Autopsy Same Old St Kilda…..Another Dog Act

[cityslick1]

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.

It was a terrible argument, and the tribunal prob wished he had a better one. The club had nowhere else to go though, as retaliation wouldve seen a min 4 week ban. The penalty or need to reduce was likely agreed before the hearing though, as they often are. With the overall view of Murphy contributing to it - either by previous altercation or lowering himself, so 3 was seen as a more fitting result. Or maybe................

The testimony of Murphy being disregarded was also v interesting. I would not be surprised at all if the actual events went something like Lethlean calling the powers that be and stating / threatening that "look he racially abused Caminiti, calling him a dirty ***. (as heard by fans over the fence) If you want to open this up and smack us & the kid, we'll bring this up. Otherwise settle on 3 and we wont push the race card. The player is also happy with this & wont take it further."

Having worked in the industry, I have seen similar and crazier things than this happen.

 

[sr36]

IT feels like the penny still hasnt dropped on concussion - the liability and impact on players and the game will be absolutely huge. Make no mistake.

Those powers that be (commentators, MRO, league officials) that think the game can go on as it is without some significant changes are kidding themselves.

These mixed messages on head contact will be a rod for the AFL's back so big that its actually reckless by the AFL board to be going so softly and indecisively. They've been on notice for some years already, and with hindsight this is going to look like gross negligence and mismanagement.

The AFL messages weren't mixed. The tribunal is independent and from the footage I saw you couldn't clearly see that the action was intentional, so when the player denied intention the independent tribunal ruled it as careless and not intentional and thus it got the lower suspension. Just need to adjust the guidelines.

 

[sideswipe]

It was a terrible argument, and the tribunal prob wished he had a better one. The club had nowhere else to go though, as retaliation wouldve seen a min 4 week ban. The penalty or need to reduce was likely agreed before the hearing though, as they often are. With the overall view of Murphy contributing to it - either by previous altercation or lowering himself, so 3 was seen as a more fitting result. Or maybe................

The testimony of Murphy being disregarded was also v interesting. I would not be surprised at all if the actual events went something like Lethlean calling the powers that be and stating / threatening that "look he racially abused Caminiti, calling him a dirty ***. If you want to open this up and smack us & the kid, we'll bring this up. Otherwise settle on 3 and we wont push the race card. The player is also happy with this & wont take it further."

Delete this crap - don't start fabricating racist comment. Your imagination is getting the better of you. And who would Lethlean call? The Tribunal wouldn't give two hoots about a racism scandal. So you need an extra link to your chain of fantasy.

 

[live fast pieyoung]

The AFL messages weren't mixed. The tribunal is independent and from the footage I saw you couldn't clearly see that the action was intentional, so when the player denied intention the independent tribunal ruled it as careless and not intentional and thus it got the lower suspension. Just need to adjust the guidelines.

Sure that all makes sense from within the view of the game. An incremental approach.
But that is my total point, this view is not sustainable long term given the recent years development in concussion research
The scientific consensus is now so damning that tinkering around the edges wont cut it. The coming court cases will eventually make that apparent. And my point is that the powers that be are still thinking in the terms that you have put it.
As Henry Ford put it, "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse."

 

[sideswipe]

Sure that all makes sense from within the view of the game. An incremental approach.
But that is my total point, this view is not sustainable long term given the recent years development in concussion research
The scientific consensus is now so damning that tinkering around the edges wont cut it. The coming court cases will eventually make that apparent. And my point is that the powers that be are still thinking in the terms that you have put it.
As Henry Ford put it, "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse."

I think you are overestimating the likelihood of success of those court cases - as well as the effect that might have on today's game. Negligence claims are based on actions taken at the time based on knowledge at the time. Very big hurdle for the plaintiffs to get over - reckon they will end up settling to create/increase the players retirement/medical fund.

In terms of today, the AFL needs to be taking actions that protect the player based on what they know today. The main ones are the match day and return to play concussion protocols. A lesser, but still important element is the rules and appropriate tribunal punishments. Are the current ones deterring behaviours that put players at risk? Think the answer is yeah, but maybe bigger punishments are an even bigger deterrent?

 

[sr36]

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 offence was he charged with? Striking is intentional by the guidelines, so it must have been something else. Seems stupid to me that a fist aimed for the chest that gets someone in the head is intentional by the guidelines, but an elbow that does the same is careless.

 

[cityslick1]

Delete this crap - don't start fabricating racist comment. Your imagination is getting the better of you. And who would Lethlean call? The Tribunal wouldn't give two hoots about a racism scandal. So you need an extra link to your chain of fantasy.

haa... who would he call?? You tell me, you seemed to be all over it on the saints board yesterday. Changed your mind again have we, or you going with the 'banter' argument?? busted

 

[sideswipe]

What offence was he charged with? Striking is intentional by the guidelines, so it must have been something else. Seems stupid to me that a fist aimed for the chest that gets someone in the head is intentional by the guidelines, but an elbow that does the same is careless.

