Review Round 18, 2024 - West Coast vs. Brisbane Lions

[dlanod]

So because the tribunal was focused on what he should’ve done instead of what he did that’s the reason he got off?

Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?

More the latter. They focused on the outcome, not the act.

 

[notliondown]

Isn't is as simple as - under the laws of the game the tackle was legal, therefore the result while unfortunate doesn't change the fact the tackle was legal.

No different to having a car accident at 55 in a 60 zone. If what you were doing was legal the outcome can't change the fact your actions were legal by letter of the law.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Isn't is as simple as - under the laws of the game the tackle was legal, therefore the result while unfortunate doesn't change the fact the tackle was legal.

No different to having a car accident at 55 in a 60 zone. If what you were doing was legal the outcome can't change the fact your actions were legal by letter of the law.

Driving a player head first like Ralphy described isn't legal though

 

[braddsey]

So because the tribunal was focused on what he should’ve done instead of what he did that’s the reason he got off?

Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?

A little more in the verbage of the appeal board decision regarding Bedford:

We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.

I read that to say that they looked at the footage of the tackle, and they can't assess from the footage whether the tackle was likely to cause injury, so perhaps some concession that the tackle was legal.

We can probably guarantee that the laws will be modified in the offseason that taking a player to ground with arms pinned is considered likely to cause injury. One more loophole closed...

 

[notliondown]

Driving a player head first like Ralphy described isn't legal though

Who made Ralphy judge and jury? Hence the long drawn out and costly process we just endured. It just goes to show how open to interpretation the rules are that it got this far.

But for me that's the reality of the game. These cases are with us to stay from here on in.

 

[dlanod]

Driving a player head first like Ralphy described isn't legal though

I'm not convinced Ralph watched the game or even just the footage

 

[notliondown]

A little more in the verbage of the appeal board decision regarding Bedford:

We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.

I read that to say that they looked at the footage of the tackle, and they can't assess from the footage whether the tackle was likely to cause injury, so perhaps some concession that the tackle was legal.

We can probably guarantee that the laws will be modified in the offseason that taking a player to ground with arms pinned is considered likely to cause injury. One more loophole closed...

Yep reckon you are spot on - if the conduct wasn't to deliberately cause injury it has to be legal.

As for that loophole closing, another will open somewhere else - like the once banned chicken wing that's now OK - it's almost a certainty. Welcome to the future of AFL...

 

[braddsey]

Who made Ralphy judge and jury? Hence the long drawn out and costly process we just endured. It just goes to show how open to interpretation the rules are that it got this far.

But for me that's the reality of the game. These cases are with us to stay from here on in.

He's not the only one. Dwayne Russell (who is usually pretty balanced IMO) was also pretty adamant that Charlie drove Duggen into the ground with unnecessary force. Dwayne Russell is correct though - if the penalty was 1-week for an accidental tackle resulting in injury, then we would have all accepted it and moved on.

 

[braddsey]

Yep reckon you are spot on - if the conduct wasn't to deliberately cause injury it has to be legal.

As for that loophole closing, another will open somewhere else - like the once banned chicken wing that's now OK - it's almost a certainty. Welcome to the future of AFL...

If the AFL were to make such an amendment, I wonder if anyone is willing to take a look at the statistics of the number of such tackles resulting in injury. If there's 1000 tackles where a players is taken to ground with arms pinned, and 10 of those tackles result in concussion, then that's a 1% chance of getting concussed from such a tackle. That doesn't make it likely to happen in my book.

 

[BuntonRules]

He's not the only one. Dwayne Russell (who is usually pretty balanced IMO) was also pretty adamant that Charlie drove Duggen into the ground with unnecessary force. Dwayne Russell is correct though - if the penalty was 1-week for an accidental tackle resulting in injury, then we would have all accepted it and moved on.

That is the problem - as it is now it is either 3 weeks or nothing. There must be some leeway in the penalty.

 

[notliondown]

If the AFL were to make such an amendment, I wonder if anyone is willing to take a little at the statistics of the number of such tackles resulting in injury. If there's 1000 tackles where a players is taken to ground with arms pinned, and 10 of those tackles result in concussion, then that's a 1% chance of getting concussed from such a tackle. That doesn't make it likely to happen in my book.

I think until a case is actually taken to court and responsibility apportioned, the AFL will continue to "overreact". The fact that you can allocate any % to an action might be justification enough to make the change currently.

Sooner or later the limit of duty of care will have to apply if the sport is to remain a contact one. The problem is until someone (the courts) actually make that limit definable, and all parties accept the risks, rule changes are going to continually made on the run.

 

[KissKiss]

I'm not convinced Ralph watched the game or even just the footage

I get the feeling he is all on generating drama to feed his career rather than any interest in the actual game. There's a few current media people (I won't call them journalists) like this

 

[Pride of lions]

What I found interesting in the Bedford decision was that it was actually one of the Tribunal members who brought up the legal issue used in the Cameron case and suggested that it could also be used in Bedford’s case. So really our barrister got them both off! Should get double the fee!

