Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Shane McAdam

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Mutineer said:

After a deliberation of around two-hours the Appeals Board found that the Tribunal did not err or commit an error of law.

Murray Kellam KC, overseeing the hearing, said “the potential for injury is a significant matter in the classification of offences”.

“In our view the Tribunal committed no error of law in concluding that the classification of impact was severe,” he said.

“It was open to the Tribunal to place great weight (on potential for injury) in our view.

“It found that Mr McAdam chose to bump at particular speed where a reasonably prudent player would have concluded there was a considerably risk of injury to a player with the ball.”

Mr Kellam said it should also be noted that the Tribunal contained two “highly experienced ex-AFL players” and it was “not bound by previous decisions”.

“The appellant has established no error of law in that regard,” he said.
Click to expand...
Bookmark it for future reference

‘Can bump , but only at a certain speed ‘

Might need to get the radar gun out or the gps data of the actual speed at time of bump

Then come up with a formula to decide when it’s too much

What a shambolic organisation
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

kirky said:
“They simply can’t pick and choose”?

Oh yes the can and they will.

If we are talking about integrity then I’m afraid AFL and integrity can’t be used in the same sentence.
Click to expand...
That's why we need to call it out and make the point that we will be watching.
 
DJ75 said:
What I'm most interested in is the Crows response from here. Do we quietly walk away with our tails between our legs, or do we make a stand?

We need to come out and publicly call out the BS. We need to make it clear that we still believe the decision is wrong, that we have no faith in the MRO and that we believe there is a consistent and ongoing bias against teams outside of Victoria. That if we want a truly National game, we need to decentralise and move aspects of the running of the game away from Melbourne.
There will be a huge cry about it in Melbourne, but putting it on the agenda will make others take notice that we aren't F@#king around anymore.
We should point out that idiocy of the 3 suspensions from last week. That the only one to cause actual injury, and concussion at that, recieved the least sanction and that in a World where there are multiple lawsuits currently being set against the AFL for concussion, we believe it to be detrimental to the game. We should also point out that the AFL has decided that any forceful bump to the body is now suspendable due to the potential to cause injury and that we will be watching to see how many suspensions the AFL hand out for this in the following weeks.

We genuinely need to launch a few grenades the VFL's way.

As supporters, I have an idea. Just before the second quarter starts, as the TV coverage returns, we should chant "VFL, VFL, VFL" then when the siren sounds to start the quarter, break into a substantial boo.
It will be noticed and commented on by the media and make a clear point to our thoughts.
Click to expand...
We have already publicly called out the BS during our testimony in both hearings. It's on record forever. Clubs very rarely go that hard at bringing up inconsistencies with other incidents in any public forum, but we had nothing to lose here and just went for it which I love.

I don't think the bias argument helps our cause, Buddy got off lightly and plays for Sydney. All it would achieve is more gaslighting by people like Whately and Barrett, which is just a distraction for the club and not needed. Anyone sensible (or not employed by the AFL) knows, whether they are in Victoria or not, that Pickett's was the worst of the 3 incidents. It's already well and truly on the agenda and whinging to the media isn't going to help our cause.
 
BACCS said:
We have already publicly called out the BS during our testimony in both hearings. It's on record forever. Clubs very rarely go that hard at bringing up inconsistencies with other incidents in any public forum, but we had nothing to lose here and just went for it which I love.

I don't think the bias argument helps our cause, Buddy got off lightly and plays for Sydney. All it would achieve is more gaslighting by people like Whately and Barrett, which is just a distraction for the club and not needed. Anyone sensible (or not employed by the AFL) knows, whether they are in Victoria or not, that Pickett's was the worst of the 3 incidents. It's already well and truly on the agenda and whinging to the media isn't going to help our cause.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Everytime we let it slide, we allow it to continue.
We have to be brave enough to not give a rats what those paid afl shrills think or say. We need to be clear that everytime they do tthis to us, we are going to point it out and be very annoying about it. Only way it stops.
 


I'm far from an AFL apologist but I feel we've examined this from all possible perspectives. It's been a bad week for us and Shane.
The AFL will continue to make up the rules as they go to suit their agenda and this time, it's Shane McAdam who copped it. We all know that Buddy and Kosi are lucky this time. We've made our protest by appealing and the AFL would have noted our discontent.

I found this clip from another era and it's pretty graphic. Irrespective of the week we've had, the behaviour in this clip needs to cease and the AFL should continue to try remove it from the game.

It's up to us all to continue to highlight our expectations to the tribunal as further cases come up throughout the year. McAdam was very stiff in this instance but we should make sure we don't allow him to remain the sole example used by the AFL.

Edit....Milburn got 3 weeks for this in 2008
 
Mutineer said:
Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less "potential" for serious injury?
Click to expand...
The appeal needed to establish that the decision was manifestly incorrect. Which is a next to impossible task.

The problem is the discrepancy was at the MRO which the tribunal appeal board did not need to consider.

They effectively said the rules allow the tribunal to place whatever weight they want on the 4 different factors used to determine impact and therefore it cannot be found that their decision was manifestly wrong.

Essentially, it just affirmed that the MRO and tribunal do not need to be consistent and (unsurprisingly) the application of the rules set up by the AFL are completely at the AFL’s discretion.

It is the opposite of how a judicial system should work, but completely in line with how a law unto themselves does work.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Gtowncrow said:


I'm far from an AFL apologist but I feel we've examined this from all possible perspectives. It's been a bad week for us and Shane.
The AFL will continue to make up the rules as they go to suit their agenda and this time, it's Shane McAdam who copped it. We all know that Buddy and Kosi are lucky this time. We've made our protest by appealing and the AFL would have noted our discontent.

I found this clip from another era and it's pretty graphic. Irrespective of the week we've had, the behaviour in this clip needs to cease and the AFL should continue to try remove it from the game.

It's up to us all to continue to highlight our expectations to the tribunal as further cases come up throughout the year. McAdam was very stiff in this instance but we should make sure we don't allow him to remain the sole example used by the AFL.

Edit....Milburn got 3 weeks for this in 2008
Click to expand...

That was in 2001.

Though Wellingham in 2012 got 5 weeks for almost killing Kade Simpson (down to 3 weeks with early guilty plea lol).
 
Mutineer said:
Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less "potential" for serious injury?
Click to expand...
I think the logic is something like this…

Picket did hit him in the head. It was already as poorly executed bump as it could be. The force wasn’t enough to cause injury, so the “theoretical” risk of injury is lower.

McAdam hit him harder but executed the bump perfectly (role of front on bump aside). BUT because it was so hard, if he happened to get him In The head the danage would be bad. So they can increase the “risk” because there are more hypotheticals than pickets case.

It’s a good system hey
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.



Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.
 
DJ75 said:


Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.
Click to expand...


You see, the problem is that you are expecting consistency.
 
DJ75 said:


Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.
Click to expand...

It looks entirely different. No front-on contact, a hip and shoulder to the side, BUT, is it a raised elbow to the head that does the damage?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom