MRP / Trib. Mason Cox - Appeal upheld

Remove this Banner Ad

magpienato said:
So apparently they are able to cite previous footage now:

"Cox's representatives are now playing examples of cases deemed to be careless, rather than intentional. They include Steven May's bump on Ed Curnow from 2018 and Lindsay Thomas' bump on Logan Austin from 2018."
Click to expand...
One thing to add (for some reason I couldnt edit my reply to you) is that the above two bumps were taken from the AFL prescribed video which includes examples and which is permitted at the tribunal'

"The Player may rely before the Tribunal on any incident contained in that AFL Season’s composite video (DVD) that is said to be comparable to the incident.."

Will check!
 
 
Scodog10 said:
Wowee Gerard Whately just delivered an almighty whack to Chrisso! The guts of it was around the medical report. He even went as far as to say Richmond contacted the club because they were concerned there was a perception they’d played an active role in the sanction. This may not be done with yet...
Click to expand...

He also started to talk about it on 360 last night till Robbo butted in with something about Hird.

What is interesting is that Chrisso said on the segment he does (can't find it at present) that there was concussion...if it didn't come from the Tigers medical report then the only explanation is he has made it up under the pressure of the industry backlash.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

barrackers said:
Good of them to do that.

The tribunal only downgraded the intent, not the impact, which in a way supports (or at least doesn’t contradict it) Christian’s interpretation of the medical report. Might be difficult doing much more because of that.
Click to expand...
Actually Chrisso said there was concussion whilst the medical report said there wasn't. That should be problematic for him.
 
good4footy said:
He also started to talk about it on 360 last night till Robbo butted in with something about Hird.

What is interesting is that Chrisso said on the segment he does (can't find it at present) that there was concussion...if it didn't come from the Tigers medical report then the only explanation is he has made it up under the pressure of the industry backlash.
Click to expand...

Based on TRS’ comments last night I was leaning that way, but the comments of Whately are particularly damning. I don’t think it’s enough to bring his ability in the role into question, but I do think he should be held accountable in some way for what was poor judgment on this incident!

Literally the only good that’s come of it is he’ll never be accused of bias towards Collingwood...
 
good4footy said:
He also started to talk about it on 360 last night till Robbo butted in with something about Hird.

What is interesting is that Chrisso said on the segment he does (can't find it at present) that there was concussion...if it didn't come from the Tigers medical report then the only explanation is he has made it up under the pressure of the industry backlash.
Click to expand...

It's a moot point now anyway but wasn't it that the initial bench assessment suggested concussion like symptoms and that Grimes was later cleared of concussion as stated in the medical report?
 
neilk said:
You have just brought the thing I hate most-drivers who speed up when there’s an overtaking lane then slow down when it ends.
Click to expand...
Lol small potatoes. . .

About a decade ago I was driving out along the Monash freeway here in Melbourne and getting towards the Blackburn Rd exit when I saw this clown charge across from the extreme right hand lane and just catch the very last few meters of the off ramp - all to a chorus of screeching brakes and honking horns.
To finish off this piece of totally insane and arrogant driving said moron immediately proceeded up the off ramp still doing at least 80kph all the while twisted around to face the rear and giving us the bird.

They are out there people and they don't give a f*ck about any of us.

As for slow drivers probably the worst are the ones who get three quarters of the way down the on ramp to a freeway and hit the brakes because they have no f*cking idea how to merge . . :mad::mad::mad:
 
good4footy said:
Scodog10 Buck's view on this. Including a comment on the medical report.
Click to expand...

You’ve lost me a bit. Do you mean Buckley’s take when on SEN?

If so I tuned out because he went into footy robot mode, that’s fine for people who love Buckley the statesman, but I’ve always loved Buckley the football mind and it wasn’t really a discussion that stimulated that aspect of his personality.

His comments around Chrisso’s bias stood out though because they’d be relevant around here.
 
I don’t recall Christian mentioning concussion. Just that the report supported his decision.
Perhaps, for example, the medical report said that Grimes had been struck in the chin but that there was no concussion. That would support Christian’s charge of high contact, low impact.
In that case it would make sense that the tribunal found that he erred only in intent.
 
Scodog10 said:
You’ve lost me a bit. Do you mean Buckley’s take when on SEN?

