OH bloody hell...be geezu$$...let'$ not feck up the Brownlow vote betting!! Dear God that would put the $cat among$t the pigeon$!
Drink$ all around old cha$p$?!...what'$ your$ Gil old boy?!?
MRP / Trib. Mansell Suspended 3 Weeks - Suspension Upheld
- Thread starter _RT_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Drink$ all around old cha$p$?!...what'$ your$ Gil old boy?!?
And there's a full bottle of marty!
There is not one precedent I know of where a player has been suspended for an incident like this. And this somehow gets through 3 levels of *******s employed by the AFL and poor Rhyan Mansell gets a 3 week suspension. The system is ****ed. He would have had no clue or reason to believe when he entered that field that if he did that action he would have received a 3 week suspension for it.
As for the text available of the Appeals tribunal reasoning for their decision....they rely in part on Mansell having described himself as not contesting the ball.
Whether Mansell knows it or knew it or not, he was contesting the ball. His presence in the contest caused the ball to spill to his team's advantage. That is contesting the ball. What Mansell in effect admitted was that at the moment he realised a high speed collision was inevitable, contesting the ball was no longer his top priority, protecting himself became his top priority. This does not mean he is not contesting the ball, the contest was already locked in and was unavoidable. You could as easily say a player who lifts his knees in a marking contest is not contesting the ball because he is prioritising protecting his head and body by using his legs as a barrier, and he needs to go head first at the contest to qualify as someone who is contesting the ball. ******* nonsense.
The way the AFL and the two Tribunals have dealt with this has been abysmal. As for the arguments Richmond have run with, they seem to have been unsatisfactory. There is information readily available on human reaction time that could have been used to make it clear that once Mansell had committed to fairly contesting the ball, he was past the point of no return by the time he could have realised a collision was inevitable and he had no other sensible option but to brace for impact.
I really feel for Mansell. Especially as he, like his team-mate Vlastuin, has been ko'd by players who were contesting the ball without any penalty, no free kick, no citation, no suspension. So from his vantage point, this cannot seem fair.
As for the text available of the Appeals tribunal reasoning for their decision....they rely in part on Mansell having described himself as not contesting the ball.
Whether Mansell knows it or knew it or not, he was contesting the ball. His presence in the contest caused the ball to spill to his team's advantage. That is contesting the ball. What Mansell in effect admitted was that at the moment he realised a high speed collision was inevitable, contesting the ball was no longer his top priority, protecting himself became his top priority. This does not mean he is not contesting the ball, the contest was already locked in and was unavoidable. You could as easily say a player who lifts his knees in a marking contest is not contesting the ball because he is prioritising protecting his head and body by using his legs as a barrier, and he needs to go head first at the contest to qualify as someone who is contesting the ball. ******* nonsense.
The way the AFL and the two Tribunals have dealt with this has been abysmal. As for the arguments Richmond have run with, they seem to have been unsatisfactory. There is information readily available on human reaction time that could have been used to make it clear that once Mansell had committed to fairly contesting the ball, he was past the point of no return by the time he could have realised a collision was inevitable and he had no other sensible option but to brace for impact.
I really feel for Mansell. Especially as he, like his team-mate Vlastuin, has been ko'd by players who were contesting the ball without any penalty, no free kick, no citation, no suspension. So from his vantage point, this cannot seem fair.
Last edited:
now im just hoping sicily also gets his ban upheld cos i think ill actually melt
although im already kind of numb to it so it's hard to melt when ur used to it and already know the outcome. was expecting mansell to lose the challenge and the appeal
although im already kind of numb to it so it's hard to melt when ur used to it and already know the outcome. was expecting mansell to lose the challenge and the appeal
Two oppo teams on the ground and in position...once those white maggotts blow the whistle and bounce that footy...it's the start of the contest!
Then no matter where you and your oppo are on the footy field...you are both engaged in a contest!
Standing on the mark...you are in a contest!
Kicking for goal you are in a contest!
Running back to your position on the ground you are in a contest!
Over running the ball...you are in a contest!
