MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 9

Remove this Banner Ad

What was Butters supposed to do? Just let Banfield pick up the ball? You can see in the still frames he hasn't braced for any contact at all and is legitimately making his only intention to be playing the ball. Crouch tucks his arm in and goes for the bump. Anyone that can't see the difference is blind or taking the piss.
 
Last edited:
All valid reasons but I think with the MRP/Tribunal having already smashed us twice with SPP and JF, and were only a handful of rounds in, they can direct attention to our cross town rivals this time for fairness.
 
A bit surprised by that. Don't mind him not getting a week but not even cited?
Total disgrace

Rules for some ... rules for others

Didn't get the ball ... barely touched it ..... but made sure he took out Banfield

if that was a lesser known player it would be weeks

The head is obviously not sacrosanct when it involves a brownlow contender or an AFL love child
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What was Butters supposed to do? Just let Banfield pick up the ball? You can see in the still frames he hasn't braced for any contact at all and is legitimately making his only intention to be playing the ball. Crouch tucks his arm in and goes for the bump. Anyone that can't see the difference is blind or taking the piss.
Could of collected the entire body of Banfield to move his body off the ball. They were both the same action but Crouch has come in from the front which always looks way worse than the side. I also think that because Butters didnt take the ball or even move it on, it looks bad for him. Could easily make the case that he was always going for the contact and not contesting the ball by how he "over ran" it.

These two incidents should of been an all or nothing precedent. Would prefer for both players to get off because I don't think we want players second guessing going in for a contest.
 
The Butters one is truly surprising. I've seen plenty of lesser acts being sighted.

Watching it live, thought it would be a suspension. Ben Dixon said on Saturday night he expected a suspension. David King said on First Crack it should have been a suspension (cited the AFL's response after the Trent Cotchin bump).

AFL need to be clear, are players responsible for contact to the head of they are going for the ball? Right now, I have no idea.
 
The Butters one is truly surprising. I've seen plenty of lesser acts being sighted.

Watching it live, thought it would be a suspension. Ben Dixon said on Saturday night he expected a suspension. David King said on First Crack it should have been a suspension (cited the AFL's response after the Trent Cotchin bump).

AFL need to be clear, are players responsible for contact to the head of they are going for the ball? Right now, I have no idea.
According to Christian it wasn't even clear that there was any head contact at all. Which is staggering.

I can buy the going for the ball defence, but for Christian to come out and state blatant untruths makes me question the motivation here. Does he think he's the only one that's seen the incident? Why lie when everyone knows he's lying?
 
According to Christian it wasn't even clear that there was any head contact at all. Which is staggering.

I can buy the going for the ball defence, but for Christian to come out and state blatant untruths makes me question the motivation here. Does he think he's the only one that's seen the incident? Why lie when everyone knows he's lying?
Lol.

I'm stunned by that response from Christian.


Title of video on the AFL website is "Butters comes charging in, catches Banfield high"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

According to Christian it wasn't even clear that there was any head contact at all. Which is staggering.

I can buy the going for the ball defence, but for Christian to come out and state blatant untruths makes me question the motivation here. Does he think he's the only one that's seen the incident? Why lie when everyone knows he's lying?
Exactly, if he thinks he didn't hit him then he needs to suspend Banfield for staging. This is the first incident i can remember that they are basically staying, we are not sure what happened despite having very high quality footage from multiple angles.

He's can't have it both ways and it's a disgrace that the AFL thinks no one will notice.
 
Exactly, if he thinks he didn't hit him then he needs to suspend Banfield for staging. This is the first incident i can remember that they are basically staying, we are not sure what happened despite having very high quality footage from multiple angles.

He's can't have it both ways and it's a disgrace that the AFL thinks no one will notice.
I think you could make a similar argument to the Fogarty / Fyfe one last week. I think there was just as much conjecture if high contact was made on Fyfe.
Fogarty got done - at minimum it was a clumsy attempt, I’m OK with that.
The consistency, or that should be inconsistency, of these decisions are baffling.
From my perspective, both the Crouch & Butters actions were dangerous. Luck playing as much a part as anything as to someone not being seriously injured.
David King spot on in his take on First Crack
 
Exactly, if he thinks he didn't hit him then he needs to suspend Banfield for staging. This is the first incident i can remember that they are basically staying, we are not sure what happened despite having very high quality footage from multiple angles.

