Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Taylor Walker

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Wilburwild said:
Contact wasn't high either, It was the grass that got him high. Firstly it should be thrown out, but if they want to keep it, it should be negligent (1 point), low impact (1 point) and whatever you get for not high contact...
Click to expand...

King Elvis said:
Why high and medium?

Didn't touch Taylor's head, Taylor came back onto the field.

Bullshit.
Click to expand...

MarcusP2 said:
Medium impact? So 'low impact' is 'no impact'? He was off the ground for 5 minutes max.

Also how is it high contact when he never touched his head or directed it toward the ground.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Crow-eater said:
Adelaide twitter has just said that Tex only risks three if he pleads not guilty and the appeal fails. If we challenge the classifications (high contact, medium impact) the third is not risked
Click to expand...
Ah, ok. So there's the Little Miss Pissy Pants option.

Option 1 - accept the two games

Option 2 - plead not guilty and gun for zero games, risk missing three

Option 3 - challenge classifications only and maybe shave a week off

I wonder which one we'll choose? :rolleyes:
 
Just watched it again. Tex did twist Taylor after laying the tackle, so that Harry didn't fall straight onto Tex's stomach. Fairly reasonable I think.

He also released the tackle and put his arm down to cushion the fall, giving Taylor time to brace too.

Not high contact, not medium contact. CONTEST!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Crow-eater said:
Adelaide twitter has just said that Tex only risks three if he pleads not guilty and the appeal fails. If we challenge the classifications (high contact, medium impact) the third is not risked
Click to expand...
There's no grounds for challenging the high contact element.

Even if we challenge the medium impact element, he's still looking at a 2-week vacation, as we're effectively conceding that what he did was illegal (and he has 93pts already hanging over his head).

The only way to have him play vs Carlton is to challenge this on a "not-guilty" basis.
 
I haven't seen the Nahas tackle, but from all reports it was made out to be the worst of the 3, yet the video of the round 7 MRP findings being explained don't even have it as a case that was reviewed. Lovett-Murray's tackle is in there but they deem it as a "normal" tackle, despite him dropping Priddis' head into the ground, resulting in a concussion.

I can only assume that as Nahas' tackle wasn't even reviewed, despite reportedly being a genuine spear tackle, that Walker is being punished because he's big and strong and his tackles are felt by his opponent.
 
Bacon8 said:
Just watched it again. Tex did twist Taylor after laying the tackle, so that Harry didn't fall straight onto Tex's stomach. Fairly reasonable I think.

He also released the tackle and put his arm down to cushion the fall, giving Taylor time to brace too.

Not high contact, not medium contact. CONTEST!
Click to expand...
It was high contact. I agree it wasn't medium impact. I also think it's not guilty on the grounds that it was a legally executed tackle.
 
Vader said:
There's no grounds for challenging the high contact element.

Even if we challenge the medium impact element, he's still looking at a 2-week vacation, as we're effectively conceding that what he did was illegal (and he has 93pts already hanging over his head).

The only way to have him play vs Carlton is to challenge this on a "not-guilty" basis.
Click to expand...

Accept the 2 matches then. I'm not risking 3 weeks IMO.
 
TheLeftFist8 said:
I am absolutely livid at this inconsistent, corrupt, biased BS.

Maybe we should change the blue in our uniform for black, we'd get a far better run from the AFL.
Click to expand...
Haha! Mental image of Vlad with a Hitler moustache
 
kaltmeibel said:
Just accept the 2 move on.

Hopefully he learns from it and it gives Jenkins another shot.From a negitive comes a positive.
Click to expand...

Learns what? Don't tackle because you might use too much force and hurt someone? May as well just not tackle, the risk will always be there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

hdecure said:
Accept the 2 matches then. I'm not risking 3 weeks IMO.
Click to expand...

Nope, go for glory and try to get off completely because this is a crazy decision.

There are multiple tackles every game, if not match, where the arms are pinned and the tackled players head hits the ground at some point after the tackler dumps him to the ground.

AFC should collect all that footage, including Nahas and NLM, for the past 7 rounds, make the d***heads sit thru hours of examples of tackles deemed nothing to worry about, then maybe just maybe they'll realise they are incompetent.

This crap makes you wonder why we should bother following the AFL comp.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

spexau said:
What's the point of having the "guilty/challenge" offer if it won't reduce the penalty then?
Click to expand...
I need to do the maths to work this one out... Bear with me (thinking & typing at the same time).

He's charged with a level 2 "engaging in rough conduct" offence, worth 225pts. Throw in his previous 93pts and he's looking at 318pts in total.

If he pleads guilty, then he gets the 25% discount - 238.5pts, or a 2 week suspension with 38.5pts outstanding for next time round.

If he pleads guilty to a "low impact" offence (and the tribunal agrees) then the original charge is reduced to a 125pt offence, 218pts in total, less the 25% discount = 163.5pts. That's a 1-week suspension with 63.5pts left over.

If he pleads not guilty and the tribunal finds him guilty, then he cops the full 3-week suspension.

If he pleads guilty to a "low impact" offence - and the tribunal finds him guilty, then (I think) he's looking at a 2-week suspension.

I'm not sure if his record is bad enough for any penalties to apply. It's possible that there may be a further 10% which needs to be applied to the base penalty for his "offence".

Summary
Pleads Guilty, or Guilty with Reduced Impact (MRP disagrees) = 2 weeks suspension, 38.5pts left over.
Pleads Guilty, Reduced Impact (MRP agrees) = 1 week suspension, 63.5pts left over
Pleads Not Guilty (MRP disagrees) = 3 week suspension, 18pts left over
 
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.
 
King Elvis said:
Challenge even if we get three instead; who cares?
Click to expand...
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!
 
Vader said:
I need to do the maths to work this one out... Bear with me (thinking & typing at the same time).

He's charged with a level 2 "engaging in rough conduct" offence, worth 225pts. Throw in his previous 93pts and he's looking at 318pts in total.

If he pleads guilty, then he gets the 25% discount - 238.5pts, or a 2 week suspension with 38.5pts outstanding for next time round.

If he pleads guilty to a "low impact" offence (and the tribunal agrees) then the original charge is reduced to a 125pt offence, 218pts in total, less the 25% discount = 163.5pts. That's a 1-week suspension with 63.5pts left over.

If he pleads not guilty, or the tribunal fails to agree with the downgrading, then he cops the full 3-week suspension.

I'm not sure if his record is bad enough for any penalties to apply. It's possible that there may be a further 10% which needs to be applied to the base penalty for his "offence".

Summary
Pleads Guilty = 2 weeks suspension, 38.5pts left over.
Pleads Guilty, Reduced Impact (MRP agrees) = 1 week suspension, 63.5pts left over
Pleads Not Guilty or Reduced Impact (MRP disagrees) = 3 week suspension, 18pts left over
Click to expand...
That is our best option I reckon, would take that.
 
headache1 said:
I haven't seen the Nahas tackle, but from all reports it was made out to be the worst of the 3, yet the video of the round 7 MRP findings being explained don't even have it as a case that was reviewed. Lovett-Murray's tackle is in there but they deem it as a "normal" tackle, despite him dropping Priddis' head into the ground, resulting in a concussion.

I can only assume that as Nahas' tackle wasn't even reviewed, despite reportedly being a genuine spear tackle, that Walker is being punished because he's big and strong and his tackles are felt by his opponent.
Click to expand...

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom