MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 5 - Charlie Cameron 1 week?

Remove this Banner Ad

perplexed said:
I think that you are ignoring both the action and the outcome and playing a semantic game around the word 'kick'.

The action I see is Silicy raising his foot and gently touch McGrath's leg with the top of it. I don't think it constitutes a 'kick' in any meaningful way, but for want of another word, others do. Once it is labelled a kick this is extrapolated into arguments about kicking someone being an act of violence that needs to be stamped out. Therefore Sicily needs to be punished. The argument has become completely divorced from the actual action that was clearly non-violent and harmless.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
CrowToon said:
I think perhaps you are focused on the outcome and I'm more focused on the action itself. Kicking is a choice and Sicily made the decision to do it.

I want to be extremely clear, I am not impressed with the conduct of Essendon players here. I don't like it when this stuff happens from anyone at any club, Crows included. I'm also someone who used to engage in this stuff when I ran around the paddocks of country footy and thought it was flying the flag and tough and all that rubbish. I've found further perspective and I've changed my view on it. It's not about eradicating contact in the game, I'm all for bit tackles and hard bumps (when in play and not to the head) but this rubbish off ball is ridiculous and pointless.

People are no longer playing the game because they don't know if the kick or punch coming their way is going to be light like Sicily's or much worse as we have seen. That's intolerable. This isn't people stopping becayse they are scared of being tackled, it's people stopping because we have meatheads (of which I used to be one) who think that it's their right on a footy field to go and ahead and do this non-footy s**t.

I'm satisfied Sicily didnt do damage. But as I said at the top I am action-focused, not outcome focused as I am thinking bigger picture optics. I know the AFL are more outcome based and I understand they need to have a foot in that camp because they are ultimately running a competition and someone missing a game for doing no harm may be seen as unfair or soft by some. I'm not constrained by such considerations so I am full team piss that s**t off.

I am happy to debate and discuss and I know some will think I'm too sensitive on the debate but I've seen the damage at a lower level (and to be fair we have seen it at the top level too). I am also happy to do it without having to be right but I wonder given your reaction is to laugh at posts whether you are actually in this for respectful debate or whether you are taking yhe piss and I've wasted my time even replying to you
Click to expand...
You're extrapolating a looooooong way from the Sicily incident.

"People are no longer playing the game because they don't know if the kick or punch coming their way is going to be light like Sicily's or much worse as we have seen."
Given the Sicily incident happened a week ago I don't think it's really front of mind for people making decisions about whether to play the game or not. And given no injury was incurred at all - I don't there's this is really going to affect people's concern about playing football.

I think people really need to look at why 'kicking' is such a trigger. I think because it's a particualrly nasty act due to the intention to hurt and capacity to hurt.

We know Sicily's act had no capacity to hurt. That's been proven by the fact no hurt was caused.
So then we go to the question of whether Sicily was trying to inflict a nasty bit of pain on McGrath. Given all the options he had with someone runnning at him - I think there's about 6000 ways he could have hurt McGrath intentionally. Including actually kicking him. Or elbowing. Or punching or kneeing.

I understand the difference between debating outcome or action - but given the action landed as intended and we know the outcome - there's no need to separate them or hypothesize.

So the emotional response to the kick is really based on things that did not happen. That 'could' have happened, but did not, and really were so absolutely unlikely to happen given every other element of the situation. Ask yourself what would need to be different in this interaction between McGrath and Sicily for someone to be seriously injured?

I'm happy to have a respectful convo on this. I find the emotional reaction to this incident quite extreme. But let's get into it and I'll drop the tone since you're willing to really debate it.
 
perplexed said:
I think that you are ignoring both the action and the outcome and playing a semantic game around the word 'kick'.

The action I see is Silicy raising his foot and gently touch McGrath's leg with the top of it. I don't think it constitutes a 'kick' in any meaningful way, but for want of another word, others do. Once it is labelled a kick this is extrapolated into arguments about kicking someone being an act of violence that needs to be stamped out. Therefore Sicily needs to be punished. The argument has become completely divorced from the actual action that was clearly non-violent and harmless.
Click to expand...
Im not playing a game. Im engaging im respectful debate. Don't be rude. I'm not minimising your point and trying to reframe your point so don't do it to me. Its easier just to say in advance you can't discuss.

To your point;
If we are going to deconstruct actions into the mechanics of the actions and call them something else then we can't prosecute things like eye gouging if we allow someone to argue that they didn't apply pressure, they just put their fingers there to distract them for example.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CrowToon said:
Im not playing a game. Im engaging im respectful debate. Don't be rude. I'm not minimising your point and trying to reframe your point so don't do it to me. Its easier just to say in advance you can't discuss.

To your point;
If we are going to deconstruct actions into the mechanics of the actions and call them something else then we can't prosecute things like eye gouging if we allow someone to argue that they didn't apply pressure, they just put their fingers there to distract them for example.
Click to expand...
I apologise if you found my reply rude, that wasn't the intention. If you think your argument isn't semantic, try making it without using the word 'kick'.
I don't think you can. The word 'kick' is doing all the work in turning a non-violent action into a violent one. I can rub my eyes without gouging at them. I can stroke your face with my open hand without slapping it. But we don't have an equivalent word that describes how Silicy how touched McGrath with his foot and this is causing people like Robbo to start screaming 'he kicked him, he kicked him'.
 
