MRP / Trib. Tom Stewart - Result 4 week match suspension

Remove this Banner Ad

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
10,171
18,954
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
Why make stuff up?

It is nothing to do with intending to injure. It is whether he intended to commit the offence he was reported for, ie bumping to the head. It is clear as day in the Tribunal guidelines. Intention to injure doesn’t come into it., see below.

What I think is very disappointing here is there is no exploration of this question of intent at the Tribunal. Why? One very loose end in all of this is that the person who made the grading of careless the AFL used at the Tribunal was…….Chris Scott’s twin brother Brad Scott. Do you think that is acceptable?







Intentional conduct

A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence.
An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.

Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.
For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.

The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.
Wasn't making stuff up. Just worded it poorly. The main point I was trying to make was that the grading of intentional has nothing to do with the bump itself, but what comes after. I couldn't be bothered to look up the actual wording and just used 'injury' to give a general gist.
Nobody lays an accidental bump or tackle. Those things are always intentional, but the MRO/tribunal isn't interested in that part of it when looking at the grading of intentional. They are only interested in the part where an elbow might be extended (or leaving the ground to execute) and if THAT was intentional or careless.

I had no idea that this kind of thing would even be part of Scott's role at the AFL. I thought it was more to do with rules of the game. If he's going to have involvement in this kind of thing, then I think it's a conflict of interests.
Having said that, I don't think they graded this wrong (it wasn't intentional). I also think the suspension was pretty much right, 3-5 weeks was what I was thinking.
As long as the AFL continues to be an incestuous 'jobs for the boys' league, it will ALWAYS have conflicts.
 

Wojcinski

Steve Hocking's Polish Friend
Aug 14, 2011
16,133
24,487
Wieliczka Salt Mine
AFL Club
Geelong
Lol. What an absolute ******* lie.

He's clearly remonstrating with an opposition player here and not an umpire... :think::rolleyes:

View attachment 1435394
LMAO jesus christ dude you need help. Geelong needs to start paying rent in that head of yours


"...the spearhead had made his way out of a "conflict zone" in which GWS players were attempting to remonstrate with him, while he had instinctively brushed Margetts' hand away after the umpire had run in and raised it towards his chest."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
10,171
18,954
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
Over 60% thought Cotchin’s actions were worth nothing or just a fine. Under 40% thought his actions actually deserved a suspension.

The week off that Cotchin would have served if he’d been found guilty was for it being a third offence for the year, not for the actual offence committed.
And people voted KNOWING that a fine would result in a week off. Some people may have voted fine because they knew he'd get the week off anyway. Others may have voted 'nothing' because they thought it would be worth a fine under normal circumstances, but were happy for him to play.
There is no way of knowing how many of those thought he should play or not play. You have made a false equivalence.
 

JackFlash

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 28, 2012
9,662
8,578
Docklands
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
QPR, Buffalo Bills, McLaren F1
Just because everyone expected him to get 4, doesn't mean it was the right call...
It was exactly what EVERYONE with any rationality thought was going to be the case, he didn't defend it, took responsibility and seeing how it was graded as careless he was always going to get 3 weeks minimum, with Prestia missing a week I reckon the AFL wanted to add another one on to make it 4. He accepted it, Geelong accept it and so do the fans. Opposition football fans however were baying for blood and their over-emotional take on it has been astounding. It's done now, but with the bump still in the game, players who have been conditioned to bump since they first started playing football, will keep on doing it. They have a split second in which to decide? Tom Stewart is 190cm and Dion Prestia is 175cm, he also has 6 KGs on him weight-wise, any collision between the two is going to see Prestia come off second best. The AFL need to decide if they want their cake and eat it too with regard to the bump, they don't want to ban the bump, but go ballistic when mistakes occur, in the meantime, collisions will occur and players will make mistakes.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
24,872
24,189
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Why make stuff up?

It is nothing to do with intending to injure. It is whether he intended to commit the offence he was reported for, ie bumping to the head. It is clear as day in the Tribunal guidelines. Intention to injure doesn’t come into it., see below.