 

[Darren Downunder]

I’m still confused.
I have no idea when a tackle is dangerous.

 

[braddsey]

I’m still confused.
I have no idea when a tackle is dangerous.

Neither does anyone else. Approximately 0.01% chance the AFL will come out and provide some clarity.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I get the feeling he is all on generating drama to feed his career rather than any interest in the actual game. There's a few current media people (I won't call them journalists) like this

Ralphy's just a useful idiot for the AFL. One of the least connected journos in the comp. So the AFL feed him a bit of inside news occasionally, and in return he is an establishment simp.

 

[Warwick]

I missed all the Ralph stuff.

Anyone got a snapshot of his tweets?

 

[Darren Downunder]

If you saw him on Midweek Tackle you’d think he was. He’s having a sook about the outcome of Charlie’s hearing still maintaining that he should have got three weeks and that we only were successful on error of law unlike Cripps hit on Ag Chee where he said that Cripps was right in getting off because it was a fair hit. He also disagreed with Fagan’s PC today about what we are instructing our players.

Seriously WTF is this guy and who does he think he is? Absolute cheerleader for the AFL.

Yeah. He was nauseating, wasn’t he.

 

[Elixuh]

No one has more respect for the appeals board than me. I’ve always said the Appeals Board is a worthy and venerable institution, unlike the tribunal which is a crock of shit. They say no one respects the appeal board more than you Elixuh.

 

[BuntonRules]

No one has more respect for the appeals board than me. I’ve always said the Appeals Board is a worthy and venerable institution, unlike the tribunal which is a crock of shit. They say no one respects the appeal board more than you Elixuh.

Love their werk. They just called the AFL out. Don't trample over the game to get the result you want.

 

[Tassie4ever]

The whole system is beyond repair. It started when Cripps got off on some obscure legal crap when he had deliberately elbowed Ah Chee from behind in a quite cowardly attempt to, as BT put It, "make a statement" when Carlton were being beaten.

Ah Chee was unconscious before his head hit the ground. He was able after some time to get up on all fours with the assistance of trainers and then vomited. I was seated no more than 25m from all this.

The process that allowed this thug to get off scot free and then go on to win the Brownlow is corrupt. If any club other than a key VFL side had been involved you would never hear the end of it. I rest my case with Brayshaw and the Collingwood thug. Corrupt!!!

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

 

[braddsey]

The whole system is beyond repair. It started when Cripps got off on some obscure legal crap when he had deliberately elbowed Ah Chee from behind in a quite cowardly attempt to, as BT put It, "make a statement" when Carlton were being beaten.

Ah Chee was unconscious before his head hit the ground. He was able after some time to get up on all fours with the assistance of trainers and then vomited. I was seated no more than 25m from all this.

The process that allowed this thug to get off scot free and then go on to win the Brownlow is corrupt. If any club other than a key VFL side had been involved you would never hear the end of it. I rest my case with Brayshaw and the Collingwood thug. Corrupt!!!

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

I just went back and rewatched the Cripps hit. Pretty sickening watching Ah Chee's head hit the ground. Cripps appeared to clip him again (unintendedly) as he landed. Then that he got off over the use of the word "bump" in the tribunal findings. I think they should take his brownlow away retrospectively and award it to Lachie.

In that regard, I wish Charlie & Bedford didn't get off on an "Error of Law". I would rather he got off on an Error of Assessment by the tribunal. (though I'll take i take it!).

 

[Viceregal]

Who actually refers players to the Tribunal ... from what I can tell the primary driver is the commentariat but surely someone makes the initial decision that this-should-be-looked-at apart from them?

 

[The Flying Belgian]

I missed all the Ralph stuff.

Anyone got a snapshot of his tweets?

Just imagine his smug, smarmy face. That should say it all.

 

[braddsey]

Who actually refers players to the Tribunal ... from what I can tell the primary driver is the commentariat but surely someone makes the initial decision that this-should-be-looked-at apart from them?

Page-7 of this glorious document: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf
(and can guarantee that Charlie Cameron won't get a full page spread next season!).

Match Review Officer: Michael Christian
» Review reports or referrals lodged by Umpires and other designated officials.
» Analyse available video of all potential Reportable Offences.
» Make charges when satisfied that a Reportable Offence has occurred.
» Determine the appropriate classification of Classifiable Offences.
» Refer relevant offences to the Tribunal where applicable.
» Advise Players of any charges and the corresponding sanction for that charge (which a Player may accept or contest at the Tribunal).
» Provide reasons in respect of any reports or referrals which do not progress to a charge.

REPORTS
» Umpires
REFERRALS
» Umpires
» Umpires Observer
» Umpires Manager
» Executive General Manager Football
» Club CEOs
» Match Review Officer video review (all matches reviewed)


No mention of the media there.