Opinion Non-Crows AFL 8 - Daddy Donuts Delivers Dream Drubbing

[Punchy Bassett]

I get your point, but the tribunal is supposed to be independent.

Yes, yes, I know it’s not perfect. No system is. But what’s worse — leaving it to an independent (we hope) judge, or having these ridiculous rigid grading offences baked into the system that nobody can really challenge?

There needs to be a mechanism available for professional discretion.

Or maybe you just wanna get rid of the whole system and have an AI bot doing the MRO and tribunal roles? Because that’s the alternative.

Then appoint a non footy person, serious here.

 

[Bay62]

Even if it's a woman?

Actually it will be interesting to see if that makes a difference

I’m hoping so

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Actually it will be interesting to see if that makes a difference

I’m hoping so

As I said last night, she's got her first big test of telling North to GAGF

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don’t think it’s black and white (see what I did there?!), it’s definitely worthy of a debate, and the evidence of that is that it’s a downfield free kick every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The issue I have is that some blokes get knocked out at the drop of a hat. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, we don’t want it to happen, but the fact is it does happen.

That can’t be the standard here.

Yep

Did Sloane get suspended for making Ebert bleed?

The bloke would cut himself open putting on sunscreen

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Was it all a show?

Let's go the whole hog. Tribunal hearing, biomechanists, the works. What's the minimum amount of time we have to look as though we're deliberating before we can announce not guilty?

Four hours...? Sheesh.

We don't have to appeal do we? Let's leave it til the last minute before we announce we aren't appealing, so it looks like we really considered it.

This way we appear to be serious about head knocks but don't have to suspend someone for a football accident.

 

[GameofSloanes]

As I said last night, she's got her first big test of telling North to GAGF

Doesn't need to, just say your assistance is additional soft cap funding or something similar. In no way should it be draft picks.

 

[jenny61_99]

McAdam's suspension is definitely the outlier for the whole season. At no stage did anyone get suspended for anything remotely like what he did again, and certainly not for 3 weeks. Such a weird decision. The ones on the weekend I reckon got a week's 'finals discount' compared to what they would get in regular season because apparently head hits are less serious in finals.
The maynard one I think was the correct decision, but would not be surprised if clubs are told from next year you will get suspended for it. But if a Crows player had done what maynard did it would've been 4+ weeks for sure.

That's certainly what it feel like.

 

[PeterSalt]

Doesn't need to, just say your assistance is additional soft cap funding or something similar. In no way should it be draft picks.

This is where I can imagine other clubs being antsy about the whole drama

North very publicly chased Clarkson and landed him. On a massive financial contract. And that is now hindering their ability to fund other areas of need in their football department. Now they're going cap in hand for more assistance.

Yet additional short term funding for their football department makes more sense than additional draft concessions

 

[jenny61_99]

I get your point, but the tribunal is supposed to be independent.

Yes, yes, I know it’s not perfect. No system is. But what’s worse — leaving it to an independent (we hope) judge, or having these ridiculous rigid grading offences baked into the system that nobody can really challenge?

There needs to be a mechanism available for professional discretion.

Or maybe you just wanna get rid of the whole system and have an AI bot doing the MRO and tribunal roles? Because that’s the alternative.

But this is where the problem lies. They DON'T have a consistent approach at all. The inconsistencies from week to week is mind boggling! One fella deliberately thumps another in the face... gets off. Another, doesn't even make head contact, gets three weeks based "on the vibe". It's a s**t show. It needs to be independent, but it also absolutely has to be fair.

 

[Slippery Pete]

But this is where the problem lies. They DON'T have a consistent approach at all. The inconsistencies from week to week is mind boggling! One fella deliberately thumps another in the face... gets off. Another, doesn't even make head contact, gets three weeks based "on the vibe". It's a s**t show. It needs to be independent, but it also absolutely has to be fair.

Yeah that’s part of my point, the grading system was supposed to provide certainty and consistency, and it hasn’t at all, it’s worse than it ever was.

 

[treeman]

He'll be a gun though with Kenny around.

