Autopsy Same Old St Kilda…..Another Dog Act

[NMBB]

Who cares, he is gone for a week.

Upheld vs dismissed?

Never forget -... pedants lurk here

 

[ipswichpies]

Does anyone here remember the fireman and his posts they have not moved on from those days, people talk about Vic park but what about the animal enclosure at Saint Kilda.

The AFL in fact pushed for a bigger penalty, and they're probably rather dismayed at the outcome, so I'd say there's some chance they will appeal the decision. I've seen a few people on here (and elsewhere) make similar comments to the one you've made in the last part of your post, but that is just complete and utter nonsense!! It's just too silly!

Do you really believe the Saints player deserves 5 or 6 weeks for that action because I do not and I cannot stand the Saints or there Fcukwit fans but I would be angry if any of our players got 5 or 6 weeks for that.

As for the AFL being annoyed at the penalty the AFL change their tune all the time as well as their rules and interpretations of said rules all the time name 1 other sporting body controller who their rules as much as they do even FIFA cannot compete with them,so please do not tell about the AFL and how many fine men run it.

 

[Anzacday]

jmac70 (and others) regarding the likes, laughs etc. we can't control that as they are posters from another board.
We do have the mechanism, (via a specific thread) to report all the posters who are doing it and that capacity will be suspended for a period of time.
We do also have discussions with the Mods from the other boards (DinoSoar and Maggie5 did this last night) to ask them to behave.
The children think it's funny, the Mods know it's trolling without posting, (so they can't be carded).

 

[noideaatall]

I just don't know exactly what (more) the AFL chiefs are meant to do in a case like this one. Should Gillon McLachlan, Richard Goyder, and the rest of the AFL Commission tell the Tribunal members they are taking over their jobs for the night, and hand down much a more severe penalty (than they gave)?! They appoint independent people to do the job, they no doubt give them guidelines to follow, and they have to hope they do their job properly. We have seen that the AFL wanted a bigger penalty, it's very obvious they're trying to cut out as much head high contact as possible, and they are not likely to be impressed with this verdict at all. Yet they can't control everything!

The AFL can change the guidelines.

 

[cityslick1]

Does anyone here remember the fireman and his posts they have not moved on from those days, people talk about Vic park but what about the animal enclosure at Saint Kilda.
Do you really believe the Saints player deserves 5 or 6 weeks for that action because I do not and I cannot stand the Saints or there Fcukwit fans but I would be angry if any of our players got 5 or 6 weeks for that.

As for the AFL being annoyed at the penalty the AFL change their tune all the time as well as their rules and interpretations of said rules all the time name 1 other sporting body controller who their rules as much as they do even FIFA cannot compete with them,so please do not tell about the AFL and how many fine men run it.

Going purely by the rules, it was a quick retaliation to Murph's push / shove to high chest / neck area... so was intentional, and hence warranted 5 weeks. How they bought the 'pushing off to make space' argument is literally mind-boggling. Another contrived decision. So I think they instead - and again - ignored the guidelines and wanted a resulting penalty that allowed for the grey area of Murph leaning forward, did he slip, did his past concussion record contribute, he was still able to run off and abuse bench etc. So make it 3, and get the website to publish a story asap that its still a "hefty ban", but push it down the list a bit, to kill this issue.

& I think 5 also wouldve been right, because concussing a player behind play should be at least a 5 week penalty, pure and simple. live fast pieyoung has already made great points about how the AFL has had a chance to make a statement about concussion, and theyve dropped the ball & exposed themselves to further "duty of care" issues re head trauma. It's already the biggest isssue in the sport, and will continue to be in the coming years.

I wouldve expected 5 weeks if it was Ash Johnson doing this. Brodie got 6 weeks for decking Paul Williams behind play, so using a forearm that causes concussion only gets 3 apparently, in a day when the head is supposed to be even more sacrosanct. Bizarre

 

[jonbe54]

Going purely by the rules, it was a quick retaliation to Murph's push / shove to high chest / neck area... so was intentional, and hence warranted 5 weeks. How they bought the 'pushing off to make space' argument is literally mind-boggling. Another contrived decision. So I think they instead - and again - ignored the guidelines and wanted a resulting penalty that allowed for the grey area of Murph leaning forward, did his past concussion record contribute, he was still able to run off and abuse bench etc. So make it 3, and get the website to publish a story asap that its still a "hefty ban", but push it down the list a bit, to kill this issue.