The strike was determined to be careless. The guidelines allow for this. Your last two sentences are not correct.

 

[sideswipe]

haa... who would he call?? You tell me, you seemed to be all over it on the saints board yesterday. Changed your mind again have we, or you going with the 'banter' argument?? busted

View attachment 1664805

If you took that seriously, I have even more doubts about you.

 

[cityslick1]

My last point... this is part of the tribunal's findings yesterday. Which is even worse than I thought. "Not behind play or off the ball" & "Murphy ... engaged in vigorous contact with Caminiti as he was struck" are so far from the truth, its not funny. Something is def amiss here

 

[sideswipe]

My last point... this is part of the tribunal's findings yesterday. Which is even worse than I thought. "Not behind play or off the ball" & "Murphy ... engaged in vigorous contact with Caminiti as he was struck" are so far from the truth, its not funny. Something is def amiss here

View attachment 1664808

Something is def amiss here?

Your English comprehension skills?

 

[live fast pieyoung]

I think you are overestimating the likelihood of success of those court cases - as well as the effect that might have on today's game. Negligence claims are based on actions taken at the time based on knowledge at the time. Very big hurdle for the plaintiffs to get over - reckon they will end up settling to create/increase the players retirement/medical fund.

In terms of today, the AFL needs to be taking actions that protect the player based on what they know today. The main ones are the match day and return to play concussion protocols. A lesser, but still important element is the rules and appropriate tribunal punishments. Are the current ones deterring behaviours that put players at risk? Think the answer is yeah, but maybe bigger punishments are an even bigger deterrent?

Yes, the reasonable level of knowledge from a legal perspective is damning. The research really indicates its way worse than people thought. Plus we already have several life and death cases on record - Tuck, Frawley. And thats not to mention all the NFL players.

So I think your suggestion is underestimating the likelihood of success of those court cases. Even if they settle, the liability will be much bigger than people think because the impact is huge.

Right now we are sitting here arguing about how much lead to include in paint, or whether seatbelts are necessary. Its only a matter of time until the paradigm shifts. The duty of care will need to be expanded to have some strict liability components and prima facie assumptions of recklessness at the very least. Defences like Cammineti shouldnt even get a look in - if you accidentally whack someone in the head, too bad for you, you flew too close to the sun. Eventually, yhe tribunal will not have room to be splitting hairs on these finer points.

 

[sideswipe]

Yes, the reasonable level of knowledge from a legal perspective is damning. The research really indicates its way worse than people thought. Plus we already have several life and death cases on record - Tuck, Frawley. And thats not to mention all the NFL players.

So I think your suggestion is underestimating the likelihood of success of those court cases. Even if they settle, the liability will be much bigger than people think because the impact is huge.

Right now we are sitting here arguing about how much lead to include in paint, or whether seatbelts are necessary. Its only a matter of time until the paradigm shifts. The duty of care will need to be expanded to have some strict liability components and prima facie assumptions of recklessness at the very least. Defences like Cammineti shouldnt even get a look in - if you accidentally whack someone in the head, too bad for you, you flew too close to the sun. Eventually, yhe tribunal will not have room to be splitting hairs on these finer points.

Not sure what you are on about. The relevant level of knowledge for today's claimants' is not today's level of knowledge.

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Not sure what you are on about. The relevant level of knowledge for today's claimants' is not today's level of knowledge.

Thats a tangential point. I dont have a historiography of concussion research. Maybe the oldest ones have low exposure. The recent ones certianly dont

The argument stands on its merits. Future cases will be judged on todays level of knowledge, and right now the AFL is not doing enough. The evidence is clear that they can expect many concussions across the league per year.

 

[sideswipe]

Thats a tangential point. I dont have a historiography of concussion research.

The argument stands on its merits. Future cases will be judged on todays level of knowledge, and right now the AFL is not doing enough. The evidence is clear that they can expect many concussions across the league per year.

The level of knowledge "then" is at the very essence of the current claims on foot. A little bit more than tangential.

You say the AFL is not doing enough currently. I am not sure that is the case. Let's leave it there.

 

[sr36]

The strike was determined to be careless. The guidelines allow for this. Your last two sentences are not correct.

Just re-read it, you're right, it doesn't actually say that a strike is automatically intentional. But it does say if he intended to strike him, it's intentional. Eg, wouldn't that mean that it would still be intentional if he was going for the chest but clocked him in the jaw? It would only be careless if he didn't mean to strike him - eg. the Gaff defence failing. I assume the finding was that he didn't mean to strike him?