CrowToon said:
Im not playing a game. Im engaging im respectful debate. Don't be rude. I'm not minimising your point and trying to reframe your point so don't do it to me. Its easier just to say in advance you can't discuss.

To your point;
If we are going to deconstruct actions into the mechanics of the actions and call them something else then we can't prosecute things like eye gouging if we allow someone to argue that they didn't apply pressure, they just put their fingers there to distract them for example.
Click to expand...
Eye gouging is an interesting comparison - I would give no lenience to this cos a shift of a couple of millimetres ( or going a could of extra seconds longer) can have serious, life long consequences.

Whereas there's a lot more range of what a kick is and what damage it can have, from a toe tap to a big roundhouse kick. And I think that range means it's wrong to just say something is categorically a kick (and therefore should be punished to the full extent) or not a kick (and therefore not punished).

Sicily would have needed to be significantly and completely more forceful or targeted (aiming for a shin or kneecap or head) to cause the kind of damage that makes for a violent or dangerous thing.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
You're extrapolating a looooooong way from the Sicily incident.

"People are no longer playing the game because they don't know if the kick or punch coming their way is going to be light like Sicily's or much worse as we have seen."
Given the Sicily incident happened a week ago I don't think it's really front of mind for people making decisions about whether to play the game or not. And given no injury was incurred at all - I don't there's this is really going to affect people's concern about playing football.

I think people really need to look at why 'kicking' is such a trigger. I think because it's a particualrly nasty act due to the intention to hurt and capacity to hurt.

We know Sicily's act had no capacity to hurt. That's been proven by the fact no hurt was caused.
So then we go to the question of whether Sicily was trying to inflict a nasty bit of pain on McGrath. Given all the options he had with someone runnning at him - I think there's about 6000 ways he could have hurt McGrath intentionally. Including actually kicking him. Or elbowing. Or punching or kneeing.

I understand the difference between debating outcome or action - but given the action landed as intended and we know the outcome - there's no need to separate them or hypothesize.

So the emotional response to the kick is really based on things that did not happen. That 'could' have happened, but did not, and really were so absolutely unlikely to happen given every other element of the situation. Ask yourself what would need to be different in this interaction between McGrath and Sicily for someone to be seriously injured?

I'm happy to have a respectful convo on this. I find the emotional reaction to this incident quite extreme. But let's get into it and I'll drop the tone since you're willing to really debate it.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt, and I have said it, that I am thinking bigger picture. I don't think extrapolating is the right term but I agree that driving some, possibly a lot, of my concern is a bigger issue.

Now firstly that might be seen as unfair to Sicily. On the one hand I might agree it was, if we look purely at the result in isolation but on the other hand I think it was an incredibly intentional act. Therefore because it was intentional, I add an extra degree of seriousness.

Am I looking down the road a bit? Yes. But there IS scope in due process to deter and denounce based on bigger factors.

I don't want non-footy acts of violence. So if you kick, stomp, gouge, spit, grab some balls or whatever we decide is not on and it was intentional, the sanction in my mind starts at 1 game. After that we can discuss whether it was likely to hurt or not. So in my system Sicily probably only gets a game, but that sends a strong message that you aren't missing out on a few thousand bucks anymore, you are missing a game.

At AFL level players know in those scraps they won't get hurt. With rare exception such as in the case of Gaff and Hall, things don't go beyond a push and shove. I can't remember the last time someone got seriously hurt in a scrap. In fact this is why I am dismissive of the 'Sicily was doing it in self-defence mantra'. You might be suddenly thinking you have a gotcha opportunity since it stands to reason if I am conceding noone gets hurt then why do I want to ban it?

Well this is the part where I go bigger picture. I think it IS the AFLs duty to show us what the game should look like and although AFL players play handbags but really look after each other, the same cannot be said for the local leagues where violence is all too common. If it's part of the AFL then people think it's part of footy.

Also as an aside on the self-defence thing again, if we get rid of non-footy violence then Sicily has nothing to defend himself against. Just saying it's win-win.

Junior numbers WILL be boosted if the game is made safer. There is a reason sports with less violence have higher participation rates. Am I suggesting there aren't other reasons? No. But that's part of it no doubt at all. I agree noone is looking at the Sicily incident and walking away from the game...but it is what it represents, an intentional bit of violence. If we call it anything else then we allow it to continue to creep into the game at the edges of acceptance.

I also don't come at the perspective of worrying about what constitutes a serious injury either. I see if from a safety point of view. There are a million and one ways to get hurt in the sport, there is no need to add to the list by tolerating violence on the field.

If my use of the word violent is what is prompting you to think im emotional about this please understand I'm not angry or upset, I'm intentionally using a word for effect to support a point.

As usual, I'm happy to agree or disagree, I think we are closer to understanding each other's perspectives.
 
CrowToon said:
I have no doubt, and I have said it, that I am thinking bigger picture. I don't think extrapolating is the right term but I agree that driving some, possibly a lot, of my concern is a bigger issue.

