MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

[LukeParkerno1]

Easiest money the AFL will make

 

[Magma]

'a new benchmark'

yeah im sure it will be applied evenly. why was mcadam the benchmark and not the other two?

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Not sure why it took them so long.
3 is fair as set out in the MRO guidelines.

Thoughts on the Pickett and Buddy suspensions?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

How many for Hawkins?
Potential to cause injury high. As evidenced by the actual injury.

See ya Hawko … no?

 

[CakeEater]

How many for Hawkins?
Potential to cause injury high. As evidenced by the actual injury.

See ya Hawko … no?

3 weeks - superstar - big vic club= 0 weeks

 

[Magma]

How many for Hawkins?
Potential to cause injury high. As evidenced by the actual injury.

See ya Hawko … no?

could've blinded him. 3 weeks has to be the starting point surely

 

[Section 5]

Because they ****ed up with the Pickett suspension and needed to think of a way to justify McAdam receiving more for a lesser incident

But it isnt fair. MRO should have been body contact. Not high contact. Should have been reckless not severe. 2 games down to one.

I am a neutral supporter of all the 3 incidents so have no skin in the game as it were.
It is not about what the media, supporters, or all the 6 clubs involved in the 3 incidents think or believe.
it is about what is in the Guidelines for the MRO and what will the tribunal consider if someone appeals.

On page 12 (posts 292 & 293) of this thread i gave reasons why these three were dealt with differently, along with what changes they could consider.
I won't repeat them here again as easy enough to check.

The media and supporters all have opinions on what they think are the guidelines/rules, but rarely do they actually look at them. More importantly try and understand them.
A link was supplied for people to make an effort to at least try and understand how these are worded etc.
I did supply some relevant information copied from the guidelines as a bit of a guide.

So, i stand by 3 weeks is fair, and still don't understand why it took them so long to make a decision.

 

[2notepockets]

Probably because they inadvertently admitted the initial grading was wrong by saying it didn't matter if it was high or not, admitting a lesser charge was applicable...

 

[BACCS]

I am a neutral supporter of all the 3 incidents so have no skin in the game as it were.
It is not about what the media, supporters, or all the 6 clubs involved in the 3 incidents think or believe.
it is about what is in the Guidelines for the MRO and what will the tribunal consider if someone appeals.

On page 12 (posts 292 & 293) of this thread i gave reasons why these three were dealt with differently, along with what changes they could consider.
I won't repeat them here again as easy enough to check.

The media and supporters all have opinions on what they think are the guidelines/rules, but rarely do they actually look at them. More importantly try and understand them.
A link was supplied for people to make an effort to at least try and understand how these are worded etc.
I did supply some relevant information copied from the guidelines as a bit of a guide.

So, i stand by 3 weeks is fair, and still don't understand why it took them so long to make a decision.

It took them this long because of ******* up the Pickett decision, it’s that simple. If both were given 3 then we would’ve stopped talking about this on Monday.

 

[Crow till I die]

could've blinded him. 3 weeks has to be the starting point surely

It could get to a point where clubs that have been jilted by the mro and tribunal could start appealing perceived leniency towards favored clubs by said panel..its a total farce presided over by vindictive clowns

 

[BACCS]

3 weeks - superstar - big vic club= 0 weeks

Fair, at least they’re following the matrix

 

[Section 5]

It took them this long because of ******* up the Pickett decision, it’s that simple. If both were given 3 then we would’ve stopped talking about this on Monday.

Nothing to do with the Picket decision
Did you at least make an effort to read the guidelines

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Nothing to do with the Picket decision
Did you at least make an effort to read the guidelines

Did you?

The AFLs argument is that the impact is severe because of what might have been. Not what was.

Also the contact was predominantly to the body with the head contact incidental.

Of the 3 factors leading to the matter being referred to the tribunal, we argued 2 of them were judged incorrectly.

 

[Section 5]

Did you?

The AFLs argument is that the impact is severe because of what might have been. Not what was.

Also the contact was predominantly to the body with the head contact incidental.

Of the 3 factors leading to the matter being referred to the tribunal, we argued 2 of them were judged incorrectly.

Of course i have.

Not here for an argument just trying to educate some of the BF posters where they can get the correct information.
Obviously, a waste of my time in your case and possibly a lot of others.

Your (crows) lawyer could argue all 3 factors were judged incorrectly would not have made any difference.
Thats what lawyers do they try to get people off. That is what the Crows paid them to do.
They were unsuccessful.

