MRP / Trib. Mansell Suspended 3 Weeks - Suspension Upheld

[Meteoric Rise]

The tribunal said he should've tackled. Pretty hard to do that when Aish hadn't yet taken possession of the ball.

Did you see the Sam Wicks incident las night? Jumped, extended forearm, and hit a Brisbane player in the head after he disposed the ball. Has to be at least 3 weeks if not 4 based on precedent. Let's see.

Just looked at the Sam Wicks incident now. I am presuming Lester was not concussed. This just looks like an old fashioned strike to the head and would have been weeks in any era of footy. It is also difficult to see how it would not be graded as deliberate conduct as well. It knocked Lester off his feet so should be high impact, high contact, deliberate conduct(you surely cannot do that action by careless accident.) So if it is careless he gets 2 weeks, deliberate he gets 3 weeks. So there we have it, a good old fashioned late strike to the head with forearm is worth equal to or less than what Mansell's brace in an unavoidable collision in a contest.

There should be some sort of loading for the act to be outside to laws of the game on 2 separate grounds: late contact(worth a free kick regardless of how legitimate the contact would otherwise be,) and a strike to the head, all completely voluntary on the part of Wicks. But the system does not allow for this. The system says if you are executing a perfectly legal action in the game and accidentally make contact with the head you get the same punishment as a player who is acting outside the rules of game, with a deliberate late bump or strike.

Any system of punishment that doesn't try to distinguish between guilt and innocence is rubbish. If I am driving a car and a tyre blows and the car through no fault of mine veers into oncoming traffic and someone is killed, the law does not automatically give me a sentence the same as if I recklessly chose to mount a pavement and killed a pedestrian, just because somebody died in both instances. But you would also not expect the law to punish me worse in the first instance if somebody died than the second instance if nobody died but somebody was injured. The main thing the law will consider is whether you are guilty or not guilty of an offence.

The AFL advocate's suggestions that Mansell could have slowed down or tackled were wilfully ignorant at best. It doesn't match up with his available choices given the reaction time limitations and the imperative of all footballers to contest the ball with maximum vigour. The Tribunal findings are also retrospectively overly onerous on the non-injured player in the collision, without placing a similar onus on the injured player. Everybody should be allowed to attack a loose ball at full speed, or nobody.

This system is a mess. The laws of the game need to be joined up with the desired outcomes, ie less concussions. Then proper weighting needs to be given to the guilt or otherwise of the actions in respect to the laws of the game.

 

[Do the Dew]

Just looked at the Sam Wicks incident now. I am presuming Lester was not concussed. This just looks like an old fashioned strike to the head and would have been weeks in any era of footy. It is also difficult to see how it would not be graded as deliberate conduct as well. It knocked Lester off his feet so should be high impact, high contact, deliberate conduct(you surely cannot do that action by careless accident.) So if it is careless he gets 2 weeks, deliberate he gets 3 weeks. So there we have it, a good old fashioned late strike to the head with forearm is worth equal to or less than what Mansell's brace in an unavoidable collision in a contest.

There should be some sort of loading for the act to be outside to laws of the game on 2 separate grounds: late contact(worth a free kick regardless of how legitimate the contact would otherwise be,) and a strike to the head, all completely voluntary on the part of Wicks. But the system does not allow for this. The system says if you are executing a perfectly legal action in the game and accidentally make contact with the head you get the same punishment as a player who is acting outside the rules of game, with a deliberate late bump or strike.

Any system of punishment that doesn't try to distinguish between guilt and innocence is rubbish. If I am driving a car and a tyre blows and the car through no fault of mine veers into oncoming traffic and someone is killed, the law does not automatically give me a sentence the same as if I recklessly chose to mount a pavement and killed a pedestrian, just because somebody died in both instances. But you would also not expect the law to punish me worse in the first instance if somebody died than the second instance if nobody died but somebody was injured. The main thing the law will consider is whether you are guilty or not guilty of an offence.

The AFL advocate's suggestions that Mansell could have slowed down or tackled were wilfully ignorant at best. It doesn't match up with his available choices given the reaction time limitations and the imperative of all footballers to contest the ball with maximum vigour. The Tribunal findings are also retrospectively overly onerous on the non-injured player in the collision, without placing a similar onus on the injured player. Everybody should be allowed to attack a loose ball at full speed, or nobody.

This system is a mess. The laws of the game need to be joined up with the desired outcomes, ie less concussions. Then proper weighting needs to be given to the guilt or otherwise of the actions in respect to the laws of the game.

