MRP / Trib. Josh Caddy 1 match ban - Should the MRP be punishing intent not outcome?

[Muddiemoose]

Don’t have an issue coping a week in isolation he knocked a guy out fair enough what I do I have a problem with is Sicilys sanction being the same

We should have lesser punishments for accidents during normal play but anti social behaviour should come with higher sanctions

 

[Goldust]

Yep. He struck a bloke in the head and knocked him out. Over the last few years I haven't seen one bloke get off those types of incidents.
I think he was lucky not to get 2 weeks given what we have seen from the mrp.
One week was a good result for us and Caddy.


Sent from my iPhone using Righteous Man Power.

Agree ... Captain.
I'll take the week and be happy. Never any chance of getting off that regardless of whatever argument you mount as to where is eyes were looking or where he wanted his hands to be.

 

[johnno77]

Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere but in the Sicily incident, there wouldn't have even been an incident if it wasn't for Selwood wrapping his arms around his legs below the knees. Perhaps Sicily got a discount based on the fact it was Selwood he landed on.

The Caddy one was always going to get a week and rightly so IMO. You go swinging clenched fists and miss the ball and concuss the player and you're gone and so you should be.

 

[theyellowsash]

regardless of the caddy ban i agree with suspensions based on intent. ie, if someone makes an absolute rainmaker attempt barry hall style but misses, he should absolutely be suspended.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere but in the Sicily incident, there wouldn't have even been an incident if it wasn't for Selwood wrapping his arms around his legs below the knees. Perhaps Sicily got a discount based on the fact it was Selwood he landed on.

The Caddy one was always going to get a week and rightly so IMO. You go swinging clenched fists and miss the ball and concuss the player and you're gone and so you should be.

I thought he swung with an open hand.....

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I disagree with many here. Outcome is too heavily looked into by the AFL.

Example 1:

Person A picks up a gun and accidentally pulls the trigger and fires the gun. Bullet ricochets off wall and kills someone.

Person A gets life in prison.

Person B picks up same gun and fires continuously at another person trying to kill them. Empties the chamber but somehow misses the intended victim with all the shots.

Person B walks away without incarceration.



This is what the AFL ruling would be under the system.


Anyone who thinks that is a good system is *******!!!!!


Caddy getting the same penalty as Douglas who clearly lined up Merrett to take him out is a stuffed decision.

 

[Bojangles17]

Respectfully disagree. There was no intent there. Should never have been anymore than a high free kick with a 50 metre penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Intent disappeared from being relevant some time ago

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Sicily got a week, and I'm ok with that.
Caddy getting a week for making the ball his intention is wrong.
Christian said in rubbing out Robby Gray and Richard Douglas, they had to make the ball their intent, they didn't (in his eyes) and they had other options but chose not to use them. Caddy CHOSE to not apply physical pressure to the oppo player, trying to smother the ball, with an open hand, with no other option but to let Mackay dance past him, yet still gets a week, pathetic. Christian said, in this scenario, the outcome is nearly irrelevant. Caddy deserved a fine IMO if we are going to be so sensitive tot he outcome, but not a week. So now, if someone gets knocked out in a marking contest because a player infringes by holding/tackling mid air, lets go, but the player knocks thenself out by hitting their head on the ground, is the defender going to be rubbed out for a week...

Both examples the defensive player was making an attempt to spoil/smother the footy, used poor technique, GIVING AWAY A FREE KICK, player gets knocked out... surely our game hasn't some to this.

A free kick against is still a penalty, and can be a costly one in the context of a game, why is there a sudden rush to want to rub players out?

 

[RunningBounce]

I tend to agree with the general feeling that Caddy's suspension was about right. IMO tiggywigs nailed it when he said

The question is not what Caddy intended (clearly he was aiming to strike the ball not the player), but whether he took sufficient care to avoid significantly injuring the player when he swung his arm.

Who really knows what anyone is intending? Basing judgments entirely on intent is fraught. All the arguments in this thread for basing judgments on intent are stark black and white, when what happens in a flash during a chaotic game of footy is almost always grey.

Yes, Barry Hall intended to punch Staker. Was Toby Greene intending to kick Caleb Daniel in the face? I haven't seen him or anyone else jump for a mark with a ninja high kick before or since, but only Toby really knows if he meant to do it. And it was just as violent as Hall's haymaker.

The fact that outcome carries plenty of weighting is an improvement, IMO, but I doubt the MRP bases judgments solely on outcome and entirely ignores intent.

What I have trouble with is that the MRP is one person, so there is no balance for Christian's biases. He probably thinks Selwood deserves a knee in the head and Caddy's a bit of a knob, so hey, only 1 week for both.