What I think is very disappointing here is there is no exploration of this question of intent at the Tribunal. Why? One very loose end in all of this is that the person who made the grading of careless the AFL used at the Tribunal was…….Chris Scott’s twin brother Brad Scott. Do you think that is acceptable?







Intentional conduct

A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence.
An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the Player engaged in the conduct.

Whether or not a Player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence depends upon the state of mind of the Player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the Player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.
For example, a strike will be regarded as Intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him.

The state of a Player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. If the matter is heard by the Tribunal, the Tribunal will weigh the evidence of the Player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The Player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding what the Player says, the Tribunal may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the Reportable Offence.
Meteoric Rise, it is becoming tiresome having to scroll past your long winded, repetitive crap. If you want to bring about change lobby the AFL, not posters on BF
 

Meteoric Rise

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
5,662
14,859
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Meteoric Rise, it is becoming tiresome having to scroll past your long winded, repetitive crap. If you want to bring about change lobby the AFL, not posters on BF

You mean you are embarrassed by me revealing flaws in the system that are potentially working unfairly in favour of your club.

Don’t shoot the messenger comrade. My quest is to raise awareness of this issue here and inform people. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
8,733
20,225
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
And people voted KNOWING that a fine would result in a week off. Some people may have voted fine because they knew he'd get the week off anyway. Others may have voted 'nothing' because they thought it would be worth a fine under normal circumstances, but were happy for him to play.
There is no way of knowing how many of those thought he should play or not play. You have made a false equivalence.
And all might have voted fine thinking it was worth just a fine, but were still aware of the further consequence. You’re right, we will never really know how to interpret it.
 

Meteoric Rise

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
5,662
14,859
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Wasn't making stuff up. Just worded it poorly. The main point I was trying to make was that the grading of intentional has nothing to do with the bump itself, but what comes after. I couldn't be bothered to look up the actual wording and just used 'injury' to give a general gist.
Nobody lays an accidental bump or tackle. Those things are always intentional, but the MRO/tribunal isn't interested in that part of it when looking at the grading of intentional. They are only interested in the part where an elbow might be extended (or leaving the ground to execute) and if THAT was intentional or careless.

I had no idea that this kind of thing would even be part of Scott's role at the AFL. I thought it was more to do with rules of the game. If he's going to have involvement in this kind of thing, then I think it's a conflict of interests.
Having said that, I don't think they graded this wrong (it wasn't intentional). I also think the suspension was pretty much right, 3-5 weeks was what I was thinking.
As long as the AFL continues to be an incestuous 'jobs for the boys' league, it will ALWAYS have conflicts.

Brad Scott is the final decision maker in all MRO findings/gradings/decisions. In this Stewart case the Tribunal charge is based on Brad Scott’s decision to grade Stewart’s action as careless conduct. Of course Brad Scott should be nowhere near any case affecting Geelong FC for the obvious reason his twin brother is their head coach.

They seem to like to streamline these Tribunal cases, so certain avenues are not fully explored. In this case, where you just ask a person who hasn’t previously seen it before do they believe Stewart intended in the moment to bump Prestia to the head, some people say yes, it looks like he did intend to bump Prestia in the head. Yet the question of Stewart’s intent was never explored at the Tribunal. His counsel was at pains to point out to the Tribunal this is not a case concerning his intent. I would like to have at least seen him asked if he wasn’t trying to bump Prestia to the head, exactly what was he trying to do.

Now you would like to think no player would form an intent in any moment to contact another players head. But it happens. Imo Stewart’s intent should have been properly explored at the Tribunal. If he was found to have intended to bump Prestia’s head in a momentary lapse then I am sure you would agree the penalty should have been a bit stiffer. If he was found to have not intended to bump Prestia’s head then fine, 4 weeks depending on your personal view of it. Still about 1 week light imo.
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
22,011
28,405
AFL Club
Essendon
Richmond supporters in this thread;

cry baby GIF
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Profop

All Australian
Oct 20, 2021
707
1,927
AFL Club
Richmond
Stewart got 4 for concussing an opponent cos he didnt have waleed aly in his corner to tell the tribunal what a great bloke he was.

richmond supporters all silent on that one.

houli great bloke. Stewarts a monster.
Please, you would have used Waleed Aly and the Prime Minister as character references if you could have

Not our fault you had to make do with Scott and Tuohy
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
10,171
18,954
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
Brad Scott is the final decision maker in all MRO findings/gradings/decisions. In this Stewart case the Tribunal charge is based on Brad Scott’s decision to grade Stewart’s action as careless conduct. Of course Brad Scott should be nowhere near any case affecting Geelong FC for the obvious reason his twin brother is their head coach.