Now firstly that might be seen as unfair to Sicily. On the one hand I might agree it was, if we look purely at the result in isolation but on the other hand I think it was an incredibly intentional act. Therefore because it was intentional, I add an extra degree of seriousness.

Am I looking down the road a bit? Yes. But there IS scope in due process to deter and denounce based on bigger factors.

I don't want non-footy acts of violence. So if you kick, stomp, gouge, spit, grab some balls or whatever we decide is not on and it was intentional, the sanction in my mind starts at 1 game. After that we can discuss whether it was likely to hurt or not. So in my system Sicily probably only gets a game, but that sends a strong message that you aren't missing out on a few thousand bucks anymore, you are missing a game.

At AFL level players know in those scraps they won't get hurt. With rare exception such as in the case of Gaff and Hall, things don't go beyond a push and shove. I can't remember the last time someone got seriously hurt in a scrap. In fact this is why I am dismissive of the 'Sicily was doing it in self-defence mantra'. You might be suddenly thinking you have a gotcha opportunity since it stands to reason if I am conceding noone gets hurt then why do I want to ban it?

Well this is the part where I go bigger picture. I think it IS the AFLs duty to show us what the game should look like and although AFL players play handbags but really look after each other, the same cannot be said for the local leagues where violence is all too common. If it's part of the AFL then people think it's part of footy.

Also as an aside on the self-defence thing again, if we get rid of non-footy violence then Sicily has nothing to defend himself against. Just saying it's win-win.

Junior numbers WILL be boosted if the game is made safer. There is a reason sports with less violence have higher participation rates. Am I suggesting there aren't other reasons? No. But that's part of it no doubt at all. I agree noone is looking at the Sicily incident and walking away from the game...but it is what it represents, an intentional bit of violence. If we call it anything else then we allow it to continue to creep into the game at the edges of acceptance.

I also don't come at the perspective of worrying about what constitutes a serious injury either. I see if from a safety point of view. There are a million and one ways to get hurt in the sport, there is no need to add to the list by tolerating violence on the field.

If my use of the word violent is what is prompting you to think im emotional about this please understand I'm not angry or upset, I'm intentionally using a word for effect to support a point.

As usual, I'm happy to agree or disagree, I think we are closer to understanding each other's perspectives.
Click to expand...
Ok I think we're really honing in the point of where to agree to disagree.

I'm in agreement with you that I want junior and local footy to be places where people can excel energy and aggression in healthy pro-social ways. I agree that the AFL is a body that has a large influence on the direction these things go.

Here is the first point of contention:
"So if you kick, stomp, gouge, spit, grab some balls or whatever we decide is not on"
Whatever we decide is not on. The question I jump to next is how and why we decide something is not on. You can reply that we don't want to see it at junior levels. Sure, but why don't we - what is it that makes an act so reprehensible we will disregard impact level and auto-ban? Gouging? Hell yes. I'm on board with it super vulnerable body part. Squirrel gripping? Sure, again damage to the most vulnerable part of the body.

But what is it about kicking that sets off the same alarm? Cos I think it's a different thing. Say, when Toby Greene stuck his feet out to mark and went studs-first into someone's chest or whatever - that is definitely a dnagerous thing and if people started doing that you'd see some VERY messed up things happen. So punish a low impact for 'potential for dangerous copycat effects'? I kinda see your point.

But I just don't get how Sicily's version of kicking comes close to what you're highlighting as your concern, or my understanding of other acts you've listed. It seems a very different category to me. But I appreciate that you've articulated where the more emotive responses are coming from
 
Leather Poisoning said:
So now you're comparing it to pregnancy. Wow man get a grip.

If you can't handle any thinking, or nuance or discussion beyond "IT WAS A KICK!!!!!!" then we'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

If you can't work that out for yourself then you have more serious problems than originally thought.

Stop wasting my time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sarcoidevo said:
Especially considering they had to stretcher Macrae off and he is still on a ventilator
Click to expand...
If you are collecting someone high in the way King did, I'm surprised 2 isn't the starting point with the potential to cause injury clause
 
hawkman said:
If you are collecting someone high in the way King did, I'm surprised 2 isn't the starting point with the potential to cause injury clause
Click to expand...

Well the punishment for a strike to the face should be based on the Gaff-Brayshaw incident if we are using “potential”.

A broken jaw and 8 weeks was the outcome there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TY24
MRP / Trib. Charlie Cameron gets a week for dumping tackle on Lever - Tribunal = down to a fine.
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
288
Views
8K
Chief
Chief
VicBased
Barass a week/Cameron gets off come on AFL.
Replies
22
Views
373
VicBased
VicBased
Chief
MRP / Trib. Rd 10 2023: MRP Saturday,
Replies
0
Views
330
Chief
Chief
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP Round 15, 2023
Replies
0
Views
375
Chief
Chief
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP Round 11
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
im_a_lazy_sod
im_a_lazy_sod
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP Round 13 2023
Replies
0
Views
346
Chief
Chief
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP Round 12, 2023
Replies
2
Views
455
Dez!
Dez!

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top