Said this on a few threads but before the MRO/tribunal even considers the impact/severity, they should first determine if it's a football action or not. Punching people, bumping people late etc. aren't football actions and should be graded more harshly than say a dangerous tackle which is a football action executed poorly.

I think a similar point came up on AFL 360 weeks ago, and Whateley said that there's nothing like that in the current reportable offence system. Supposed genius that he is didn't realize that maybe that means we need to change the current system so you don't get very different actions lumped in together.

Wicks' action was a dog hit. Even if Lester wasn't concussed, I have no issue with that being minimum 3 weeks.

 

[Bojangles17]

The line of guilt should be if the player travels past the ball and the makes contact , not when there’s @&#$ contact while ball in dispute and 2/10ths of a second says that

 

[Bojangles17]

Just looked at the Sam Wicks incident now. I am presuming Lester was not concussed. This just looks like an old fashioned strike to the head and would have been weeks in any era of footy. It is also difficult to see how it would not be graded as deliberate conduct as well. It knocked Lester off his feet so should be high impact, high contact, deliberate conduct(you surely cannot do that action by careless accident.) So if it is careless he gets 2 weeks, deliberate he gets 3 weeks. So there we have it, a good old fashioned late strike to the head with forearm is worth equal to or less than what Mansell's brace in an unavoidable collision in a contest.

There should be some sort of loading for the act to be outside to laws of the game on 2 separate grounds: late contact(worth a free kick regardless of how legitimate the contact would otherwise be,) and a strike to the head, all completely voluntary on the part of Wicks. But the system does not allow for this. The system says if you are executing a perfectly legal action in the game and accidentally make contact with the head you get the same punishment as a player who is acting outside the rules of game, with a deliberate late bump or strike.

Any system of punishment that doesn't try to distinguish between guilt and innocence is rubbish. If I am driving a car and a tyre blows and the car through no fault of mine veers into oncoming traffic and someone is killed, the law does not automatically give me a sentence the same as if I recklessly chose to mount a pavement and killed a pedestrian, just because somebody died in both instances. But you would also not expect the law to punish me worse in the first instance if somebody died than the second instance if nobody died but somebody was injured. The main thing the law will consider is whether you are guilty or not guilty of an offence.

The AFL advocate's suggestions that Mansell could have slowed down or tackled were wilfully ignorant at best. It doesn't match up with his available choices given the reaction time limitations and the imperative of all footballers to contest the ball with maximum vigour. The Tribunal findings are also retrospectively overly onerous on the non-injured player in the collision, without placing a similar onus on the injured player. Everybody should be allowed to attack a loose ball at full speed, or nobody.

This system is a mess. The laws of the game need to be joined up with the desired outcomes, ie less concussions. Then proper weighting needs to be given to the guilt or otherwise of the actions in respect to the laws of the game.

Exactly this campaigner will only get 1-2 for that

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Said this on a few threads but before the MRO/tribunal even considers the impact/severity, they should first determine if it's a football action or not. Punching people, bumping people late etc. aren't football actions and should be graded more harshly than say a dangerous tackle which is a football action executed poorly.

I think a similar point came up on AFL 360 weeks ago, and Whateley said that there's nothing like that in the current reportable offence system. Supposed genius that he is didn't realize that maybe that means we need to change the current system so you don't get very different actions lumped in together.

Wicks' action was a dog hit. Even if Lester wasn't concussed, I have no issue with that being minimum 3 weeks.

Same as T.S. taking out meatball...
Dangerflop taking out Vlossy...
Porkins pushing a player into Soldo's legs...
Dog acts not football acts...

 

[Blueyboy74]

The AFL advocate's suggestions that Mansell could have slowed down or tackled were wilfully ignorant at best. It doesn't match up with his available choices given the reaction time limitations and the imperative of all footballers to contest the ball with maximum vigour. The Tribunal findings are also retrospectively overly onerous on the non-injured player in the collision, without placing a similar onus on the injured player. Everybody should be allowed to attack a loose ball at full speed, or nobody.

The AFL seriously argued that? If so then that shows a disturbing lack of understanding about the game & what can and cannot be reasonably expected of the players. I don't even think it's anatomically possible to significantly reduce the speed at which your moving in such a short time & space.

