MRP / Trib. MRP 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

PapaJ said:
I think they have an out here. They can say it was head contact of a sort, basically validate the umpire's call, but downgrade the force to negligible and throw a fine at him ... not sure if the criteria allows for that, haven't checked, but that should be doable in this instance.

BTW, I watch a lot of US Basket Ball, NFL and bits of the others - there isn't a sport that is as hard to umpire as AFL, not helped with inept leadership and rule setting, but fact is this is a nightmare sport to officiate. Got to live with that, but consistency in matters such as the tribunal and MRO should be far more possible ... but again, AFL can't seem to work it out.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Baseball is a nightmare to umpire. Rules are more cut and dry, but the strike zone is pretty much a grey area. Btw umpires need to maintain about a 95% correct call ratio to keep their job in MLB. All of it is scrutinized
 
FreoBraddles said:
Lockhart now being questioned by AFL counsel Andrew Woods - "is it correct you have no desire to see Walters lose a game".

Lockhart: "correct".
Click to expand...

Boy these AFL players are dumb. The right answer would be:

"Whether I want Walters loses a game or not has nothing to do with the question, I was just answering the question"
 
PapaJ said:
Medical report is only relevant if they're taking consequence in to consideration, which they don't ... oh wait, yes they do, they always do ... except sometimes they don't, its the intent, but only when intent can't be determined which is what the guidelines state, that it's about the outcome and the intent of the action and sufficient force to warrant outcomes of intent that is what the intent is. So the outcome doesn't matter in this instance if Michael Christian doesn't want it to, except when he does.

It's quite clear really, I don't see where the issue is.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what you get if you’ve listened to Christian over the course of the season so far and joined all his sentences together. Uncanny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Laughable if he gets pinged given other incidents have used the negligent force angle and got off for similar unsportsmanlike acts (Abletts flying elbows) Wouldn’t mind seeing them all get a week in the future but on precedence you can’t suspend him.
 
I rarely read anything in these tribunals that indicate these QCs do their job of properly defending the players.
For example, when Deboy says: "If you're judging between severe and low, yes ... but it was a headbutt of enough force and impact to be a reportable offence." ... my immediate thought is Freo's defense should be objecting and stating that an umpire should be judging between negligible and severe, not low and severe. You see, our defence has allowed Deboy to now sow a seed that a headbutt must be classified as a minimum of low impact and the only real way Walters is going to get out of this suspension is to win the argument that it wasn't low, it was negligible.
 
PurpleEyes said:
I rarely read anything in these tribunals that indicate these QCs do their job of properly defending the players.
For example, when Deboy says: "If you're judging between severe and low, yes ... but it was a headbutt of enough force and impact to be a reportable offence." ... my immediate thought is Freo's defense should be objecting and stating that an umpire should be judging between negligible and severe, not low and severe. You see, our defence has allowed Deboy to now sow a seed that a headbutt must be classified as a minimum of low impact and the only real way Walters is going to get out of this suspension is to win the argument that it wasn't low, it was negligible.
Click to expand...

Or not everything said is on the Live feed, you only get what the reporter thinks is newsworthy.
 
PurpleEyes said:
I rarely read anything in these tribunals that indicate these QCs do their job of properly defending the players.
For example, when Deboy says: "If you're judging between severe and low, yes ... but it was a headbutt of enough force and impact to be a reportable offence." ... my immediate thought is Freo's defense should be objecting and stating that an umpire should be judging between negligible and severe, not low and severe. You see, our defence has allowed Deboy to now sow a seed that a headbutt must be classified as a minimum of low impact and the only real way Walters is going to get out of this suspension is to win the argument that it wasn't low, it was negligible.
Click to expand...
QC has always been pretty passive. Hardly argumentative either. Never feel comfortable when we go to tribunal with him
 
Freoforever86 said:
I disagree. Baseball is a nightmare to umpire. Rules are more cut and dry, but the strike zone is pretty much a grey area. Btw umpires need to maintain about a 95% correct call ratio to keep their job in MLB. All of it is scrutinized
Click to expand...

Yes true, did cross my mind when posted that, and I don't watch much baseball these days so I'm not sure how bad it is - but still, I stand by the statement. There is a clear rule as to what in and out of the zone is, they get it wrong for sure, and you can understand why, but it's still clear. That doesn't compare to the 'interpretation' that goes into holding the ball, or you can climb all over someone if it's a 'realistic' attempt but it's a clear free kick if it isn't. But for sure, they all have their difficulties, just reckon AFL is harder for various reasons.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FreoRicci said:
You think.. got two players that deny but an umpire that thinks it was. Can’t be sufficient evidence at all
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

Medical report - absolutely not even the slightest bit of damage
Victim - No force at all
Umpire - WALTERS WAS THROWING HIS HEAD AROUND LIKE A JACKHAMMER. I FEARED FOR MY LIFE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top