MRP / Trib. Thomas bump

[TheLip]

google up the tribunal booklet for 2011, it's easy to find.

"A player recklessly commits a reportable
offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable
player would realise may result in the reportable offence being
committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring
whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the
reportable offence"

Precisely what I was referring to. Certainly would have been enough in that to argue incidental rather than reckless! It's clear that Daisy did care otherwise he would have raised his arm and struck Ibbotson in the face.

 

[seanoff]

Precisely what I was referring to. Certainly would have been enough in that to argue incidental rather than reckless! It's clear that Daisy did care otherwise he would have raised his arm and struck Ibbotson in the face.

incidental means that the contact was a part of some other action like a spoil. this contact was in no way incidental. he went past the ball, and jumped into Ibottson. if he didn't jump and hit Ibottson in the head it would have been negligent.

if he raised his arm, he wouldn't have played again this season. 1 it would have been judged intentional and 2 he'd probably have caused an injury. if he broke a bone by doing that, it was straight to the tribunal and daisy would be missing until rd3 next yr.

 

[Pie eyed]

In reality we can all argue semantics and interpretations till the cows come home, but still the MRP and the Tribunal interpret the same text, which will no doubt change like the wind, in exactly as varied manner as everyone on these forums.

It's like trying to nail down jelly.

Every player who lays a bump is subject to the raffle in a totally different manner, the rules as written simply to allow the raffle to exist.

 

[lozza63]

In my day that was how footy was played, take the hit and have a coldy in the rooms together after the game - now it's reckless - absolute way OTT result for the Daisy!!!!!

2 weeks for Daisy - 3 weeks for Lower?????????????????????????????
Gee now his act was bloody dangerous.

 

[danielnajdek]

I reckon Freo and Lower would've been laughing when they heard that Lower could accept three matches.


Absolute joke.

 

[TheLip]

incidental means that the contact was a part of some other action like a spoil. this contact was in no way incidental. he went past the ball, and jumped into Ibottson. if he didn't jump and hit Ibottson in the head it would have been negligent.

if he raised his arm, he wouldn't have played again this season. 1 it would have been judged intentional and 2 he'd probably have caused an injury. if he broke a bone by doing that, it was straight to the tribunal and daisy would be missing until rd3 next yr.

The fact being that jumping of itself is not an offence and neither is shepherding and the contact with Ibbotsons's head was incidental to the shepherd in as much as the primary point of contact was the chest. That Ibbotson's head moved forward due to inertia in the collision and was therefore struck by Thomas's arm is in fact therefore incidental.

Of course it's all moot anyway but what I was saying was that should the club have decided to contest the charge that would be a major point of contention. Let's face it, if the tribunal were a court of law the entire rule would come under question because it is way too subjective as is evidenced by the fact that so many people can assess any given incident so many different ways.

 

[Scodog10]

I remember the talk at the time was "we'll challenge because we've got nothing to lose" cough cough, Karma bus hit us at top speed on this one.

Daisy still would have gotten 2 weeks whether we challenged the Jones case or not. The result would have been.

225 + 225*.1 + 26.5 (what his demerits would have been)= 274 points

The 274 could be reduced by 25% which would still have left it at 205.5. He deserved 2 for it anyway, one for the hit itself as he did hit his head which is sacrosanct these days and a second week for being an idiot so close to finals!