& I think 5 also wouldve been right, because concussing a player behind play should be at least a 5 week penalty, pure and simple. live fast pieyoung has already made great points about how the AFL has had a chance to make a statement about concussion, and theyve dropped the ball & exposed themselves to further "duty of care" issues re head trauma. It's already the biggest isssue in the sport, and will continue to be in the coming years.

I wouldve expected 5 weeks if it was Ash Johnson doing this. Brodie got 6 weeks for decking Paul Williams behind play, so using a forearm that causes concussion only gets 3 apparently, in a day when head is supposed to be even more sacrosanct. Bizarre

The AFL aren't colour blind but the appear to be stripe blind.

 

[ipswichpies]

Going purely by the rules, it was a quick retaliation to Murph's push / shove to high chest / neck area... so was intentional, and hence warranted 5 weeks. How they bought the 'pushing off to make space' argument is literally mind-boggling. Another contrived decision. So I think they instead - and again - ignored the guidelines and wanted a resulting penalty that allowed for the grey area of Murph leaning forward, did his past concussion record contribute, he was still able to run off and abuse bench etc. So make it 3, and get the website to publish a story asap that its still a "hefty ban", but push it down the list a bit, to kill this issue.

& I think 5 also wouldve been right, because concussing a player behind play should be at least a 5 week penalty, pure and simple. live fast pieyoung has already made great points about how the AFL has had a chance to make a statement about concussion, and theyve dropped the ball & exposed themselves to further "duty of care" issues re head trauma. It's already the biggest isssue in the sport, and will continue to be in the coming years.

I wouldve expected 5 weeks if it was Ash Johnson doing this. Brodie got 6 weeks for decking Paul Williams behind play, so using a forearm that causes concussion only gets 3 apparently, in a day when head is supposed to be even more sacrosanct. Bizarre

Whether you or I like it or not Murphy did instigate the incident and the head is sacrosanct but Murph lowering his body did effect where he got collected no doubt of that. I have already stated that I thought the Saints and him should have been penalised heavier for Bullshit they came up with at the hearing but the AFL could not even get that right.

 

[noideaatall]

Seems to an inconsistency where outcome is less important in this case. I wonder if it will be used in the future as evidence the danger of concussion is not being taken seriously enough.

 

[live fast pieyoung]

I just don't know exactly what (more) the AFL chiefs are meant to do in a case like this one. Should Gillon McLachlan, Richard Goyder, and the rest of the AFL Commission tell the Tribunal members they are taking over their jobs for the night, and hand down much a more severe penalty (than they gave)?! They appoint independent people to do the job, they no doubt give them guidelines to follow, and they have to hope they do their job properly. We have seen that the AFL wanted a bigger penalty, it's very obvious they're trying to cut out as much head high contact as possible, and they are not likely to be impressed with this verdict at all. Yet they can't control everything!

Its a systemic issue. Thats the point. There is no room to tinker around the edges on this on a case by case basis. It needs to be rethought from the ground up.

And on the points you raise: Yes, they are responsible for the whole tribunal, its guidelines and how it runs. And no, its not "very obvious they're trying to cut out as much head high contact as possible". Whats clear is they want to have their cake and eat it too, and it will come back to bite them severely.

 

[jonbe54]

Seems to an inconsistency where outcome is less important in this case. I wonder if it will be used in the future as evidence the danger of concussion is not being taken seriously enough.

The AFL are heading down a dark, dark road manipulating head trauma injury punishment terms.

The head either IS or ISN'T sacrosanct - it cant be both so if the judiciary can't hand down consistent judgements then AFL need to change the rules so that they can step in.

It's a very bad look at present for the whole sport.

 

[sideswipe]

Going purely by the rules, it was a quick retaliation to Murph's push / shove to high chest / neck area... so was intentional, and hence warranted 5 weeks. How they bought the 'pushing off to make space' argument is literally mind-boggling. Another contrived decision. So I think they instead - and again - ignored the guidelines and wanted a resulting penalty that allowed for the grey area of Murph leaning forward, did he slip, did his past concussion record contribute, he was still able to run off and abuse bench etc. So make it 3, and get the website to publish a story asap that its still a "hefty ban", but push it down the list a bit, to kill this issue.

& I think 5 also wouldve been right, because concussing a player behind play should be at least a 5 week penalty, pure and simple. live fast pieyoung has already made great points about how the AFL has had a chance to make a statement about concussion, and theyve dropped the ball & exposed themselves to further "duty of care" issues re head trauma. It's already the biggest isssue in the sport, and will continue to be in the coming years.

