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

Remove this Banner Ad

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.

Christian is the MRO in name only. All of the decisions attributed to him are either approved or altered by Brad Scott. This is a matter of known fact. Surely you knew this?

And your second point according to the events of last night as reported isn’t correct either as far as I can tell. The MRO finding that Stewart’s actions were careless rather than intentional formed part of the basis of the AFL’s charge against Stewart that was heard by the Tribunal. On that basis the AFL argued for a 4 week suspension, effectively capping the suspension at 4 weeks maximum. Had the MRO - effectively Brad Scott - graded Stewart’s conduct intentional, then that is what the AFL would have argued for at the Tribunal, which would have likely opened Stewart up to the risk of a higher penalty.

Take your Geelong defender helmet off and just look at the system rather than worrying about which clubs are involved.
 
Christian is the MRO in name only. All of the decisions attributed to him are either approved or altered by Brad Scott. This is a matter of known fact. Surely you knew this?
Source?
 

Below is a link to the whole official 2022 Tribunal document. But I have copied the relevant part that shows that the GM - Football Operations, who is currently Brad Scott, is involved in every case as a matter of course. It is quite common knowledge.



(B) DETERMINATION OF TYPE OF OFFENCE AND APPROPRIATE CHARGE (IF ANY)
Following review of each report or referral, the MRO in conjunction with the
AFL General Manager – Football Operations will determine whether the Player
is to be charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the appropriate type of Reportable Offence.
There are three types of Reportable Offences, being:
» A Classifiable Offence (graded in accordance with section 3.1);
» A Direct Tribunal Offence (referred by the MRO directly to the Tribunal
– see section 3.2); or
» A Fixed Financial Offence (determined in accordance with section 3.3).
The MRO will inform the Player’s club whether or not that Player has been charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the type of offence and corresponding sanction for that charge. The MRO will provide reasons where it determines that a Player the subject of a report or referral is not to be charged with a Reportable Offence.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Below is a link to the whole official 2022 Tribunal document. But I have copied the relevant part that shows that the GM - Football Operations, who is currently Brad Scott, is involved in every case as a matter of course. It is quite common knowledge.



(B) DETERMINATION OF TYPE OF OFFENCE AND APPROPRIATE CHARGE (IF ANY)
Following review of each report or referral, the MRO in conjunction with the
AFL General Manager – Football Operations will determine whether the Player
is to be charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the appropriate type of Reportable Offence.
There are three types of Reportable Offences, being:
» A Classifiable Offence (graded in accordance with section 3.1);
» A Direct Tribunal Offence (referred by the MRO directly to the Tribunal
– see section 3.2); or
» A Fixed Financial Offence (determined in accordance with section 3.3).
The MRO will inform the Player’s club whether or not that Player has been charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the type of offence and corresponding sanction for that charge. The MRO will provide reasons where it determines that a Player the subject of a report or referral is not to be charged with a Reportable Offence.
So looks like the MRO has the bulk of the responsibility as I expected
 
Also the tribunal are the ones that handed out the penalty, which neither Christian or Scott have any input on.
That is the critical thing Meteoric Rise continually overlooks. The Tribunal is a stand alone body that operates under the helm of the AFL's Legal Department, whereas the MRO comes under Football Operations. The separation was done deliberately because , frankly, the AFL got sick of Meteoric Rise complaining about the potential conflict of interest.
 
Far better to knock an unsuspecting player out off the ball than lay a finger on an umpire.

Thats just common sense.
You are taught from a young age to respect umpires and behave accordingly - which includes not touching them. Well I was, maybe you weren't.

In any case, it's bizarre to compare offences committed towards officials with those committed against players.
 
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've seen you say the bolded a few times. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.
Happy to see any evidence you have of an elbow.
Let me help you...
1656480205762.png
 
Below is a link to the whole official 2022 Tribunal document. But I have copied the relevant part that shows that the GM - Football Operations, who is currently Brad Scott, is involved in every case as a matter of course. It is quite common knowledge.



(B) DETERMINATION OF TYPE OF OFFENCE AND APPROPRIATE CHARGE (IF ANY)
Following review of each report or referral, the MRO in conjunction with the
AFL General Manager – Football Operations will determine whether the Player
is to be charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the appropriate type of Reportable Offence.
There are three types of Reportable Offences, being:
» A Classifiable Offence (graded in accordance with section 3.1);
» A Direct Tribunal Offence (referred by the MRO directly to the Tribunal
– see section 3.2); or
» A Fixed Financial Offence (determined in accordance with section 3.3).
The MRO will inform the Player’s club whether or not that Player has been charged with a Reportable Offence and, if so, the type of offence and corresponding sanction for that charge. The MRO will provide reasons where it determines that a Player the subject of a report or referral is not to be charged with a Reportable Offence.
"in conjunction with"
You've explicitly claimed that Scott approves everything Christian does. And you accused me of making stuff up?
 


  1. 19.3 PREVENTING A PLAYER TAKING PART IN THE NEXT ACT OF PLAY
    If a Player intentionally makes Prohibited Contact against an opposition Player who has disposed of the football for the purpose of preventing that Player from taking part in the next act of play, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick and a Fifty Metre Penalty to that Player.
 
Says this:

All of the decisions attributed to him are either approved or altered by Brad Scott. This is a matter of known fact.