He's can't have it both ways and it's a disgrace that the AFL thinks no one will notice.
Think the sweat spray from his head on contact is another fair indication…….
 
Michael christian - MRO on SEN with Whatley said that butters had a genuine attempt to get the ball and his left hand touched the ball and did not chose to bump so this meant the impact (low or medium) wouldnt matter.

Michael christian said:

“Zak Butters came in to contest the ball, he had both hands down, had his eyes on the ball and in fact touched the ball with his left hand. In our judgement, he was contesting the ball in a genuine manner,” Christian added.

“I think we’ve got to be very careful that we allow players the opportunity to contest the ball, it’s an integral part of the way the game is played and we felt Zak Butters did that.”

It’s not 100 per cent clear if the bump was high, says Christian. But since he didn’t deem it careless conduct, impact wasn’t considered.

Gerard Whateley asked Christian if Banfield been knocked out by the incident, would Butters have been suspened?

The MRO’s answer suggested not, given Butters was reasonably contesting the footy.

“I don’t want to necessarily get into hypotheticals, but if a player is generally contesting the ball, impact is not a consideration,” Christian replied.
 
Michael christian - MRO on SEN with Whatley said that butters had a genuine attempt to get the ball and his left hand touched the ball and did not chose to bump so this meant the impact (low or medium) wouldnt matter.

Michael christian said:

“Zak Butters came in to contest the ball, he had both hands down, had his eyes on the ball and in fact touched the ball with his left hand. In our judgement, he was contesting the ball in a genuine manner,” Christian added.

“I think we’ve got to be very careful that we allow players the opportunity to contest the ball, it’s an integral part of the way the game is played and we felt Zak Butters did that.”

It’s not 100 per cent clear if the bump was high, says Christian. But since he didn’t deem it careless conduct, impact wasn’t considered.

Gerard Whateley asked Christian if Banfield been knocked out by the incident, would Butters have been suspened?

The MRO’s answer suggested not, given Butters was reasonably contesting the footy.

“I don’t want to necessarily get into hypotheticals, but if a player is generally contesting the ball, impact is not a consideration,” Christian replied.
Like I said, wildly inconsistent.
 
Michael christian - MRO on SEN with Whatley said that butters had a genuine attempt to get the ball and his left hand touched the ball and did not chose to bump so this meant the impact (low or medium) wouldnt matter.

Michael christian said:

“Zak Butters came in to contest the ball, he had both hands down, had his eyes on the ball and in fact touched the ball with his left hand. In our judgement, he was contesting the ball in a genuine manner,” Christian added.

“I think we’ve got to be very careful that we allow players the opportunity to contest the ball, it’s an integral part of the way the game is played and we felt Zak Butters did that.”

It’s not 100 per cent clear if the bump was high, says Christian. But since he didn’t deem it careless conduct, impact wasn’t considered.

Gerard Whateley asked Christian if Banfield been knocked out by the incident, would Butters have been suspened?

The MRO’s answer suggested not, given Butters was reasonably contesting the footy.

“I don’t want to necessarily get into hypotheticals, but if a player is generally contesting the ball, impact is not a consideration,” Christian replied.
Yep,
Lost me at "It's not 100 per cent clear if the bump was high". This bloke is head of MRO and making decisions.

The rest is fine but be consistent and explain why in some scenarios you can bump someone in the head. If you run in like a mad man but try and get the ball you have the green light it seems but only if you are a Brownlow favourite.
 
They can't even follow their own guidelines. Crouch should have at least 2 weeks if applying the lowest criteria: careless, high impact and high contact.
 
They can't even follow their own guidelines. Crouch should have at least 2 weeks if applying the lowest criteria: careless, high impact and high contact.

High impact would have been pushing it there
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top