If so I tuned out because he went into footy robot mode, that’s fine for people who love Buckley the statesman, but I’ve always loved Buckley the football mind and it wasn’t really a discussion that stimulated that aspect of his personality.

His comments around Chrisso’s bias stood out though because they’d be relevant around here.
Click to expand...
Ha ha. It helps if I add the link!!

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/04...r-one-person-buckley-questions-current-setup/
 
For me, the system worked how it should.

The MRO's role is to cite incidents provide an assessment. The player then has the option to accept the ruling, or have the matter heard by a tribunal.

It is important to note that the MRO does not hear evidence from both sides. It makes an assessment based on the facts it has at hands, but the facts have not been tested or challenged.

If the player disagrees, then he is entitled to a Hearing.

In this case, the matter was heard and the evidence cross-examined. The ruling came back favourable to the player which I am grateful for.

But I still believe the MRO did their job...which is cite an incident.

In my opinion, this system is working well because players are challenging at the tribunal. I didn't like the system 2 years ago where players were just accepting the MRP decision blindly just because they were scared of copping the higher penalty.

The MRO should not be the final call on it. Their role is to merely cite and provide an initial assessment. They base their decision purely on the black letter of the rules. The tribunal's role is to assess the complexity's of the individual case.

I think it worked fine. We got a fair hearing, and Mason was let off. Bu I also think it was fair enough the matter was cited as Cox made high contact, off the ball, and there was a report of "concussive like symptons". I think he was right to cite it, and the Tribunal were right to downgrade it.

And we also need to keep in mind that the tribunal did not throw it out...they downgraded the severity. Cox still received a $3,000.00 fine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

gerryg400 said:
I don’t recall Christian mentioning concussion. Just that the report supported his decision.
Perhaps, for example, the medical report said that Grimes had been struck in the chin but that there was no concussion. That would support Christian’s charge of high contact, low impact.
In that case it would make sense that the tribunal found that he erred only in intent.
Click to expand...
You're spot on.
Off the back of your post I watched/listened again, (1 min. 15 or so in).
Chrisso corrects Beveridge when he says high impact and calls it high contact.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-01/exclusive-the-vision-that-damned-mason-cox
 
Having Cox into Grimes....

It was never going to come out well....

At $3,000 all in a nights work for the Big Texan.

Now for some roasted eagle
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
I don’t know the ins and outs of it.

I’m suggesting that hypothetically if a club is paying (whether in currency form or in kind) for a player’s fines then those payments would surely have to fall within the salary cap.

Whether that happens in reality is up for debate and something that we regular punters don’t have any insight into.

I mean I don’t know how the salary cap works at the best of times given the inherent variability in match payments across the board.

If anyone genuinely knows the answer though I’d love to know!
Click to expand...
Mason was seen at AFL House this morning with a great big old Bacardi Bottle full of $2.00 coins.
 
Saintly Viewed said:
Begs the question, hats your favourite fish?
Click to expand...

Hats my Favorite.

cw18hat01m_2.jpg
 
Pie eyed said:
As for fish....Albacore....
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wouldn't even have albacore as my favorite tuna. That'd be yellow fin. Favorite salt water fish to eat would be coral trout.

Agree though, hard to beat flattie tails.
 
jackcass said:
Interesting. I wouldn't even have albacore as my favorite tuna. That'd be yellow fin. Favorite salt water fish to eat would be coral trout.

Agree though, hard to beat flattie tails.
Click to expand...

Coral Trout then daylight then off Coral trout. Then maybe another reef fish like red emperor then KGW then flatties. All very good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
jackcass said:
Interesting. I wouldn't even have albacore as my favorite tuna. That'd be yellow fin. Favorite salt water fish to eat would be coral trout.

Agree though, hard to beat flattie tails.
Click to expand...
Cooked, not raw.
Yellowfin is very over-rated, like Angus Beef.
Snapper is ridiculously over rated.
Millions spent promoting an inferior product...for?
Monetary gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheGreatGrundy
Toast Congratulations Mason Cox on Australian citizenship
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
zan5hin
zan5hin
PonsfordMagpie
Toast Sidebottom (300 games) // Cox (100 games)
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Black_White
Black_White

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top