 

[arrowman]

Yes Christian was right .....every man and his dog could see it was a footy accident ....the AFL knew it too

So ....it was purely about the optics ....politics around concussion ..the AFL being seen to be tough around concussions

I don't strongly disagree; as for the optics, yes, no doubt that was a consideration (and frankly, given the issues / potential issues around concussion, maybe you can't blame them). At the same time, I think this was a test case of sorts, and it needed to be played out in front of the tribunal with full evidence / arguments to set some sort of boundary, if you like. Maybe the right result was achieved for the wrong reasons.

However...

Why did Maynard have to put thru the stress of a tribunal hearing .....and for that matter, the Club

Yes, Maynard was the meat in this sandwich, unfortunately for him.

If the incident had another player rather than Brayshaw, who is prone to concussion .....would the matter have gone to the tribunal ? Because I doubt the player would have been carried off

Who knows, but IMO there's no doubt that the fact that it was Brayshaw coloured a lot of the media coverage. Thankfully the Tribunal wasn't swayed by that.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I don't strongly disagree; as for the optics, yes, no doubt that was a consideration (and frankly, given the issues / potential issues around concussion, maybe you can't blame them). At the same time, I think this was a test case of sorts, and it needed to be played out in front of the tribunal with full evidence / arguments to set some sort of boundary, if you like. Maybe the right result was achieved for the wrong reasons.

It seems we've had a lot of these test cases this year

The media is yet again discussing changes to the tribunal structure .....how many times do we need to change how the tribunal acts, B4 we realise, if humans are involved we're all going to have differing opinions on the same incident

Put AI in charge of the Tribunal

However, what we must realise is the Tribunal judgements are entirely political by the AFL .....varying assessments of like for like incidents, depending on the time of the season, and the messaging the AFL is trying to convey

 

[SugarShane]

There’s an inherent problem with the system that also needs to be discussed here.

The grading process works a bit like mandatory sentencing in the courts. It takes away the ability of the judge to exercise discretion.

What we have here is a situation where Maynard was going to miss a GF, or get off scot-free. As far as I could tell there was no in-between option for the MRO or tribunal to exercise, like a one-match ban, which I think would’ve been the compromise that satisfied the largest number of people.

They need to get rid of the grading and revert to the days where the tribunal judge could exercise, low and behold, judgement (!) in his sentencing.

That judgement might include the player’s remorse level, his past record, his character, and the time of year. Obvously, missing a final or Grand Final is a much harsher sentence than missing a minor round game.

This is how it works in the courts (when mandatory sentencing isn’t applied) and it is how the AFL Tribunal should work too.

Seems like almost every year we're presented with a conundrum like this and without fail the media will start rolling out old faithful, "You don't want to see players miss a grand final for that". They paint themselves into a corner by grading everything firmly following the rules, then all of a sudden someone like Cotchin might miss a Grand Final for concussing a bloke and it's panic stations.

The media all year put forth outrage over the inconsistency, yet the same media in September starts to bleat that "You can't be missing a final for that!"

What do they want? A system where you can't get suspended for a final even as a result of removing an opponent from the game, even though you would during the season?

 

[El Doederino]

I just can’t tell what is and what isn’t parody anymore

 

[Bearded Clam]

What annoys me is that attack on the ball David Mackay did a few years ago and the campaigning from some Victorians that he should be suspended.

Mookay got piled on for sure.. but.. It annoyed me that they didnt end up suspending him for 6 weeks!…

 

[Slippery Pete]

Seems like almost every year we're presented with a conundrum like this and without fail the media will start rolling out old faithful, "You don't want to see players miss a grand final for that". They paint themselves into a corner by grading everything firmly following the rules, then all of a sudden someone like Cotchin might miss a Grand Final for concussing a bloke and it's panic stations.

The media all year put forth outrage over the inconsistency, yet the same media in September starts to bleat that "You can't be missing a final for that!"

What do they want? A system where you can't get suspended for a final even as a result of removing an opponent from the game, even though you would during the season?