They seem to like to streamline these Tribunal cases, so certain avenues are not fully explored. In this case, where you just ask a person who hasn’t previously seen it before do they believe Stewart intended in the moment to bump Prestia to the head, some people say yes, it looks like he did intend to bump Prestia in the head. Yet the question of Stewart’s intent was never explored at the Tribunal. His counsel was at pains to point out to the Tribunal this is not a case concerning his intent. I would like to have at least seen him asked if he wasn’t trying to bump Prestia to the head, exactly what was he trying to do.

Now you would like to think no player would form an intent in any moment to contact another players head. But it happens. Imo Stewart’s intent should have been properly explored at the Tribunal. If he was found to have intended to bump Prestia’s head in a momentary lapse then I am sure you would agree the penalty should have been a bit stiffer. If he was found to have not intended to bump Prestia’s head then fine, 4 weeks depending on your personal view of it. Still about 1 week light imo.
Mate, if you honestly believe that Stewart intended to bump Prestia IN THE HEAD, then something isn't quite right in yours.

He keeps his elbow in the whole time, doesn't jump, barely has time to take 2 steps from the moment Prestia taps the ball to the moment of impact and catches Dion just as he lands and Prestia has turned 90 degrees while in the air, leaving him in a more open and vulnerable position and looking away at the ball, so not expecting the bump. Had the shoulder not made accidental contact with Prestia's head, it wouldn't even be a free kick. The ball was close enough for it to just be a bump in play.

IT. WAS. JUST. A. BUMP. Poorly executed, with a terrible result for Prestia and Stewart has copped his whack over it.
 

Gavin Excell

Hall of Famer
Apr 22, 2007
37,490
43,446
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
You mean you are embarrassed by me revealing flaws in the system that are potentially working unfairly in favour of your club.

Don’t shoot the messenger comrade. My quest is to raise awareness of this issue here and inform people. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Quest
My Struggle
 

Meteoric Rise

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
5,662
14,859
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Mate, if you honestly believe that Stewart intended to bump Prestia IN THE HEAD, then something isn't quite right in yours.

He keeps his elbow in the whole time, doesn't jump, barely has time to take 2 steps from the moment Prestia taps the ball to the moment of impact and catches Dion just as he lands and Prestia has turned 90 degrees while in the air, leaving him in a more open and vulnerable position and looking away at the ball, so not expecting the bump. Had the shoulder not made accidental contact with Prestia's head, it wouldn't even be a free kick. The ball was close enough for it to just be a bump in play.

IT. WAS. JUST. A. BUMP. Poorly executed, with a terrible result for Prestia and Stewart has copped his whack over it.

You are talking about a person with very high end spatial skills here.

Anyway, who can know if Stewart intended to bump Prestia to the head or not when the matter is never examined, he is not asked one single question about it, it is just assumed he did not intend to bump Prestia to the head.

All of these things should be examined even if just with brief questioning. Nothing about a player’s intent should be assumed in cases where it isn’t completely clear. Especially this one where there would be no way for a casual observer to tell the difference between what Stewart did and a deliberate snipe.

I would like to think Stewart’s response would be I was trying to body check him(should be a free kick and 50m penalty in that scenario so why was he even trying to do that?). Examining the matter also allows the mechanics of a poorly executed bump to be discussed. Which would help inform other players of what is and isn’t acceptable.

As far as I can tell there was one simple reason the very relevant question of whether Tom Stewart intended to bump Prestia to the head was not examined. And that is because Brad Scott graded the act careless and not intentional. Had he graded the bump intentional, the matter would have been discussed in great detail at the Tribunal. There are plenty of commentators who favoured a grading of intentional. So it is not like it is some radical idea.