Proceeds to produce no facts to support this statement whatsoever.

Monsters Inc Reaction GIF by filmeditor


This is the sook to end all sooks right now.
 

  1. 19.3 PREVENTING A PLAYER TAKING PART IN THE NEXT ACT OF PLAY
    If a Player intentionally makes Prohibited Contact against an opposition Player who has disposed of the football for the purpose of preventing that Player from taking part in the next act of play, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick and a Fifty Metre Penalty to that Player.
Bumps and checks are fine, it happens after most disposals. It's grabbing and holding a player back that draws the free and 50. Watch a game and you'll see. Worst case if the bump is too late it'll just be a down the ground free.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"in conjunction with"
You've explicitly claimed that Scott approves everything Christian does. And you accused me of making stuff up?

You are trying to find counter-angles that don’t exist now.

It is often reported that the General Manager Football Operations “ticks off” Michael Christian’s decisions.

But common sense will tell you that when two people in a decision making process want a different decision to be made, the senior one of the pair will have the power of veto over the junior person.

Put another way, in a topical example….Michael Christian says he wants to grade Tom Stewart’s report as intentional. Brad Scott wants to grade it as careless. Can you see a world where Michael Christian says “I don’t care what you think I am grading this intentional and that will be the charge he will answer at the Tribunal,” and this actually happens?
 
You are trying to find counter-angles that don’t exist now.

It is often reported that the General Manager Football Operations “ticks off” Michael Christian’s decisions.

But common sense will tell you that when two people in a decision making process want a different decision to be made, the senior one of the pair will have the power of veto over the junior person.

Put another way, in a topical example….Michael Christian says he wants to grade Tom Stewart’s report as intentional. Brad Scott wants to grade it as careless. Can you see a world where Michael Christian says “I don’t care what you think I am grading this intentional and that will be the charge he will answer at the Tribunal,” and this actually happens?
So you think Brad Scott will sidle up to Michael Christian and say, "Look, I need to look after my twin brother, so I am going to over rule whatever finding you make on a Geelong case if I don't like it"? And if this happened, do you think the AFL would turn a blind eye? And do you seriously think the media wouldn't cotton onto it and make noise?
 
Last edited:
Bumps and checks are fine, it happens after most disposals. It's grabbing and holding a player back that draws the free and 50. Watch a game and you'll see. Worst case if the bump is too late it'll just be a down the ground free.

So let’s break this down.
  1. 19.3 PREVENTING A PLAYER TAKING PART IN THE NEXT ACT OF PLAY
    If a Player intentionally makes Prohibited Contact against an opposition Player who has disposed of the football for the purpose of preventing that Player from taking part in the next act of play, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick and a Fifty Metre Penalty to that Player.

Stewart intentionally made contact.

It was prohibited contact, because it was high. So a 50m penalty should be paid according to the rules.

But let’s say it hadn’t been high contact and was a body bump, I am sure there are ways it could still possibly be prohibited contact. Charging, front on contact, ball outside 5m(probably not,) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent are all prohibited actions.

His contact was presumably for the purpose of preventing Prestia taking part in the next phase of play.
 
Stewart could’ve got 8 weeks and you’d have Richmond fans asking for 9.

He could’ve got 3 weeks and you’d have Geelong fans asking for 2.

When neither side is happy with the decision and the neutrals agree, it’s pretty ****in spot on.
 
So you think Brad Scott will sidle up to Michael Christian and say, "Look, I need to look after my twin brother, so I am going to over rule whatever finding you make on a Geelong case if I don't like it"? And if this happened, do you think the AFL would turn a blind eye? And do you seriously think the media wouldn't cotton onto it and make noise?

No I don’t think Brad Scott would say that to Michael Christian.

But I do think Brad Scott would overrule Christian if he sees fit. This is how the structure is designed, so that it allows Scott to do that.
 
Who said it is a conspiracy?

You need to get a grip on yourself. I am writing about specific flaws I see in the system that are relevant to this case.

I am not complaining about the penalty. It is acceptable, just imo.

You did.

You're claiming Brad Scott circumvented the MRO process to dictate the outcome of Stewart 'only' being suspended for 4 weeks, because he wants to advantage his brother.

You've been having a meltdown all day about it.

So as you said 'get a grip on yourself'.
 
You did.

You're claiming Brad Scott circumvented the MRO process to dictate the outcome of Stewart 'only' being suspended for 4 weeks, because he wants to advantage his brother.

You've been having a meltdown all day about it.

So as you said 'get a grip on yourself'.

I have made no such claim.

My claim is Brad Scott has a conflict of interest. Which he clearly does. I have made no claim whatsoever as to any impropriety on Brad Scott’s part. That part, my friend, you have imagined.

So it is back to you to get a grip on yourself. 😂😂
 

  1. 19.3 PREVENTING A PLAYER TAKING PART IN THE NEXT ACT OF PLAY
    If a Player intentionally makes Prohibited Contact against an opposition Player who has disposed of the football for the purpose of preventing that Player from taking part in the next act of play, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick and a Fifty Metre Penalty to that Player.
Key words there being 'prohibited contact'.
It was a hip and shoulder where the shoulder got him in the head. If all he was trying to do was give him a bump to affect the tap and give himself a better chance of winning the next loose ball, that happens a million times a game and as long as it's not too far off the ball, which this didn't appear to be.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top