MRP / Trib. Taylor Walker

[Vader]

It's the only way we can challenge it and reduce his sentence in any way (from what Vader has said), so I reckon the club would be 50/50 at this stage. If we can get it down to one though without risking the three (is this possible?), I'd take that first, too much of a lottery otherwise!

I think we'd only be risking 2 games if we decided to plead guilty while challenging the impact level. Not 100% sure about this.

Yes, I know that's contrary to what I wrote just a few minutes ago. I'll correct that post shortly.

 

[BACCS]

Okay so if that's correct, and I thank you for doing math on a Monday afternoon, then if I were the AFC I'd play the system. Plead guilty, challenge the impact try to win that and have Tex available for Collingwood.

As far as the upcoming matches are concerned we could use him most against the Pies imo.

Agreed, their defense worries me more than Carlton's. Could get away with using Lynch for a week and using Jenkins/Tipp/Jacobs rotating up forward.

 

[MarcusP2]

According to the AFC website if he pleads guilty and argues the impact you don't risk the three. So in that case it would either be 1 or 2.

 

[BACCS]

I think we'd only be risking 2 games if we decided to plead guilty while challenging the impact level. Not 100% sure about this.

Yes, I know that's contrary to what I wrote just a few minutes ago. I'll correct that post shortly.

If that is true, the club will surely go down this option.

Edit: It is true, so just reaffirms my position before that this is the best way to challenge it.

 

[relapse]

Seriously!?!?

I actually agree

If you watch the full replay and not just the tackle it does appear that he stops Taylor's movement before taking him to ground. I made the point yesterday that the MRP would argue that Walker has stopped a standing Taylor before putting him on the ground and deem it as a seconary motion.

I love the guy and he is most probably my favourite Crow, but unfortunately he was always going to get done for this, I had just hoped that he was only going to get a game not 2

 

[relapse]

Nahas' tackle was effectively a DDT, if you're at all familar with wrestling. Would give Jake the Snake a run for his money.

Did he give him a short arm clothesline first ?

 

[Hank93]

MRP Findings on Robin Nahas

Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.

and for Nathan Lovett-Murray

Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.

 

[cmndstab]

Had the whistle blown before Walker takes him to ground? If not, they can hardly say he had 'stopped play'.

I'd like to see us challenge it. Challenge them to either claim that all tackles where a head hits the ground, regardless of circumstance or technique, are going to be cited, or to let this one go. We'd get off quick-smart.

 

[Schulzycrow]

All I can say is what a load of horse shite!!!!!

 

[cmndstab]

MRP Findings on Robin Nahas



and for Nathan Lovett-Murray

Do they have a similar write-up for Walker?

 

[blackbird_RGB]

The full report is up. nlm fell to the ground with priddis which apparently jas some bearing on the ruling. just wondering if this makes a differennce with tex....doubtful

 

[relapse]

Okay so if that's correct, and I thank you for doing math on a Monday afternoon, then if I were the AFC I'd play the system. Plead guilty, challenge the impact try to win that and have Tex available for Collingwood.

As far as the upcoming matches are concerned we could use him most against the Pies imo.

I've already conceded the Carlton game as I think their forward line will be too quick for our backs. I do, however, think we are a very good chance against Collingwood at home which is why I would have been okay with Tex getting a week.

 

[Hank93]

Do they have a similar write-up for Walker?

Not in descriptive detail, but this was on the AFL website.

Taylor Walker, Adelaide, has been charged with a level two engaging in rough conduct offence against Harry Taylor, Geelong Cats, during the first quarter of the round seven match between Adelaide Crows and the Geelong Cats, played at AAMI Stadium on Saturday May 12, 2012.

In summary, due to his previous poor record, his two-game sanction must remain at two matches, even with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction.

The MRP chairman provides a more detailed explanation in a video titled "The Verdict" on the AFL website.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I had a feeling with Tex's carry over points he may get one game but never dreamt he would get 2. Then note to cite Lovell-Murray is just a double slap in the face. Proves yet again if you are not one of the afl's major drawcards or in an emerging market, they really couldn't give a flying f%% about you. In the AFL's eyes SA football who rate around the bottom in the order of importance.

Serioulsy, why do we bother.

 

[finn]

Watching Friday night, Franklin laid very similar tackles on a number of occasions - seems to me that the AFL is getting itself into positions that it soon won't be able to manoeuvre out of with regards to body contact. The rulings on bumps led to people sliding in often headfirst and the seeming inability to pick up cases of ducking exacerbated this. Tackling coaches teach people to pin the arms and take them to the ground to remove the player from the next contest. Twisting the player tackled is a way of ensuring that no push in the back can be paid.
It's getting to the stage where tackling seems to be as problematic as bumping.

