Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
www.foxsports.com.au
Seems rather odd to me !!!
MRP / Trib. Rampe Gets Two Match Suspension For Off The Ball Bump
- Thread starter LordLucifer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
www.foxsports.com.au
Seems rather odd to me !!!
Hard to see how they got to "high high" from that vision.
Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
Seems rather odd to me !!!
Off the ball and clearly dropped him though. Think they've picked the punishment then worked from there
Not odd at all. We damaged Bulldogs final 4 prospects and in 2 weeks time had the opportunity to do the same to Essendon. The AFL know what they are doing. Going to make more money if a big Vic team goes deeper into finals. The fact that from minimal footage they determine high and high shows they are a bunch of corrupt campaigners.Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
Swans to appeal co-captain’s ‘surprise’ ban for off-the-ball bump
Seems rather odd to me !!!
If this report happened to the likes of Darcy Moore, it is all we would be hearing about tonight and the fans would be tearing the league apart on social media. Instead, being a non-Vic side, the fans are apathetic.... until it happens to them.
- Apr 5, 2016
- 7,338
- 16,508
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
There's certainly an argument to be made that McNeil could have sustained the delayed concussion from contact other that from Rampe, but I suspect that it is unlikely. The most likely scenario here is that he was going to receive a fine because of a post-match report provided by the umpires and when it became apparent that Lachie McNeil suffered delayed concussion, their hand was forced.
As it stands though, the footage shows Rampe raising an elbow, whether it hits McNeil or not is difficult to say but the player that was hit is concussed (albeit delayed) and if you raise an elbow and a player ends up with any sort of injury, then you put your fate in the hands of the MRO.
As it stands though, the footage shows Rampe raising an elbow, whether it hits McNeil or not is difficult to say but the player that was hit is concussed (albeit delayed) and if you raise an elbow and a player ends up with any sort of injury, then you put your fate in the hands of the MRO.
Couple of things. If you honestly think you can clearly see a raised elbow in that footage then you must have the eyesight of a Hawk because to mere humans, it doesn't show s**t.
Swans need to challenge it because if the tribunal is a proper legal process there is no way a wild assumption that this incident has caused a delayed concussion holds up. How do we know the player didn't go home, have a few drinks and pass out, hitting his head? How do we know he didn't bump his head in a tackle later in the game? The suspension is a joke.
If I walk through a carpark and brushed the mirror when I walked past it, does that make me liable for the 3mm deep and 5cm long gauge out of the paintwork that's in the same general vicinity? Should I be expected to pay damages because I was in the area and it maybe could have been me but could just as easily have been someone else over the 8 year lifespan of that car? This is a joke of a suspension and everyone should be calling it out for what it is.
- Apr 5, 2016
- 7,338
- 16,508
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
You can’t see him raising an elbow? Damn. Ok. I don’t know what to tell you there. Plenty on your team board have acknowledged it’s even there.
In my post I’ve literally said that it’s a perfectly good argument to make that the injury could’ve been caused elsewhere, but raising the elbow unfortunately places Rampe in an awkward situation.
Finally, the MRO is required to assess incidents. Once a finding is made it’s not on the MRO to prove anything any further. The tribunal allows the team and player to argue their case to a body independent of the MRO.
Ok first of all, one person on the board has said it was silly and they can understand it being sighted. One, not plenty.
So the MRO assessed the incident. Now they have minimal footage, shot from a distance that most would say doesn't show a point of contact in any way shape or form. Yet from that he has assessed high impact and high contact. Christian is a partisan shonk who has pulled this grading out of his arse based on a diagnosis of delayed concussion that could easily have resulted from the player hitting his head on the bed head during a coke filled romp with a hooker on Friday night. The system is broken.
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,256
- 32,073
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #9
It’s more the point that due to the concussion(delayed) injury report Christensen stated his hands were tied and had to impose the 2 match ban.
Sydney can challenge the result and fact that McNeil played out the game but I don’t like Ramps chances of getting off as the AFL takes a hard stance on concussion due to pending legal cases. In absence of the concussion report it wouldn’t even have been mentioned
Some Idiot
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 17, 2009
- 10,260
- 8,127
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Can't really see what happened, but the fact that McNeil has a concussion isn't great
So my question is does the tribunal operate under the same rules as a court of law. If so, the swans walk in, ask the question is it beyond reasonable doubt that this specific incident cause the concussion. No jury or court could say it did considering various other impacts that happen during a match and it gets thrown out. I get protecting the head but the video evidence and presumption this is what caused it is drawing a long bow in legal terms.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,256
- 32,073
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #12
The tribunal is an arbitration process that determines each case on its merit and applies prescribed penalties under the AFL rules for matters put before it. But actions can be taken further on serious matters of assault where criminal actions can be established. Example is where VicPol charged Matthews with assault charges after the infamous Bruns/Matthews incident
It’s not a criminal matter which requires proof beyond doubt. It only needs to be that on the balance of probabilities a player was injured through the actions of a player, or that the actions in question by a player are not permitted under the AFL rules
So to your question, the afl has implemented rules that a player, through who’s on field negligent actions, causes concussion then the offending player will be suspended for a set amount of time through the MRP. Every registered player under an AFL contract is required to agree to the AFL’s game rules and tribunal system.
This is a civil matter. Sydney would then need to either challenge the concussion by medical review/opinion or argue that Ramps actions were not negligent and that any collision between McNeil and Ramps was purely accidental and unavoidable
Did they take into account Rampe's remorse?
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,539
- 40,732
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
They will when its contested.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 104,572
- 142,544
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
MRP have been biased agains essendon all year (Merret suspension, Mitch Duncan cleared to play essendon, etc, etc). If anything they'll reduce it to one week so Rampy is clear to climb the goalposts against essendon in 2 weeks.
- Sep 10, 2006
- 19,763
- 19,558
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
Yeah, I'm not confident to be honest.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,902
- 13,745
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Swans would have to provide another plausible knock to use that as a defence. This is what richmond did in the 2017 PF Cotchin/Shiel incident.
After seeing what happen to Paddy McCartin, any collision where there is even a hint of a knock should be considered plausible.
- Moderator
- #23
I hate this.
ban the action, not the consequences. I know, I know, it has been that way for ages. But it is why we all get frustrated when Silicy gets the same amount as someone who bumps and knocks someone out
And yes, this was a "bump" but I doubt it would have been dealt with without the medical report.
ban the action, not the consequences. I know, I know, it has been that way for ages. But it is why we all get frustrated when Silicy gets the same amount as someone who bumps and knocks someone out
And yes, this was a "bump" but I doubt it would have been dealt with without the medical report.
Don’t really understand what the confusion is with this one.
50m off the ball, bumped him and got him high. No I don’t think he intended to get him high but he did, and as we have known for years now if you bump then you have a duty of care and you are responsible if it goes wrong.
Just didn’t need to do it at all really.
50m off the ball, bumped him and got him high. No I don’t think he intended to get him high but he did, and as we have known for years now if you bump then you have a duty of care and you are responsible if it goes wrong.
Just didn’t need to do it at all really.
Similar threads
- Poll
