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

[Grockadoc]

They could award it retrospectively if there isn't a candidate. Gaff got 33 and 1 after he broke Brayshaw's face.

Stewart wasn't the first to put in such a heroic, against the odds, performance.

I'd say Danger in the 2020 GF after the Vlastuin incident, but he was close to BoG for Richmond...

 

[Satan]

Ablett Snr was 100 times the footballer Tommy Stewart is.

Tommy Stewart is 100 times the human that Ablett Snr is.

I have no problem with your addition.

Kristian Bairdsley likes this post.

Or kristian anning

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Geelong fans should be fighting for the Red card rule.

You reckon next time around the Tigers won't be up and about ? Geelong choosing to play this card in Round 15 is bewildering. I would have done this in the finals, great move for a finals match, great intensity, but Round 15?

If tigers and cats meet in the finals, there's no way the Tigers aren't sending some of those 35 year olds to their rightly place in the retirement home

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

4-5 weeks. Three clearly not enough. Six too many.

 

[perplexed]

I think potential to cause injury only applies to Ben Long or Toby…

Or Nick Larkey, who's intentional contact to the body with no impact earned him a one match suspension. Somehow potential to cause injury in the mind of the MRO is now worse than actually causing injury.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You didn’t answer the question

The question you directed at me asked what I had to say.

So I said what I had to say.

 

[Calypso]

A lot of 'late hit' comments.

Prestia punches the ball away while Stewart is on his right foot.

Takes one step, travelling at speed, before impact. Cops Prestia while on his left foot. Literally one step later. We've all seen the slow motion replay, but in real time it wasn't even a split second between ball being knocked away and point of impact.

Huge hit, will miss weeks, but it's a long way from 'ran past the ball to line him up.'

Certainly got nothing on Alex Rance punching a prone Jack Watts in the back of the head or Bachar Houli (best on in the the 2017 grand final) taking Jed Lamb's head off.

There's big hits in football, and then there's dog shots. Let's not confuse the two.

Scott quoted Stewart as admitting he chose to run pst the ball and bump Prestia. It wasn’t a momentum/wrong foot action.

 

[Sterge]

Geelong fans should be fighting for the Red card rule.

You reckon next time around the Tigers won't be up and about ? Geelong choosing to play this card in Round 15 is bewildering. I would have done this in the finals, great move for a finals match, great intensity, but Round 15?

If tigers and cats meet in the finals, there's no way the Tigers aren't sending some of those 35 year olds to their rightly place in the retirement home

Highly doubt it, we're better than that.

Cats have done it twice now, in the match where it mattered it didnt work.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The tribunal has the discretion to change the charge.....
"C) CLASSIFIABLE OFFENCES DIRECTLY REFERRED TO THE TRIBUNAL
Regarding Classifiable Offences directly referred to the Tribunal, the MRO may classify the relevant factors of Conduct, Impact and Contact or alternatively directly refer the matter to the Tribunal ungraded.
The Tribunal in its absolute discretion may determine that the relevant Reportable Offence should be classified differently, and in such cases will apply the consequences according to that classification (as per Regulation 19.6(a)(i))."

Thanks for posting that. I guess that at least offers the vague possibility of the Tribunal upgrading the charge themselves.

But would they ever do that when they have both the prosecution and the defence arguing for the weaker charge?

In any event, doesn’t this whole setup strike you as unnecessarily odd and complex?

What would make much more sense to me without considering the entire system from scratch here….is once the case is referred to the Tribunal the AFL advocate automatically argues as strongly as possible for the greatest possible suspension. The player advocate of course argues for no penalty or the minimum realistic penalty. And the Tribunal after hearing all the arguments simply decides on what they consider the right outcome.

Do you agree with that?

 

[BF Tiger]

A lot of 'late hit' comments.

Prestia punches the ball away while Stewart is on his right foot.

Takes one step, travelling at speed, before impact. Cops Prestia while on his left foot. Literally one step later. We've all seen the slow motion replay, but in real time it wasn't even a split second between ball being knocked away and point of impact.

