MRP / Trib. Rhyan Mansell hit on James Aish

[Zevon]

Folks, bear in mind that this thread is about Rhyan Mansell on James Aish

Multiple players found. Use birthday to differentiate. eg [PLAYERCARD="23/11/1962"]Joe Smith[/PLAYERCARD]

. It isn’t an open invitation to drop by and ask why Gary Rohan

23

Gary Rohan

Age

32

Ht

189cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.6

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.5

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

8.8

2star

K

6.0

2star

HB

2.8

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

4.2

5star

G

1.2

4star

wasn’t suspended for friendly fire on his own team mate.

I understand the arguments you’re making, I really do, but at the end of the day the MRO & tribunal only look at contact when it’s on an opponent.

Arguing that contact on a team mate should be part of their purview is opening up a whole new can of worms, and I’m just not sure we want to go there. In any case it definitely doesn’t belong in this thread.

Thanks, Zev.

 

[mumblingpie]

Id probably hit on Aish as well if I swung that way

 

[Reginald Perrin]

im glad you posted these photos because it makes your eyes weren’t on the ball call not true first one eyes clearly on the ball. Now do that whole action at pace and it proves once again how out of touch the MRP are.

The first one is the beginning of him turning his head away. At that point I'd guess his eyes were actually closed.

You're seeing what you want to see. You can't even see his eyes in those pictures.

The MRP aren't out of touch, the fans are. The AFL knows exactly what it's doing.

 

[domin8]

The first one is the beginning of him turning his head away. At that point I'd guess his eyes were actually closed.

You're seeing what you want to see. You can't even see his eyes in those pictures.

The MRP aren't out of touch, the fans are. The AFL knows exactly what it's doing.

See now you’re being silly. How fast do you expect him to be travelling at that time? What do you believe his action is? Deliberate or instinct? Slow motion replays and stills don’t give the full picture. Go back and roll it see how fast he is moving watch the ball pitch on its end in a different direction and ask yourself what he should have done?
Fans aren’t out of touch they’re sick of this out of touch woke bullshit because the AFL is so s**t scared of litigation they are altering the fabric of the game.
As many have mentioned if Dangerfields on 2020 can be classed as a football action then this one sure as hell is.

 

[Blueyboy74]

The first one is the beginning of him turning his head away. At that point I'd guess his eyes were actually closed.

You're seeing what you want to see. You can't even see his eyes in those pictures.

The MRP aren't out of touch, the fans are. The AFL knows exactly what it's doing.

You’re spot on as usual Inspector Perrin … the first one is indeed the beginning of him starting to turn his head away which just happens to coincide with the ball bouncing on its point and back closer to Aish and this is captured in the 2nd photo where it is plainly evident his eyes are still fixed on the ball.

I must add that I previously didn't share your certitude that the AFL know what they are doing either and certainly don't after reading the reasons cited by the Appeals Board for upholding the suspenseion:

''Having determined that the appellant had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state: "the question then arises as the whether Mansell was contesting the ball. It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that from a metre or two prior to the collision had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball. Clearly, the Tribunal found at the time of impact the ball was not in contest.''

Are they serious? His hands are not reaching for the ball because on the last bounce the ball had stopped tumbling forwards and changed direction back towards Aish and was still out of Mansell's reach ... hence why he wasn't reaching for it. The fact that Aish was going to win the race didn't make contact any less inevitable, however, or the ball nowhere else but the contest at the time of impact. Truly baffling ... anyway.

 

[MagpieJo]

Selwood lining up worpel in 2018 the action was far worse than this. Difference is worpel dodged the hit.

Action over outcome should be suspendedable

but it was selwood too, depends who it is and the team!

 

[Flog_Toolist]

You’re spot on as usual Inspector Perrin … the first one is indeed the beginning of him starting to turn his head away which just happens to coincide with the ball bouncing on its point and back closer to Aish and this is captured in the 2nd photo where it is plainly evident his eyes are still fixed on the ball.

I must add that I previously didn't share your certitude that the AFL know what they are doing either and certainly don't after reading the reasons cited by the Appeals Board for upholding the suspenseion:

''Having determined that the appellant had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state: "the question then arises as the whether Mansell was contesting the ball. It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that from a metre or two prior to the collision had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball. Clearly, the Tribunal found at the time of impact the ball was not in contest.''