I am not too annoyed about the penalty Stewart got. I think the process to arrive at that penalty is badly flawed. And the principle purpose of a Tribunal hearing should not be to expedite the matter before it. These controversial or key cases should be very carefully examined and argued imo.
 

carltonchelsea

Premium Platinum
Sep 4, 2021
1,699
2,821
AFL Club
Carlton
That is bizarre. 4 weeks was right and he will do the time, it astounds me that some football fans light on in the intelligence side of things always want more blood, everyone knows this was a correct call by the Tribunal, but some fans want to see Stewart hung, drawn and quarted for it. Stewart made a mistake, he didn't king hit anyone, this was no Gaff or Barry Hall type of hit, nor did he push an umpire!
It was worse than the Gaff hit!
Gaff and Brayshaw are relative in size, Gaffs was a wayward punch, Stewart is twice the size of Prestia, he overran the ball and intentionally elbowed him to the head.
Lol at someone of your intellect pointing the fingers at others.
Your work on the SRP is the stuff of almost legend given its clear lack of basic intelligence, ducking hilarious 😆
 

Meteoric Rise

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
5,662
14,859
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Quest
My Struggle

I have only ever known you to be a fair minded poster GE.

Do you think the following things are fine or do you think it would be better they are addressed…


- Brad Scott’s apparent conflict of interest in sitting in judgement of footballers coached by his twin brother. Perhaps not so much in this Stewart case, but imagine it arises that his brother’s legacy as a coach is hingeing on one game, say a Grand Final, and Brad knew it would mean everything to his twin brother Chris. And a key Geelong player, let’s say Stewart, has committed a borderline act in the Preliminary Final, and without him in the GF Geelong are not considered such a good chance to win….is it right or proper that Brad Scott is placed in that invidious position to judge the merits of that case?

- That the prosecuting agent in most of these Tribunal cases for some reason argues for the position one person(the MRO) thinks is fair, therefore effectively capping the maximum punishment?

- That a player’s intent in any given incident is assumed and not contested unless by the player himself where it is assumed he did an act intentionally?
 

Wojcinski

Steve Hocking's Polish Friend
Aug 14, 2011
16,133
24,487
Wieliczka Salt Mine
AFL Club
Geelong
I have only ever known you to be a fair minded poster GE.

Do you think the following things are fine or do you think it would be better they are addressed…


- Brad Scott’s apparent conflict of interest in sitting in judgement of footballers coached by his twin brother. Perhaps not so much in this Stewart case, but imagine it arises that his brother’s legacy as a coach is hingeing on one game, say a Grand Final, and Brad knew it would mean everything to his twin brother Chris. And a key Geelong player, let’s say Stewart, has committed a borderline act in the Preliminary Final, and without him in the GF Geelong are not considered such a good chance to win….is it right or proper that Brad Scott is placed in that invidious position to judge the merits of that case?

- That the prosecuting agent in most of these Tribunal cases for some reason argues for the position one person(the MRO) thinks is fair, therefore effectively capping the maximum punishment?

- That a player’s intent in any given incident is assumed and not contested unless by the player himself where it is assumed he did an act intentionally?
Michael Christian is the MRO, not Brad Scott. You've been banging on about this topic for what feels like years now and you still miss the same fact over and over.

Also the tribunal are the ones that handed out the penalty, which neither Christian or Scott have any input on.
 

Wojcinski

Steve Hocking's Polish Friend
Aug 14, 2011
16,133
24,487
Wieliczka Salt Mine
AFL Club
Geelong
It was worse than the Gaff hit!
Gaff and Brayshaw are relative in size, Gaffs was a wayward punch, Stewart is twice the size of Prestia, he overran the ball and intentionally elbowed him to the head.
Lol at someone of your intellect pointing the fingers at others.
Your work on the SRP is the stuff of almost legend given its clear lack of basic intelligence, ducking hilarious 😆
I want whatever you're smoking
 

Remove this Banner Ad