ball, electing to bump and hit Dangerfield in the head. He was, according to most, in trouble.

As the vision rolled, the conversation between panel members instantly corrected some of the myths surrounding such incidents.

For instance, Shuey was entitled to bump, as the ball was within five metres – regardless of whether he had run past the ball – so there was no problem with bumping being his intention.

Therefore, the action had to be, in the view of the panel, classified as careless. To grade an action intentional, the MRP must be satisfied the player intended to commit a reportable offence.

That explains why it's very rare for a player's bump to be classified as intentional.

In the flash of an eye, the bump was categorised as careless and high, ensuring the only task left for the panel was assessing impact.

It doesn't take long, after hearing the medical report and watching Dangerfield in action soon after taking the hit, to classify the impact as low.

From that point, based on the table guidelines, the penalty is straightforward: a fine that begins at $1500 and ends at $1000, once Shuey's record is examined.

All that is needed now is for Shuey to accept the decision, which he later does.

Is that you Jimmy B
Nice summation

 

[David the Cat]

The kind of pragmatism we need to see more of.

Yes...as long as we don't see "selective pragmatism"....

 

[you pick one]

I love this line from the article: "He is a talented enough sportsperson to be able to fall in a different manner that doesn't do that," a panel member said.

Does that mean that if there player in question was less talented, say maybe a little uncoordinated, a little unaware or clumsy that the MRP would dismiss the report?

If that happened a few years ago with say Kosi instead of Selwood, would the MRP decide that Kosi was just unaware and clumsy enough that there was no intent in the action?

Exactly,they are there to make judgments on facts,not to judge players athletic ability,once they concluded that Joel tripped it should have been the end of story.Not this I think,maybe ,possibly,he could have done this or that bullshit.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Bump. Our esteemed leader too.

 

[Willo_]

Bump. Our esteemed leader too.

View attachment 395568

Don't fall for that bullshit that crow flogs are banging on about mate.
Will get nothing, a still frame shot can look damming without actually giving an accurate reflection of what happened

 

[Nickoo]

Don't fall for that bullshit that crow flogs are banging on about mate.
Will get nothing, a still frame shot can look damming without actually giving an accurate reflection of what happened

Exactly. The crows guy is slamming him onto the ground repeatedly including his head, its a survival mechanism; what else can you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Don't fall for that bullshit that crow flogs are banging on about mate.
Will get nothing, a still frame shot can look damming without actually giving an accurate reflection of what happened

His fingers are in Knights eyes. It doesn't look accidental either.

 

[Nickoo]

Bump. Our esteemed leader too.

View attachment 395568

Oh no Nakia had gone to the dark side. Oh no, next someone will tell me there's no Santa Claus!! Bloody hell the world's going to hell in a hand basket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Willo_]

His fingers are in Knights eyes. It doesn't look accidental either.

watch the actual vision...

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

watch the actual vision...

It's inconclusive but the still vision is damning imo. It's hard to hide from the fact that his fingers are in Knights eye region.

 

[Willo_]

It's inconclusive but the still vision is damning imo. It's hard to hide from the fact that his fingers are in Knights eye region.

It's inconclusive because there is literally nothing in it.

You could go through every game ever frame by frame and come up with hundreds of still shots that look bad but when nothing has actually happend.

He was pinned down, throwing his arms around to try get free.. he brushed past Knights face (whilst looking away so no intention) for about .2 of a second

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It's inconclusive because there is literally nothing in it.

You could go through every game ever frame by frame and come up with hundreds of still shots that look bad but when nothing has actually happend.

He was pinned down, throwing his arms around to try get free.. he brushed past Knights face (whilst looking away so no intention) for about .2 of a second

Hopefully you're right but if he keeps putting himself in those positions eventually it'll come back to bite him on the donkey.

 

[Sttew]

Hopefully you're right but if he keeps putting himself in those positions eventually it'll come back to bite him on the donkey.

He just has to avoid being tackled and pinned to the ground

 

[Willo_]

He just has to avoid being tackled and pinned to the ground

And trying to get free when that does occur

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

He just has to avoid being tackled and pinned to the ground

You can get up from the ground without the need to use an opponents eyes.