As for opting to tackle instead (and overlooking for a moment the 'minor' detail that Aish hadn't actually taken possession a you rightly pointed out), this ignores that nobody lays a tackle, perfectly aligned front-on, without administering a 'liverpool kiss' in the process. When players converge from opposite directions, then you typically line your right shoulder up with your opponent's right shoulder (or left with the left) since not only is it far easier to execute, but the heads of both players should avoid contact. The difference is that unlike rotating your body side-on to brace for the contact which you can do quickly as it's just a twist of your body and not changing the course on which you're travelling, to exercise a safe tackle then Mansell would have had to abruptly change the plane on which he was moving which is nothing short of impossible in the amount of time and space available.

 

[Hoos]

The whole mess just shows how hopelessly ignorant, arrogant and incompetent the AFL are. They * with the rules of the game by bringing in insane interpretations for rules that never needed changing, making an already incompetent group of umpires even more confused, and now their own tribunal and appeals board gives stronger penalties for football acts that are unavoidable than dog acts when gutless cowards take out unsuspecting players off the ball.

You watch, that Sydney guy will get either a week or a fine because the Brisbane player got up and played on.

The bit that really got me was the advocate for the corrupt AFL, whatever her name was, told at least three lies that the appeals board actually accepted: Mansell should have tackled, he turned and changed direction from 2-3 metres away, and he raised his arm.

AFL corruption and incompetence at it's finest. All under that cnut McLaughlan's watch.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The line of guilt should be if the player travels past the ball and the makes contact , not when there’s @&#$ contact while ball in dispute and 2/10ths of a second says that

I think the simple test should be if what you are trying to do and the way you are trying to do it would attract a free kick if correctly umpired, you are outside the rules of the game. So late hits(eg Dangerfield on Kelly, Degoey, Stewart, Wicks, K Pickett,) raised forearms in contests(Wicks, Dangerfield on Vlastuin, Jeremy Cameron,) kicking in danger, stomping, dangerous tackle(Broad,) pushing a player into the fence, all these types of things the opponent cannot be reasonably expecting to be within the range of things that happens to him when he enters the field of play. If you are guilty of these things I agree with Do the Dew these should be dealt with on a different scale, punished with suspensions regardless of outcome according to the level of danger in the incident, but with some sort of minimum sanction if you are guilty, like 2 weeks maybe, or only less if the impact is relatively minor. At present for example a cynical late bump to check the opponent and stop him carrying on following the ball, if the player is not injured, will attract no penalty other than a free kick if you don't contact his head.

Then cases like Mansell's, where the player is trying to execute an action that would not ordinarily attract a free kick, and it goes wrong for some reason that is not necessarily his fault, much more effort should be put into figuring out whether there is any level of guilt you could rightly attach to him. In this case, the AFL have not established any level of guilt in his actions according to the rules of the sport. They have only offered two feeble and unrealistic alternative actions he could have undertaken(slow down or tackle.) Interesting to note here that if the Tribunals were truly independent of the AFL advocate, surely they should be able to look at this element of her case and say you have not provided a realistic alternative action therefore, no guilt, no penalty. I personally do not think this sort of action in a contest should ever be suspended, but it definitely should not be attracting stiffer penalties than my list of automatically guilty actions(outside the rules of the sport, so automatic free kick) in the paragraph above.

 

[TigFan1966]

Any system of punishment that doesn't try to distinguish between guilt and innocence is rubbish.

Well look at the insuficient intent rule, a player through no fault of their own kicks the ball and is tackled while kicking it, the ball can travel 40 - 50 metres then swerve and cross the boundary line, and it's insufficient intent?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Muffled noises from behind the closed oak door of the AFL's Old Boy's Club...



Well done Gil old chasp...that's another concussion problem ducked! Here's to you...you old scoundrel you!



Well done Gil old chasp for saving our financial skin$ yet again, regardless of whether it's fecked the game up! Well done and raise yer glasses once again...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Muffled noises from behind the closed oak door of the AFL's Old Boy's Club...



Well done Gil old chasp...that's another concussion problem ducked! Here's to you...you old scoundrel you!



Well done Gil old chasp for saving our financial skin$ yet again, regardless of whether it's fecked the game up! Well done and raise yer glasses once again...

In all seriousness though, suspending players for unavoidable collisions is not going to do anything to avert concussion law suits, certainly not without turning the game into an entirely different and less appealing sport.

 

[lllscroatlll]

the cfl with all its litigation mitigation tactics, is the same crowd who let p mccartin keep playing, the guy who gets concussed if his head is hit or not

seems aish is more susceptible to the old brain rattle than average too.

this, coupled with the outcome graded more important than the act, i mean it's just beyond belief

basically kpicket the dog human missile gets a week less than mansell who was fairly contesting a hot ball...

because bsmith can take a hit better than aish!?

they are mudding the waters with their own fugn grading system!

i don't understand why clubs keep taking this shyte. it is actually unintelligent.