The cynic in me also thinks Sunshine nailed it when he said

We are talking about a mrp run by the afl and are asking for consistency?

Never gunna be fair and equitable. That's the game. You've just gotta be good enough to win even when you get shafted.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I tend to agree with the general feeling that Caddy's suspension was about right. IMO tiggywigs nailed it when he said



Who really knows what anyone is intending? Basing judgments entirely on intent is fraught. All the arguments in this thread for basing judgments on intent are stark black and white, when what happens in a flash during a chaotic game of footy is almost always grey.

Yes, Barry Hall intended to punch Staker. Was Toby Greene intending to kick Caleb Daniel in the face? I haven't seen him or anyone else jump for a mark with a ninja high kick before or since, but only Toby really knows if he meant to do it. And it was just as violent as Hall's haymaker.

The fact that outcome carries plenty of weighting is an improvement, IMO, but I doubt the MRP bases judgments solely on outcome and entirely ignores intent.

What I have trouble with is that the MRP is one person, so there is no balance for Christian's biases. He probably thinks Selwood deserves a knee in the head and Caddy's a bit of a knob, so hey, only 1 week for both.

The cynic in me also thinks Sunshine nailed it when he said



Never gunna be fair and equitable. That's the game. You've just gotta be good enough to win even when you get shafted.

An open hand usually indicates player is aiming for the ball. No one is saying he shouldn't be penalised but there was a free kick and additionally he should have got a fine for his clumsiness. Equating his penalty to Douglas who lined Merrett up to take him out is ludicrous.

 

[Goldust]

And when Franklin, Daniher, Treloar, whoever goes to whack the ball out of Grimes' hands, yet misses and lays him out, watch them turn and cry for a two-week suspension.

 

[Cotcho]

In terma of intent, Nank's and Fogarty's from the same game were far worse than Caddy's. The AFL places too much emphasis on outcome rather than the act itself.

In no way, shape or form is unintentionally concussing someone whilst trying to smother the ball even equal to deliberately kneeing someone in the head and grinding it into them. There is NO way.

I think it was Nick Maxwell ironing out a West Coast player in Perth about 6-7 years ago and breaking his face that started this debate and I’ve been very firm on my opinion ever since.

Outcome should be irrelevant.

Intent, action and impact are what is important.

The simple fact is, two players could take the exact same hit from the exact same player in the exact same circumstance. One could get up and play on, the other could suffer serious injury and miss an extended period because of it.

You don’t change the suspension because one player is more susceptible to injury than another.

Mmm I'd have to disagree. Perhaps the AFL have the balance between intent and outcome slightly wrong, however, in the legal system this is how it works on the most part.

If you do something wrong deliberately or via negligence...For example you run a red light and there are two outcomes:
1) You run over and kill a pedestrian
or
2) you fly through luckily avoiding people

Then you must pay a really high price in case 1). It is simply bad luck that you killed someone. If you didn't kill anyone then there isn't really a case to answer other than a minor traffic offence.

However, in the above it is really clear cut that a law was broken and then the outcome dictates.

I think the AFL simply need to be more lenient on actions that they can't really be sure were deliberate/negligent. If the ball is right there like Cotchin - Shiel Prelim incident then it needs to be let go. The players have to be at least given that benefit of the doubt. (Caddy in the same boat. The ball is right there)

We can't throw the baby out with the bath water though and say it's purely intent that dictates because consequences matter and should always be taken into account.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Mmm I'd have to disagree. Perhaps the AFL have the balance between intent and outcome slightly wrong, however, in the legal system this is how it works on the most part.

If you do something wrong deliberately or via negligence...For example you run a red light and there are two outcomes:
1) You run over and kill a pedestrian
or
2) you fly through luckily avoiding people

Then you must pay a really high price in case 1). It is simply bad luck that you killed someone. If you didn't kill anyone then there isn't really a case to answer other than a minor traffic offence.

However, in the above it is really clear cut that a law was broken and then the outcome dictates.

I think the AFL simply need to be more lenient on actions that they can't really be sure were deliberate/negligent. If the ball is right there like Cotchin - Shiel Prelim incident then it needs to be let go. The players have to be at least given that benefit of the doubt. (Caddy in the same boat. The ball is right there)

We can't throw the baby out with the bath water though and say it's purely intent that dictates because consequences matter and should always be taken into account.

I don't think that is a good analogy. Running a red light is always putting lives at risk whether by accident or intentional. An open hand trying to smother a handball is only going to cause concussion on rare occasions. Caddy was not ever going to know his clumsiness would end in that final outcome.

 

[Maroo]

Mmm I'd have to disagree. Perhaps the AFL have the balance between intent and outcome slightly wrong, however, in the legal system this is how it works on the most part.