 

[live fast pieyoung]

The level of knowledge "then" is at the very essence of the current claims on foot. A little bit more than tangential.

You say the AFL is not doing enough currently. I am not sure that is the case. Let's leave it there.

No worries.
This is an accurate summation that i agree with.
Thanks for the reply.

 

[cityslick1]

Something is def amiss here?

Your English comprehension skills?

nope, skills just fine. So you dont think it was off the ball... and you think Murphy was engaged in vigorous contact AS he was struck? Really. Have you even seen the vision............ we had possession of the ball 50m away. He even turned his back to the ball to inflict the strike. More off the ball than Gaff

 

[sideswipe]

Just re-read it, you're right, it doesn't actually say that a strike is automatically intentional. But it does say if he intended to strike him, it's intentional. Eg, wouldn't that mean that it would still be intentional if he was going for the chest but clocked him in the jaw? It would only be careless if he didn't mean to strike him - eg. the Gaff defence failing. I assume the finding was that he didn't mean to strike him?

I'd need to read the tribunal findings to be sure. Different to what I wrote above, as opposed to a strike, they may well have classed the "careless use of a forearm" as rough conduct rather than a strike.

 

[sideswipe]

nope, skills just fine. So you dont think it was off the ball... and you think they were engaged in vigorous contact AS he was struck? Really. Have you even seen the vision............ we had possession of the ball 50m away. He even turned his back to the ball to inflict the strike. More off the ball than Gaff

I don't have any problem with the extract of the tribunal finding you posted above.

 

[jmac70]

We probably all need to move on.

 

[noideaatall]

The AFL messages weren't mixed. The tribunal is independent and from the footage I saw you couldn't clearly see that the action was intentional, so when the player denied intention the independent tribunal ruled it as careless and not intentional and thus it got the lower suspension. Just need to adjust the guidelines.

No intention to attack you but using your post of an example of what I find ridiculous about this case and the justice system both here and broadly in society. I have no doubt about Caminiti's intentions. I do not believe any reasonable observer of AFL football would have any doubt. Caminiti was retaliating. Maybe he had damn good reason, maybe not. I dgaf the footage is not clear. Pretty sure Murph or the implications of the hit don't either.

We are being hamstrung in out society by the bs of our so called justice system that is amoral, directionless and serves mainly the one purpose of developing its own relevance. The latest trend is to blame wokes - if we had a justice system that could decide with some sort of decent commonsense moral code rather than some legalistic letter based system we would have a better world.

 

[sr36]

No intention to attack you but using your post of an example of what I find ridiculous about this case and the justice system both here and broadly in society. I have no doubt about Caminiti's intentions. I do not believe any reasonable observer of AFL football would have any doubt. Caminiti was retaliating. Maybe he had damn good reason, maybe not. I dgaf the footage is not clear. Pretty sure Murph or the implications of the hit don't either.

We are being hamstrung in out society by the bs of our so called justice system that is amoral, directionless and serves mainly the one purpose of developing its own relevance. The latest trend is to blame wokes - if we had a justice system that could decide with some sort of decent commonsense moral code rather than some legalistic letter based system we would have a better world.

I think you've spiralled that. Players get done on video evidence or umpire testimony. Umps didn't see it and video footage wasn't conclusive regarding intent. I'd be questioning your confidence regarding Camintis intention and don't think it should be trusted and used as a basis for consequence.

I feel you're advocating for a vibe based legal system. Did work well in Salem though, we haven't seen any witches for ages...

 

[Apex36]

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.

As far as I can see, intent only goes as far as whether the player intended to strike, not where they intended it to land. That’s the reason the saints went down the line they did with their defence, in that he was not intending to strike at all and merely create separation. If their defence had been that he was intending to strike Murphy in the chest and caught him high because he lowered himself (the Gaff/Brayshaw defence), I’m pretty certain he would have copped the full whack and had his charge remain as intentional.

 

[noideaatall]

I think you've spiralled that. Players get done on video evidence or umpire testimony. Umps didn't see it and video footage wasn't conclusive regarding intent. I'd be questioning your confidence regarding Camintis intention and don't think it should be trusted and used as a basis for consequence.

I feel you're advocating for a vibe based legal system. Did work well in Salem though, we haven't seen any witches for ages...

In regards to Caminiti's case, regardless of umpire's obs and footage, the intent was common sense. Retaliation. It is benefit of the doubt - conclusive - that influences the tribunal. Hence my problem with the legal system. This business about vibe based legal system, I've found through personal experience and observation of others cases this is exactly what we have. Don't blame me for that. Salem is a straw man, or witches hat.