Huge hit, will miss weeks, but it's a long way from 'ran past the ball to line him up.'

Certainly got nothing on Alex Rance punching a prone Jack Watts in the back of the head or Bachar Houli (best on in the the 2017 grand final) taking Jed Lamb's head off.

There's big hits in football, and then there's dog shots. Let's not confuse the two.

Ok, let’s run with your version of events as above but instead Prestia takes control of the ball.

Stewart was clearly always choosing to bump Prestia. He was so close that he couldn’t have changed his mind.

So Prestia takes the ball and Stewart now barrels into Prestia who has the ball in hand. It’s not late (bc Prestia has taken possession), but Prestia still ends up decked.

Stewart is still as guilty, having chosen to bump when he could have tackled. It’s still a choice he made and then a choice he executed poorly.

 

[kingswood71]

Thanks for posting that. I guess that at least offers the vague possibility of the Tribunal upgrading the charge themselves.

But would they ever do that when they have both the prosecution and the defence arguing for the weaker charge?

In any event, doesn’t this whole setup strike you as unnecessarily odd and complex?

What would make much more sense to me without considering the entire system from scratch here….is once the case is referred to the Tribunal the AFL advocate automatically argues as strongly as possible for the greatest possible suspension. The player advocate of course argues for no penalty or the minimum realistic penalty. And the Tribunal after hearing all the arguments simply decides on what they consider the right outcome.

Do you agree with that?

I suspect the AFL counsel may well push for a grading of intentional.

 

[Cactus_]

“Careless”? Now I have heard it all.

 

[danster168]

careless, wtf. that's crazy. afl are a joke.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Yes very careless, wasn't looking where he was going

 

[Tristan34]

He chose to bump, but did Stewart intentionally try to hurt Prestia? It's going to be difficult to prove it to be intentional...

 

[FourthTimeAround]

careless, wtf. that's crazy. afl are a joke.

So if choosing to bump a player without the ball is not intentional, who knows what IS intentional?

 

[Corn Cobbers]

He chose to bump, so it's careless.. It's going to be difficult to prove it to be intentional...

Brace yourself for the melts...

 

[DT_35]

He chose to bump, so it's careless.. It's going to be difficult to prove it to be intentional...

Did I actually read this right? Lmfao

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Did I actually read this right? Lmfao

Yep that's where we're at, he's a ripping bloke so it can't be intentional

 

[cat_fanatic]

Severe is bonkers

I've seen much more force applied in similar situations

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I suspect the AFL counsel may well push for a grading of intentional.

That will be interesting to see if that happens.

My reading of it is the AFL Counsel takes his instruction from B Scott, who is effectively the MRO. The MRO(B Scott) has made a grading of careless. So it would seem strange to me if the counsel he instructs then argues for a grading of intentional. I hope I am wrong. But we shall see.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

No idea how that gets graded careless

Hitting a bloke that late is deliberate

 

[hawkman]

Severe is bonkers

I've seen much more force applied in similar situations

High puts it at 2 weeks. There is no way the AFL were going to allow him to get away with 2 for that.

The AFL would be working out the penalty and trying to fit the gradings to that. Intentional could be argued down at the tribunal to careless, much harder to argue that it wasn't severe.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

No idea how that gets graded careless

Hitting a bloke that late is deliberate

It was explained to me once that its how deliberately running a red light and having a car accident is not intentionally causing an accident.

It used to be called "driving without due care" (ie careless) or more seriously "dangerous driving".

In this case, they'd argue that Stewart did not intentionally look to hit Prestia in the head.

Bullsh1t isn't it?

 

[perplexed]

That will be interesting to see if that happens.

My reading of it is the AFL Counsel takes his instruction from B Scott, who is effectively the MRO. The MRO(B Scott) has made a grading of careless. So it would seem strange to me if the counsel he instructs then argues for a grading of intentional. I hope I am wrong. But we shall see.

Isn't Michael Christian still the MRO? Or does Brad Scott do everything now?