I wouldve expected 5 weeks if it was Ash Johnson doing this. Brodie got 6 weeks for decking Paul Williams behind play, so using a forearm that causes concussion only gets 3 apparently, in a day when the head is supposed to be even more sacrosanct. Bizarre

Going purely by the rules? You really should read the guidelines. Intent goes to the state of mind of the player. Did the player engage in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence?

It is by no means a simple question - by any rational measure, Caminiti wasn't planning on putting his elbow through Murph's jaw to catch him high with a severe impact. Whilst striking is most often taken as being intentional, it is invariably up for argument.

 

[cityslick1]

Whether you or I like it or not Murphy did instigate the incident and the head is sacrosanct but Murph lowering his body did effect where he got collected no doubt of that. I have already stated that I thought the Saints and him should have been penalised heavier for Bullshit they came up with at the hearing but the AFL could not even get that right.

The lowering of the body argument is flawed imo. Have a look at this a split second before the strike. Cami is lower than Murphy ffs. So when someone is low and looking to charge or push you with hands lowered, you lower your shoulders and brace yourself too, to lower your centre of gravity & not expose your stomach & kidneys - where you expect any potential push / charge to come. Murphy just lowered himself to Cami's level. But instead he lifted & lunged at him, raising an extra foot, and raised his forearm to strike him him, with v clear eyeline of where his head was. You could argue he tried to also get Murphy in the upper chest / neck - if thats where murphy had just shoved him, but once you decide to strike, youre left with the consequences, which was a head high hit, resulting in concussion. As Dunstall - a noted Pies hater - even stated. So its still bizarre, as we're left with Murphy out for up to two weeks, and another young player is a step closer to having his career cut short. If that happens, I hope Murphy gets compensation from the AFL, because whether you like it or not, they do actually have a duty of care to protect their players from things as serious as head trauma. & the rules of the game clearly havent worked in this instance

 

[jmac70]

Going purely by the rules? You really should read the guidelines. Intent goes to the state of mind of the player. Did the player engage in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence?

It is by no means a simple question - by any rational measure, Caminiti wasn't planning on putting his elbow through Murph's jaw to catch him high with a severe impact. Whilst striking is most often taken as being intentional, it is invariably up for argument.

I think Caminti was intending to strike Murphy though. Why else would he move towards him?

 

[sideswipe]

I think Caminti was intending to strike Murphy though. Why else would he move towards him?

It's a difficult area - the strict question is whether he was intending to commit the conduct which constituted the reportable offence? The argument was that he didn't intend to cop him flarkin hard in the head. I haven't read the tribunal findings but am guessing it is along those lines.

 

[jmac70]

It's a difficult area - the strict question is whether he was intending to commit the conduct which constituted the reportable offence? The argument was that he didn't intend to cop him flarkin hard in the head. I haven't read the tribunal findings but am guessing it is along those lines.

I just don’t get his testimony of trying to get separation. He was already separated before moving towards Murphy.

If the ball had been coming in he would have had prime position.

 

[cityslick1]

Going purely by the rules? You really should read the guidelines. Intent goes to the state of mind of the player. Did the player engage in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence?

It is by no means a simple question - by any rational measure, Caminiti wasn't planning on putting his elbow through Murph's jaw to catch him high with a severe impact. Whilst striking is most often taken as being intentional, it is invariably up for argument.

so you dont think his state of mind was immediate retaliation? I do. He had no interest in where the ball was. He was fixated on Murphy and charging / striking him back. Even if it was intended to be upper chest / neck. With greater force than the initial shove from Murph. Youve even said that what happens after that is the responsibility of the attacking player, regardless of if he wasnt trying to knock him out. Which I agree with. Changed your mind?

 

[sideswipe]

so you dont think his state of mind was immediate retaliation? I do. He had no interest in where the ball was. He was fixated on Murphy and charging / striking him back. Even if it was intended to be upper chest / neck. With greater force than the initial shove from Murph. Youve even said that what happens after that is the responsibility of the attacking player, regardless of if he wasnt trying to knock him out. Which I agree with. Changed your mind?

Changed my mind? You are conflating intent with the principles of causation.