Are they serious? His hands are not reaching for the ball because on the last bounce the ball had stopped tumbling forwards and changed direction back towards Aish and was still out of Mansell's reach ... hence why he wasn't reaching for it. The fact that Aish was going to win the race didn't make contact any less inevitable, however, or the ball nowhere else but the contest at the time of impact. Truly baffling ... anyway.

Keep in mind that many of these decision makers have never played footy and/or never encountered barriers to playing footy as kids.

 

[Roby]

Where's Maddo11?

 

[Maddo11]

Where's Maddo11?

Nice of you to think of me.

I think Kiddy Coleman pushed Rohan last year some time so no case to answer

 

[BigTacoBandit]

It's a great point. I wonder if the MRO could actually suspend Rohan. He certainly failed in his duty of care if Mansell did. Teammate factor irrelevant.

Teammate factor is very relevant.

The tribunal guidelines say that you are only guilty of rough conduct if you hit an "opponents" head.

 

[Roby]

Nice of you to think of me.

I think Kiddy Coleman pushed Rohan last year some time so no case to answer

Kiddy Coleman pushed Rohan? Do you like to out yourself as a troll constantly?

You're obviously wrong about Mansell, 100% wrong.

 

[Roby]

Teammate factor is very relevant.

The tribunal guidelines say that you are only guilty of rough conduct if you hit an "opponents" head.

View attachment 1719440

If you just change one word "opponent" then Rohan gets 4 weeks. Amazing.

 

[Maddo11]

So how do you argue for Rohan? Or are you against? Rohan had MORE time than Mansell.

Teammate factor is very relevant.

The tribunal guidelines say that you are only guilty of rough conduct if you hit an "opponents" head

You're obviously wrong about Mansell, 100% wrong.

You tagged me in this thread like some kind of gotcha without even looking at the suspension guidelines to see if you can get suspended for bumping a team mate and then call me wrong and a troll

Galactic smooth brain stuff

 

[Wargreymon90]

This is an interesting case. Actions are almost exactly the same.

Now I don’t think Rohan should be suspended, but if Mansell had a duty of care then so did Rohan.

 

[Roby]

This is an interesting case. Actions are almost exactly the same.

Now I don’t think Rohan should be suspended, but if Mansell had a duty of care then so did Rohan.

The actions are the same but Rohan had way more time than Mansell. It was not a 50/50 contest with Rohan.

 

[Roachy8]

This is an interesting case. Actions are almost exactly the same.

Now I don’t think Rohan should be suspended, but if Mansell had a duty of care then so did Rohan.

Duty of care would be for all other humans involved in the contest wouldn't it?
Opposition players, umpires and even team-mates.

All players on the field regardless of the colours they are wearing are employed by clubs underneath the governance of the AFL and then are all members of the AFL players association are they not?

Interesting matters that will of course be pushed aside and some other poor sap player over this weekend will be contesting the ball reasonably but accidentally make contact with an opponent and be fronting the judiciary early next week....

Rohan has no case to answer but then so should have Mansell.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

AFL actually half pregnant on this one.
Can't take their protecting the head mantra seriously.

I don't want to see Rohan suspended, but it highlights the stupidity of the AFL'S crackdown on head high contact.

 

[Roby]

Duty of care would be for all other humans involved in the contest wouldn't it?
Opposition players, umpires and even team-mates.

All players on the field regardless of the colours they are wearing are employed by clubs underneath the governance of the AFL and then are all members of the AFL players association are they not?

Interesting matters that will of course be pushed aside and some other poor sap player over this weekend will be contesting the ball reasonably but accidentally make contact with an opponent and be fronting the judiciary early next week....

Rohan has no case to answer but then so should have Mansell.

Rohan was more premeditated than Mansell. You could actually argue Rohan had time to choose not to contest as he was already late, where in Mansell's case the ball was still in dispute.

 

[Shadow89]

Understand the discussion, but as someone posted here, the guidelines specifically state 'opponent' - so there's no room to move here.

Under the current rules, there's no basis for the MRO to be able to cite him.

Do also want to point out, that rightly or wrongly, there's an element of 'intent' when it comes to suspensions. Logically, no teammate wants to take out their own player. It can be argued, however, that there is less care if it's an opponent, because you're in a pressure cooker with them for 2 hours, and your team winning the ball/your safety in that split-second moment is more important than theirs.