 

[grumbleguts]

This is the most ridiculous suspension imaginable only potentially surpassed by the appeal on Monday. The AFL have basically said if you choose to play football and someone is injured by that choice, you will be suspended.

What if Paddy McCartin smothers a ball and suffers his 275th concussion. The AFL says "You chose to kick, severe, high, intentional. 3 weeks."

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

In all seriousness though, suspending players for unavoidable collisions is not going to do anything to avert concussion law suits, certainly not without turning the game into an entirely different and less appealing sport.

A long long time ago
I can still remember how
That FOOTBALL used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

But Dangerflop's hit on Vlossy made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn't take one more step

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about Mansell's damaged pride
Something touched me deep inside
The day the FOOTBALL died
So

Bye, bye Aussie Rules good-bye
Drove my Chevy to the MCG but the MCG had died
And them good ole boys were playing aussie rules footy the way we liked
Singin' this'll be the day that footy died
This'll be the day that footy died...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

A long long time ago
I can still remember how
That FOOTBALL used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while

But Dangerflop's hit on Vlossy made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn't take one more step

I can't remember if I cried
When I read about Mansell's damaged pride
Something touched me deep inside
The day the FOOTBALL died
So

Bye, bye Aussie Rules good-bye
Drove my Chevy to the MCG but the MCG had died
And them good ole boys were playing aussie rules footy the way we liked
Singin' this'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die

It does seem a bit like that Jack.

I guess like the famous 5 Carlton supporting Arabs, we will say we are done with AFL, then be back to support our beloved club the next week anyway.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

The MRO needs to purge the employee's and start again.

 

[Wooden Robot]

It does seem a bit like that Jack.

I guess like the famous 5 Carlton supporting Arabs, we will say we are done with AFL, then be back to support our beloved club the next week anyway.

Haven't attended a game since the 2019 grand final and only attended three games that year.
Even turned down a couple of days in a corporate box this year.
Trust me when I say was done with the AFL a long time ago.
They're corrupt as hell and I can't support what they are and have become.
I still pay my club membership as I have done for - as as has been done for me - for the past 49 or 50 years.
But I won't pay to watch a game and won't buy a single AFL product.
Aussie Rules is pretty much dead to me at the elite level.

 

[Freddy Swift]

This is the most ridiculous suspension imaginable only potentially surpassed by the appeal on Monday. The AFL have basically said if you choose to play football and someone is injured by that choice, you will be suspended.

What if Paddy McCartin smothers a ball and suffers his 275th concussion. The AFL says "You chose to kick, severe, high, intentional. 3 weeks."

Yes correct Grumble and you can no longer brace to protect yourself in case somebody is concussed. Bad luck what happens to you.

 

[tigerdan]

The MRO needs to purge the employee's and start again.

The umps should be purged too. On any other job if you keep ******* up you get sacked!

 

[tigerwill]

I’m just waiting for 2 teammates to collide and one ends up concussed.
*stick Christian will have a conniption citing the non concussed player.
“It’s the outcome”…….well it shouldn’t matter that the 2 players are teammates. Hurry up and happen so we can all laugh at *stick Christian tying himself up in knots wondering what to do, when to do it and who to.
What an imbecilic run organisation

 

[CASEYS9420]

This needs a please explain from the AFL? This is worse than what Mansell did and only gets a 2 week suspension.

 

[tiger_tough]

This needs a please explain from the AFL? This is worse than what Mansell did and only gets a 2 week suspension.

Got lucky, no concussion. That's why.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This needs a please explain from the AFL? This is worse than what Mansell did and only gets a 2 week suspension.

So it would appear to have been graded careless - the same grading re intent as Mansell. Surely it has not been graded less than high impact, hit to head knocking him flat?

 

[Blueyboy74]

This needs a please explain from the AFL? This is worse than what Mansell did and only gets a 2 week suspension.

''Similar to the Rhyan Mansell, the MRO assessed Wicks contact to be high and of severe impact. The MRO duly noted that unlike in the Mansell/Aish incident, contact was completely avoidable and the Lions player could do nothing further to protect himself. In addition, contact was made after the ball had disposed of and with the elbow raised. The MRO also took into consideration the mitigating factors being that Lester didn't lose a headband and Wicks doesn't play for Richmond.''

 

[Hoos]

Incompetent. Corrupt. C**ksuckers.