For a start, just go ahead and read 4.2A of the attached. This is about intention. And just to be clear it is intent to commit the reportable offence. Intent is rarely a simple question.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

The "responsibility for everything that happens next" goes to the question of impact - it is the principle of causation. It is a different element of the Reportable Offence.

Lesson over.

 

[noideaatall]

It's a difficult area - the strict question is whether he was intending to commit the conduct which constituted the reportable offence? The argument was that he didn't intend to cop him flarkin hard in the head. I haven't read the tribunal findings but am guessing it is along those lines.

"What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind"

I agree intent is a difficult question. I just don't get why Adams received one week and this bloke only 3. Doesn't seem proportional to me. Only the legal system would for a moment accept his intent was anything other than to give Murph a damn good whack.

 

[sideswipe]

"What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind"

I agree intent is a difficult question. I just don't get why Adams received one week and this bloke only 3. Doesn't seem proportional to me. Only the legal system would for a moment accept his intent was anything other than to give Murph a damn good whack.

Yep - strikes are usually seen as intentional. But by any rational measure, Caminiti wouldn't have been intending to take him high like that. Intended to make contact? Yes. But in the way that it happened? Likely not.

The question of relative penalties is a tough one. I would have thought that with the Careless classification, 4 was about right.

 

[cityslick1]

I dont think you can lunge at players behind play, with your forearm, and then claim it was careless. Which is what he did. Thats going back to their "umm... I did it to try and gain separation, thats all" argument, which they knew was their only angle - as stupid as it sounds. & even crazier is that it actually worked / had to be accepted, to get the penalty down to 3 weeks....

 

[noideaatall]

Yep - strikes are usually seen as intentional. But by any rational measure, Caminiti wouldn't have been intending to take him high like that. Intended to make contact? Yes. But in the way that it happened? Likely not.

The question of relative penalties is a tough one. I would have thought that with the Careless classification, 4 was about right.

Agreed on 4. In terms of intent, I have no doubt he could have pulled the blow somewhat if it was actually heading in the "wrong" direction. His intent was clearly to retaliate and to hurt. Even if he did care what degree of hurt occurred - which I don't believe - you can't define it as careless. It was a reckless blow.

 

[sideswipe]

Agreed on 4. In terms of intent, I have no doubt he could have pulled the blow somewhat if it was actually heading in the "wrong" direction. His intent was clearly to retaliate and to hurt. Even if he did care what degree of hurt occurred - which I don't believe - you can't define it as careless. It was a reckless blow.

Pretty much agree - although reckless as a classification option no longer exists. I can't recall when they ditched it but I think it was done to simplify the matrix? That seems to have worked ok?

 

[jonbe54]

Agreed on 4. In terms of intent, I have no doubt he could have pulled the blow somewhat if it was actually heading in the "wrong" direction. His intent was clearly to retaliate and to hurt. Even if he did care what degree of hurt occurred - which I don't believe - you can't define it as careless. It was a reckless blow.

As has been said a number of times he charged at Murph with a raised forearm from a position where he already had separation so the very lame excuse 'to gain separation' is obvious BS.
The same facts show intent to harm.
There are no excuses for the tribunal - it was at least a 4 week sentence weakly downgraded to 3.

APPALING.

 

[noideaatall]

Pretty much agree - although reckless as a classification option no longer exists. I can't recall when they ditched it but I think it was done to simplify the matrix? That seems to have worked ok?

Yeah, I am all for simplifying stuff and it does seem to work. Taking the emotion out of it, what Caminiti did wasn't that bad. Bringing out O'Dea is selective memory and not in the same league. My gripe is more around relative/proportional punishments. I can't relate 1 week for Adams to 3 for Caminiti. Not a fan but I think Clarkson had a point.

 

[Gone Critical]

Its a systemic issue. Thats the point. There is no room to tinker around the edges on this on a case by case basis. It needs to be rethought from the ground up.

And on the points you raise: Yes, they are responsible for the whole tribunal, its guidelines and how it runs. And no, its not "very obvious they're trying to cut out as much head high contact as possible". Whats clear is they want to have their cake and eat it too, and it will come back to bite them severely.

The tribunal is independent of the AFL and that is vital. The AFL cant have control there and the people on the tribunals are senior and excel in their fields. I know of instances where the AFL tried to question some tribunal decisions and were quickly shut down.

I dont think this is a rod for the AFLs back. They are in a position to adjust rules based on tribunal interpretations and therefore can seek to get the head protection they are looking for. The need procedure to follow though and thats what rightly has happened here.