Mansell should never have been suspended, but when comparing the two incidents, the main question will always be intent. Rohan would never take out his own player willingly, whereas a player may take out an oppo player with less duty of care - that's how the idiot MRO and the Tribunal will always justify these decision; and why we'll never see a teammate get suspended for an action like we saw last night.

 

[Shadow89]

Rohan was more premeditated than Mansell. You could actually argue Rohan had time to choose not to contest as he was already late, where in Mansell's case the ball was still in dispute.

He was trying to pull out of the contest rather than contest the ball, and massively f*cked it up - that's the difference.

 

[Roby]

He was trying to pull out of the contest rather than contest the ball, and massively f*cked it up - that's the difference.

I don't want to see Rohan suspended but I'm just pointing out that is was worse than Mansell's and Mansell got three weeks.

I think I made my points saliently previously.

Here was my post before:

I think what some people don't understand is that if you go back 50 years, the game was much slower, players did not move around the ground, they would stay in their position. Now you see players running 15 kms in a game.

Before you would have players coming off the ball, lining players up, it was completely different and it was not a football action. Those were suspendedable for good reason.

Players now move much faster to contest the ball. The split second reaction required to manoeuvre out of a collision (and I can vouch for this for someone who studies biology) is highly unreasonable to expect players to make quick decisions when the brain cannot process quickly enough how to avoid these collisions, let alone make sure all your limbs don't appear to be showing malice.

Many people that make these comments about how these actions should be suspended, don't understand how quickly a player needs to react. They are basing their judgement incorrectly, and I emphasize INCORRECTLY, on slow motion footage which has been slowed down 10-12 times. They're doing this from the comfort of their seat or couch. They completely MISREPRESENT what a player is required to do in order to avoid contact or brace for contact. I bet most, if not all, of the people like Whateley wanting Mansell suspended have the ability too run at this speed, let alone have the reaction times of these footballers. Yet they feel they can CLEARLY arbitrate on slow motion replay what on players should be doing.

Do you honestly think Mansell thought half a second prior to impact, why not, let me hit Aish and hopefully I'll go take a holiday for three weeks.

 

[Shadow89]

I don't want to see Rohan suspended but I'm just pointing out that is was worse than Mansell's and Mansell got three weeks.

I think I made my points saliently previously.

Here was my post before:

Yep don't disagree with a thing there - see my comment above my reply to yours, to understand what my POV is

Mansell definitely never should have been suspended btw. Bracing and bumping are two massively different things. Like a charge or a blocking foul in basketball. Mansell would have got a free kick in basketball, yet in AFL he gets suspended for 3 weeks. Crazy system these days.

 

[Roachy8]

Understand the discussion, but as someone posted here, the guidelines specifically state 'opponent' - so there's no room to move here.

Under the current rules, there's no basis for the MRO to be able to cite him.

Do also want to point out, that rightly or wrongly, there's an element of 'intent' when it comes to suspensions. Logically, no teammate wants to take out their own player. It can be argued, however, that there is less care if it's an opponent, because you're in a pressure cooker with them for 2 hours, and your team winning the ball/your safety in that split-second moment is more important than theirs.

Mansell should never have been suspended, but when comparing the two incidents, the main question will always be intent. Rohan would never take out his own player willingly, whereas a player may take out an oppo player with less duty of care - that's how the idiot MRO and the Tribunal will always justify these decision; and why we'll never see a teammate get suspended for an action like we saw last night.

Good post...

It highlights the significant 'grey area' that has now been created with intent, accidental, anticipated, avoidable and reasonably foreseeable outcomes that players and yes indeed teammates are expected to consider during the pace and intensity of a highly contested contact-sport arena.

Was Rohan reckless then? As a previous poster said "He was trying to pull out of the contest rather than contest the ball, and massively f*cked it up" - would have been certainly seen as reckless by the authorities if it had of been an opponent rather than a teammate.
(FYI - I don't think he was being reckless at all)

Dumb-ass aggression that results in head-high contact should always be punished but the fine line that the regulators are now trying to straddle has left all of us frustrated.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Understand the discussion, but as someone posted here, the guidelines specifically state 'opponent' - so there's no room to move here.