If you do something wrong deliberately or via negligence...For example you run a red light and there are two outcomes:
1) You run over and kill a pedestrian
or
2) you fly through luckily avoiding people

Then you must pay a really high price in case 1). It is simply bad luck that you killed someone. If you didn't kill anyone then there isn't really a case to answer other than a minor traffic offence.

However, in the above it is really clear cut that a law was broken and then the outcome dictates.

I see what you’re getting at but you’ve kind of killed your own argument with the last sentence.

The fact is that in your red light / death example, there are two separate laws broken (probably more, I don’t know how the law works).

1. Run red light.
2. Something ranging from culpable driving causing death to manslaughter (again I don’t know exactly, but I’m sure there is something there in the law to catch that example).

In the AFL’s case, there is no law saying “causing a concussion is punishable by X”, just the laws of grading reportable incidents.

Really there is now an unwritten law that causing concussion will impact the penalty. The league may as well be transparent about it and actually formalise the rule. At least that way the argument is then about an actual law instead of the apparent presence of a law.

 

[RunningBounce]

An open hand usually indicates player is aiming for the ball. No one is saying he shouldn't be penalised but there was a free kick and additionally he should have got a fine for his clumsiness. Equating his penalty to Douglas who lined Merrett up to take him out is ludicrous.

Not sure you quoted the correct post, Tiger. I didn't equate his penalty to anything.

I said I didn't mind that an outcome was given more weighting than intent by the MRP because intent is notoriously difficult to know, let alone prove.

I also said I didn't like that the "Panel" consists of one person, because of all the bias that necessarily brings.

Not that any of of this matters too much. No system run by the AFL will be fair and equitable. Might as well go shout at the weather.

 

[HTT]

It’s Footy, you’re allowed to make contact with others. Sometimes, people are going to get hurt. Obviously the risk of injury needs to be factored, but an action that knocks one bloke out, may hardly affect another. In brief terms, I reckon the first thing that needs to be done is determine the intent. If it’s incidental, leave it alone. High contact carries the penalty’s of a free kick, not a week suspension. If it’s reckless, a player might’ve been going for the ball but came in a bit late and made contact (think Caddy’s), they should get a warning and a fine first to get them to scale it back. Next incident give them a week, that’s fine. If it’s intentional/off the ball, it should be sent to the tribunal to give the player a fair trial.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Unless there's a compelling defence, the outcome usually has more gravity than the intent.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Unless there's a compelling defence, the outcome usually has more gravity than the intent.

Define "compelling defence".

I would think an open hand attempting to swat the ball is compelling.....

 

[biaseddustyfan]

Overall i think clubs are just going to cop the 1 week when offered as to not get downgraded to a fine and strike, because with the AFL's flawed system strikes are carried over to finals when it should reset for finals.

they change that a bit this year, they still don't reset but it wont automatically be a suspension so clubs won't care

"Three low-level offences in a season will no longer result in an automatic one-match suspension, with a fine now applicable for the third offence."

 

[Helen Wheels]

Define "compelling defence".

I would think an open hand attempting to swat the ball is compelling.....

I think players can be experts at masking their intentions, which makes the real intent much harder to judge than the outcome.
Everybody can clearly see the outcome. That's what they're going to go with first.
Just saying that there would have to be a very clear and obvious intent to perform an action that would normally lead to no harm.
In other words, the player is probably seen as guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Unless there's a compelling defence, the outcome usually has more gravity than the intent.

Spot on. As much as it sucks they’re only worried about the outcome.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

joke of a suspension for sure. there are way too many suspensions like this these days. even Clangerfield's suspension last year was a joke and i hate that campaigner. sicily intentionally kneed a guy in the face on the ground, away from the ball, and cops the same suspension as people that accidentally injure someone in a tackle or accidentally stuff up a spoil and hit someone in the head. total bullshit and only serves to make the game slowly more and more soft each year. will end up non-contact by about 2030 imo

 

[johnno77]

I thought he swung with an open hand.....

You're right he did. Still deserved a week. Agree it's not as bad as the Douglas one.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You're right he did. Still deserved a week. Agree it's not as bad as the Douglas one.

IMHO a fine for a first offence would have been more than enough. If he repeats such "clumsiness" this year he should then get 2 weeks.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

they change that a bit this year, they still don't reset but it wont automatically be a suspension so clubs won't care

"Three low-level offences in a season will no longer result in an automatic one-match suspension, with a fine now applicable for the third offence."

Will this now be called the Cotchin rule, still silly they dont reset for finals though because it only takes one MRP member and outrage from the media for a player to be suspended for what is a low level offence being upgraded to a mid level offence.