Shoved in the back by Porkins you are in a contest!
Handing the ball back slowly to the oppo...you are in a contest!
Last edited:
- Feb 14, 2014
- 5,274
- 12,750
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You've hit the nail on the head. The issue though is that they don't understand that this line of action will only hurt the game and not save them from future litigation.
Only way that Aish could successfully sue for concussion is if there was negligence regarding protocols once he was confirmed to being concussed.
Someone just needs to come out and just bite the bullet and say "As an AFL player you must accept that you are playing a contact game where accidents happen"
How the * did Cripps get away with knocking out ah chee last year?
Excellent question to be put to the President of the AFLPA for comment!
Sir_Loin
🏆🏆🏆
Essentially what the AFL is saying it would have been better for both players to be concussed.
- Jun 27, 2004
- 16,064
- 15,808
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils
- Moderator
- #761
Vlustuin lucky he was not suspended for getting in Dangerfields way lol
- Jun 27, 2004
- 16,064
- 15,808
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils
- Moderator
- #762
Cause the afl love him and they new Charlie the Brownlow was coming
- Aug 25, 2018
- 4,129
- 10,757
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
What about 70,000 of them in the crowd.
- Aug 13, 2017
- 5,249
- 18,478
- AFL Club
- Richmond
3 weeks for protecting yourself so you don't go out on a stretcher, so someone tell me what's he
Meant to do ? The Afl are so out of touch with
Common sense it's just insane , we are on a different playing field when it comes to umpiring ,tribunal, guess we just bend over and cop it like we do every week with the lopsided umpiring fmd.
Meant to do ? The Afl are so out of touch with
Common sense it's just insane , we are on a different playing field when it comes to umpiring ,tribunal, guess we just bend over and cop it like we do every week with the lopsided umpiring fmd.
No idea mate, I'd think we have plenty soft cap left with Dimma not there
Was a poor outcome for us
Exactly. And Whately keeps harping on that Aish will miss multiple weeks, well so did Ahchee of the Lions last year he missed 2-3 weeks by memory.
So going by Whateley's assertion of this Cripps should have been suspended for multiple weeks and not gotten off.
smasha
It's Time!
Tom Stewart only got One more week for KO in g a player.
MRP got this totally wrong.
They know it too.
There is some other emotional reason why they did this.
Look on the CFL website.
Had him hung and quartered already.
Young Tiger learns fate after suspension appeal
Rhyan Mansell has faced the AFL Appeals Board in a bid to have his three-week suspension overturned
www.afl.com.au
I bet 100% if that was Clangerfield he wouldnt have even been reported
3 years ago "Christian elected to not fine or suspend Dangerfield, suggesting his actions in the incident were “not unreasonable”.
Dangerfield avoids sanction after brutal blow on Tigers star
Dangerfield avoids sanction after brutal blow on Tigers star
www.foxsports.com.au
Lord of the Wings
Club Legend
Game is farked. Hope the clubs sues the AFL. Bunch of *en campaigners
What about DeGoey, he wasn't contesting the ball in any way jumped off the ground to make a deliberate bump, result 3 weeks.Tom Stewart only got One more week for KO in g a player.
MRP got this totally wrong.
They know it too.
There is some other emotional reason why they did this.
Look on the CFL website.
Had him hung and quartered already.
Young Tiger learns fate after suspension appeal
Rhyan Mansell has faced the AFL Appeals Board in a bid to have his three-week suspension overturned
Now how in the f@ck can they judge Mansells bump as the same, it was only a couple of weeks ago ffs, reduction given for star power? what BS
Sir_Loin
🏆🏆🏆
Would have got three Brownlow votes and a reach around from Hocking
- Jul 8, 2017
- 21,803
- 64,231
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Players know this when they step out on the field.they also know there is a chance they will get a concussion through normal contested football. If the AFL want to stamp out the illegal bumps then penalise it heavier. Tom Stewart's targeted hit on Prestia with the only intention of hurting him off the ball should get 15 weeks if Mansell's was worth 3 weeks.
Similar threads