Under the current rules, there's no basis for the MRO to be able to cite him.

Do also want to point out, that rightly or wrongly, there's an element of 'intent' when it comes to suspensions. Logically, no teammate wants to take out their own player. It can be argued, however, that there is less care if it's an opponent, because you're in a pressure cooker with them for 2 hours, and your team winning the ball/your safety in that split-second moment is more important than theirs.

Mansell should never have been suspended, but when comparing the two incidents, the main question will always be intent. Rohan would never take out his own player willingly, whereas a player may take out an oppo player with less duty of care - that's how the idiot MRO and the Tribunal will always justify these decision; and why we'll never see a teammate get suspended for an action like we saw last night.

I would disagree with that. I would say that under the current system, intent is only a defence in the tribunal case and isn't part of the initial charging or AFL view. JVR and Tom Lynch got off their charges because they had to argue intentionality however, Pickett got a lesser punishment than McAdam again because of outcome. In that case Pickett's intent was far more malicious than McAdam's.

 

[BF Tiger]

Teammate factor is very relevant.

The tribunal guidelines say that you are only guilty of rough conduct if you hit an "opponents" head.

View attachment 1719440

Understand the discussion, but as someone posted here, the guidelines specifically state 'opponent' - so there's no room to move here.

Under the current rules, there's no basis for the MRO to be able to cite him.

Do also want to point out, that rightly or wrongly, there's an element of 'intent' when it comes to suspensions. Logically, no teammate wants to take out their own player. It can be argued, however, that there is less care if it's an opponent, because you're in a pressure cooker with them for 2 hours, and your team winning the ball/your safety in that split-second moment is more important than theirs.

Mansell should never have been suspended, but when comparing the two incidents, the main question will always be intent. Rohan would never take out his own player willingly, whereas a player may take out an oppo player with less duty of care - that's how the idiot MRO and the Tribunal will always justify these decision; and why we'll never see a teammate get suspended for an action like we saw last night.

I'm with most people in here in thinking that Rohan should not suffer any repercussions for the hit, but it is a great example of how accidents in footy occur.

With regard to "guidelines" and "opponent" - has either been specifically defined. To me "guidelines" suggest that they are only a framework to move around within and not hard and fast rules. And an opponent could be a few things - someone on the opposite side is the obvious definition, but it could also loosely be just someone else contesting the ball or in a contest at a specific time.

From the Mansell ruling:
"It's important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.
"This bump caused forceful contact to Aish's head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.
"From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball."

Change the names and their is no difference.

From Lisa Hannon, who represented the AFL at Mansell's appeal:
“The meaning of ‘bump’ or the act of bumping shouldn’t be constrained narrowly, but given a wide interpretation, consistent with the remedial purpose of affording players protection in their on-field workplace.”

Surely Cameron needs protect in his workplace from opponents and teammates alike.

In short, the rules are a mess. The AFL needs to tear them up and start again and needs to happen immediately.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

I'm with most people in here in thinking that Rohan should not suffer any repercussions for the hit, but it is a great example of how accidents in footy occur.

With regard to "guidelines" and "opponent" - has either been specifically defined. To me "guidelines" suggest that they are only a framework to move around within and not hard and fast rules. And an opponent could be a few things - someone on the opposite side is the obvious definition, but it could also loosely be just someone else contesting the ball or in a contest at a specific time.

From the Mansell ruling:
"It's important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.
"This bump caused forceful contact to Aish's head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.
"From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball."

Change the names and their is no difference.

From Lisa Hannon, who represented the AFL at Mansell's appeal:
“The meaning of ‘bump’ or the act of bumping shouldn’t be constrained narrowly, but given a wide interpretation, consistent with the remedial purpose of affording players protection in their on-field workplace.”

Surely Cameron needs protect in his workplace from opponents and teammates alike.

In short, the rules are a mess. The AFL needs to tear them up and start again and needs to happen immediately.

I think they'll take the everyday definition of opponent and find that two team mates cannot be opponents in relation to rough conduct.

You can get suspended for striking a team mate though as the guidelines for striking refers to " another player".

But yes, they are only guidelines and the AFL can and will bend the rules to reach their predetermined outcome. They don't want to suspend players for bumping team mates.