 

[Brasher]

If the AFL just changed the wording from "potential" to "intention". I'd see their reasoning.

But that's not the language they used.

Using the potential wording, Jeremy Howe

38

Jeremy Howe

Age

33

Ht

190cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.4

5star

T

2.1

4star

MG

318.1

4star

D

21.5

5star

K

16.5

5star

HB

5.0

3star

M

6.5

5star

T

2.0

3star

MG

433.3

5star

D

15.2

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

6.8

5star

T

1.6

4star

should be sanctioned everytime he flies for a mark as he has the potential (and unfortunately, the history) to severely injure himself. And wowee, how much better would the game be for that?

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Nothing to do with the Picket decision
Did you at least make an effort to read the guidelines

But it does, not in the Tribunals mind obviously but because they clearly don’t see the incidents the way we see them.
And all this crap shoot about how the guidelines are written, like they represent the finest legal opinion, yet refuse the notion of precedent to challenge their rulings.

The pub test for me
Anyone who argues that Pickett’s bump was not intentional and high, has a clear agenda to minimise his suspension.
Even with the poorly worded “state of mind“ wording.

 

[Brasher]

Of course i have.

Not here for an argument just trying to educate some of the BF posters where they can get the correct information.
Obviously, a waste of my time in your case and possibly a lot of others.

Your (crows) lawyer could argue all 3 factors were judged incorrectly would not have made any difference.
Thats what lawyers do they try to get people off. That is what the Crows paid them to do.
They were unsuccessful.

Of course it is a waste of time arguing because the league doesn't follow their own guidelines. Pointing out the laws as they are written is fine but the whole point I think many are trying to make is they haven't been applied faithfully.

Referring to the information you provided with emphasis on where the rules refer to "potential". I refer to this because this was the principle to which the AFL justified McAdam's punishment over the other sentences handed out over the weekend:


So was it an intentional swinging fist? Nope.
High bump with SIGNIFICANT head contact? Nope. Although the AFL probably argue McAdam was running too fast.
Head over the ball contact? Nope
Round Arm in a marking/ruck/tackle? Nope
Unreasonable expectation? Nope (and before you say it, this was brought in to prevent those ugly off the ball blind side sheppards...the clause even refers to this)
Dangerous Tackle? Nope.

So McAdam was rubbed out because both players were travelling at speed and the momentum both caused at impact left one player on his backside. McAdam's crime is he runs too fast coupled with the fact his action left himself at the mercy of the AFL's liberal interpretation of the their own rules.

Do I think this act needs to go? Yes. But I'm really not sure what rule they applied to rub out McAdam as the rule stands today other than force of impact (which is pot luck most of the time anyway).

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I am a neutral supporter of all the 3 incidents so have no skin in the game as it were.
It is not about what the media, supporters, or all the 6 clubs involved in the 3 incidents think or believe.
it is about what is in the Guidelines for the MRO and what will the tribunal consider if someone appeals.

On page 12 (posts 292 & 293) of this thread i gave reasons why these three were dealt with differently, along with what changes they could consider.
I won't repeat them here again as easy enough to check.

The media and supporters all have opinions on what they think are the guidelines/rules, but rarely do they actually look at them. More importantly try and understand them.
A link was supplied for people to make an effort to at least try and understand how these are worded etc.
I did supply some relevant information copied from the guidelines as a bit of a guide.

So, i stand by 3 weeks is fair, and still don't understand why it took them so long to make a decision.

You're cooked mate.

 

[Elixuh]

Right outcome. As others have said, the issue is not getting it right with the other two. All three should have been 3 weeks.

I thought picketts was the worst of the lot - reckless, unnecessary and looked like a genuine attempt to KO.

 

[Stephen2]

Right outcome. As others have said, the issue is not getting it right with the other two. All three should have been 3 weeks.

I thought picketts was the worst of the lot - reckless, unnecessary and looked like a genuine attempt to KO.

Completely agree. It's the comparison of the 3 that is frustrating.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

It took them this long because of ******* up the Pickett decision, it’s that simple. If both were given 3 then we would’ve stopped talking about this on Monday.

yep, all 3 should have been given 3 weeks.

the fact franklin and pickett weren't graded as intentional is the joke of the system and it needs to change.