Terrible decision by the MRP - where all cases should only ever be viewed in real time to give a proper understanding of the options available to the players in real time.

 

[Vader]

Here's the definition of a Dangerous Tackle (taken from the AFL Tribunal Handbook 2012):

The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without limitation, regard may be had to:
■ whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
■ whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle;
■ whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

The good news is that Walker has no additional loading to worry about this time around, though he will have if he ends up serving time:

A player will receive a 10% loading for an offence for each match that he has been suspended in the previous three AFL years. The maximum weighting a player can receive for offences in the past three AFL years will be capped at 50%.

For those still wondering why it's classified as high contact:

Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as high, even though the tackle was to the body.

 

[skoobydoo]

Contact was high because Walker's actions directly resulted in Taylor's head making contact with the ground.

Does that context apply only to tackles? What if player's head contacts ground after a crunching hip and shoulder bump?

We are easy meat outside of Vic., because the media and general football commentary is really cursory at best for issues involving interstate teams. These out-of-Melb/Vic situations is where the AFL can keep the averages up to show their duty of care and to set examples.

The 'new AFC regime' must now consider this strongly to demonstrate to all that we are no longer a club that goes about its business, on or off the field, submitting without resistance.

Having said that I want our response to favour what is best for Walker.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Clear bias wouldn't be suprised if the MRP consisted of members with ties to atleast Carlton and Collingwood.

 

[MattyB_76]

So, if the sling tackle is only considered dangerous if there is 'excessive force', why not just argue that "Taylor was not injured/concussed, hence the force used was not excessive".

As many people have stated earlier, Taylor had 7 minutes plus quarter time off the ground, and was deemed fine to play the last 3 quarters.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I may have missed something in your reply Carl, but the German flag wasn't the one i was thinking of! Though the Vlad as Dictator certainly fits.

Ahh... now I get it

 

[Vader]

Does that context apply only to tackles? What if player's head contacts ground after a crunching hip and shoulder bump?

No, it's not limited to tackles, though that does appear to be the offence where it's most frequently cited. Refer to the last quote in my previous post. It's part of the definition used to determine whether contact is high, groin, or body.

 

[PCORF]

They just don't like us and they don't want us to win our next 2 games. Its all set up.

 

[skoobydoo]

The AFL website quotes Walker with ' a previous poor record' and 'He has a bad record'. Does this terminology have basis in the regulations describing 'offenders' ?

 

[kaysee]

Contact was high because Walker's actions directly resulted in Taylor's head making contact with the ground. The fact that Walker himself didn't make contact with Taylor's head is 100% completely and utterly irrelevant. Contesting this one part of the charge would only get us laughed at and thrown out on our ear. That's the way the rule is defined - anyone questioning it obviously doesn't know/understand the rules of the game.

That said, I'd like to see the reasoning behind the "medium" vs "low" impact grading - particularly given the fact that he played 90% of the game on the ground.

*** I am not for one instant suggesting that he is/was guilty. I believe it was a perfectly executed tackle. However, if they are going to deem it illegal then grading it as "high" contact is clearly correct.

Just to follow up on this... (and this is not a troll (that is what the Bay is for) and I understand your frustration at loosing a damn good FF (who I actually like as a FF) for the coming weeks)... the AFL are definitely looking at clamping down on anything near the head. As are most contact sports around the world.

For those unware... google what's happening the US at the moment and in particular NFL and with concussion. New studies into concussion, after-effects later in life and possible legal action (with huge liability)... is now making all contact sports rethink their player safety and rules.

Recently, when following the NBA, I saw Minnesota's Kevin Love cop an elbow to the head which gave him concussion. As a result he pretty much sat out the last 1-2 months of the NBA... not because it was bad (it was very mild)... but as a precaution whilst they steer through this concussion/liability minefield.

As a big lover of the hardness of our contact sport, and a detester of softening the rules, I'm affraid we all have to accept that times are changing and the AFL will be coming down hard on anything on that could damage a players head or given concussion.

Again... not trying to say he deserved it... simply providing some background which might be unknown. Look forward to seeing him back in action.

EDIT: here is a link for you stating how concussion and legal action may bring an end to the NFL: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8291129a/article/explayer-dave-pear-says-concussion-issue-could-end-nfl

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's the hypocrisy more than anything.

We could stomach it if other club's players were being wiped out for any tackles that cause injuries to the head.

When they pick and choose though, that's when the frustration sets in.