But this is exactly why I’m arguing that discretion needs to be built into the system, because nobody wants to see a bloke miss a GF for something innocuous.

What they need is for it to be accepted practice that the independent judge doing the sentencing can point this out in his sentencing remarks, the same way a judge does when he’s sentencing someone in a court of law.

Why do we all pretend that getting suspended for one game in Round 1 is an equivalent punishment to getting suspended for one game in a winning prelim?

It isn’t, and it should be taken into account, along with a range of other factors.

If you want justice, you have to vest the power in someone to administer it. You can’t rely solely on a system.

 

[DJ75]

I get your point, but the tribunal is supposed to be independent.

Yes, yes, I know it’s not perfect. No system is. But what’s worse — leaving it to an independent (we hope) judge, or having these ridiculous rigid grading offences baked into the system that nobody can really challenge?

There needs to be a mechanism available for professional discretion.

Or maybe you just wanna get rid of the whole system and have an AI bot doing the MRO and tribunal roles? Because that’s the alternative.

In a perfect world, sure. But this is the AFL. They couldn't spell independent.

 

[MRB37]

McAdam's suspension is definitely the outlier for the whole season. At no stage did anyone get suspended for anything remotely like what he did again, and certainly not for 3 weeks. Such a weird decision. The ones on the weekend I reckon got a week's 'finals discount' compared to what they would get in regular season because apparently head hits are less serious in finals.
The maynard one I think was the correct decision, but would not be surprised if clubs are told from next year you will get suspended for it. But if a Crows player had done what maynard did it would've been 4+ weeks for sure.

Went early to "send a warning" and then utterly lacked the conviction to keep backing it up.

 

[FR0GGY]

But this is exactly why I’m arguing that discretion needs to be built into the system, because nobody wants to see a bloke miss a GF for something innocuous.

What they need is for it to be accepted practice that the independent judge doing the sentencing can point this out in his sentencing remarks, the same way a judge does when he’s sentencing someone in a court of law.

Why do we all pretend that getting suspended for one game in Round 1 is an equivalent punishment to getting suspended for one game in a winning prelim?

It isn’t, and it should be taken into account, along with a range of other factors.

If you want justice, you have to vest the power in someone to administer it. You can’t rely solely on a system.

There is, someone posted exactly the opposite of this yesterday

 

[Slippery Pete]

There is, someone posted exactly the opposite of this yesterday

That was my other account

 

[CrowinNT]

This is the funniest and most uplifting stuff I have read in the last 2 weeks whilst in The wildness

Is it factually correct ?
Haha I don’t really care TBH

 

[MRB37]

This is the funniest and most uplifting stuff I have read in the last 2 weeks whilst in The wildness

Is it factually correct ?
Haha I don’t really care TBH

Fantasy Freako works for Champion Data, so it's not pulled out of nowhere.

 

[Samcro24]

I don’t think it’s black and white (see what I did there?!), it’s definitely worthy of a debate, and the evidence of that is that it’s a downfield free kick every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The issue I have is that some blokes get knocked out at the drop of a hat. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, we don’t want it to happen, but the fact is it does happen.

That can’t be the standard here.

It’s the consistency or lack thereof for mine.

Sometimes they penalise accidents, sometimes they don’t.

Sometimes, they suspend based on potential to cause injury, sometimes you can break a bloke’s cheekbone and get off.

It’s roulette, and it’s a farce. The AFL don’t even know what they’re doing. 3 weeks into 0.

Just wildly inconsistent.

 

[Disco Fox]

Was it all a show?

Let's go the whole hog. Tribunal hearing, biomechanists, the works. What's the minimum amount of time we have to look as though we're deliberating before we can announce not guilty?

Four hours...? Sheesh.

We don't have to appeal do we? Let's leave it til the last minute before we announce we aren't appealing, so it looks like we really considered it.

This way we appear to be serious about head knocks but don't have to suspend someone for a football accident.

And make certain that the tribunal stops downing frothies & cheesy snacks to announce their predetermined decision whilst 360 is still on, for maximum exposure.