McAdams deserves every day of his 3 weeks. What he did was absolute chicken s**t stuff. The issue is the other 2 should have gotten the same 3 weeks.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Of course it is a waste of time arguing because the league doesn't follow their own guidelines. Pointing out the laws as they are written is fine but the whole point I think many are trying to make is they haven't been applied faithfully.

Referring to the information you provided with emphasis on where the rules refer to "potential". I refer to this because this was the principle to which the AFL justified McAdam's punishment over the other sentences handed out over the weekend:

View attachment 1637610
So was it an intentional swinging fist? Nope.
High bump with SIGNIFICANT head contact? Nope. Although the AFL probably argue McAdam was running too fast.
Head over the ball contact? Nope
Round Arm in a marking/ruck/tackle? Nope
Unreasonable expectation? Nope (and before you say it, this was brought in to prevent those ugly off the ball blind side sheppards...the clause even refers to this)
Dangerous Tackle? Nope.

So McAdam was rubbed out because both players were travelling at speed and the momentum both caused at impact left one player on his backside. McAdam's crime is he runs too fast coupled with the fact his action left himself at the mercy of the AFL's liberal interpretation of the their own rules.

Do I think this act needs to go? Yes. But I'm really not sure what rule they applied to rub out McAdam as the rule stands today other than force of impact (which is pot luck most of the time anyway).

You think an AFL player should take possession of the ball and without looking expect a violent hip and shoulder to his front section + head (yes he hit the head, dont try to argue otherwise), instead of a tackle? McAdams's intent was to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player. That is the end of it. the potential for injury from that action is utterly massive, the AFL did the right thing here, had McAdams caused concussion or even worse a broken jaw, he would be sitting out for 7 + weeks.

Look at the whiplash for gods sake.

The AFL has the "potential" clause to use in exact cases like this. A bump is part of the game, but using it like McAdams did is utterly wrong and why we should be punishing the action and not just the medical result.

I am all for supporters defending their players, but you are taking the absolute piss trying to argue bullshit semantics.

McAdams deserves every day, hour and second of his 3 weeks. You are better off arguing why the other 2 weren't also given 3. That is the only thing that that's wrong here.

 

[Brian McGee]

You think an AFL player should take possession of the ball and without looking expect a violent hip and shoulder to his front section + head (yes he hit the head, dont try to argue otherwise), instead of a tackle? McAdams's intent was to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player. That is the end of it. the potential for injury from that action is utterly massive, the AFL did the right thing here, had McAdams caused concussion or even worse a broken jaw, he would be sitting out for 7 + weeks.

Look at the whiplash for gods sake.

The AFL has the "potential" clause to use in exact cases like this. A bump is part of the game, but using it like McAdams did is utterly wrong and why we should be punishing the action and not just the medical result.

I am all for supporters defending their players, but you are taking the absolute piss trying to argue bullshit semantics.

McAdams deserves every day, hour and second of his 3 weeks. You are better off arguing why the other 2 weren't also given 3. That is the only thing that that's wrong here.

I agree with every word of this and thought that macadams was the worst of the 3 bumps, purely based on intent. My only real issue is where do they go now for genuinely severe impact bumps to the head? People saying that if he had knocked him out it would be 6 or 7, but I can’t see how the system allows for this. There is no grading higher than severe, so it’s just taking the grading system and adding an arbitrary amount of games on top? Seems like the grading matrix needs an overhaul to me.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I agree with every word of this and thought that macadams was the worst of the 3 bumps, purely based on intent. My only real issue is where do they go now for genuinely severe impact bumps to the head? People saying that if he had knocked him out it would be 6 or 7, but I can’t see how the system allows for this. There is no grading higher than severe, so it’s just taking the grading system and adding an arbitrary amount of games on top? Seems like the grading matrix needs an overhaul to me.

the grading system doesn't need an overhaul. Michael Christensen's perspective does.

the grading system allows for bumps to be labelled as intentional, he just doesnt do it.

If Pickett and Franklin were labelled intentional (as they should) they would have gotten an extra week each.

 

[Brian McGee]

the grading system doesn't need an overhaul. Michael Christensen's perspective does.

the grading system allows for bumps to be labelled as intentional, he just doesnt do it.

If Pickett and Franklin were labelled intentional (as they should) they would have gotten an extra week each.

Yeah but pretty much every bump is intentional. I don’t see how you would differentiate them. I don’t think Franklin had any intention of bumping Collins in the head, or even bumping for that matter. Whereas I thought pickett and macadam both wanted to bump, but neither would have intentionally hit the head either.