MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[RussellEbertHandball]

Gremio just liked a post of mine from 2017 re the tribunal offences table and the other day someone pointed out the 3rd fine offence led to a suspension was scrapped and you just keep getting fined - heavy fine but still just a fine. I looked around for a tribunal thread but couldn't find this. So in the OP I will put the rules etc and maybe we can use this thread to discuss the different charges against our players and others to see how consistent the MRO, The Tribunal and The Appeals Board is.

Edit the 2019 Tribunal Guideline book.

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

The 2018 changes to the system were;
One-man MRP in sweeping changes for 2018

Where the MRP has until now been notionally independent from the AFL, Christian will report directly to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking.

The AFL has also scrapped the one-match discount previously offered for early pleas, with clubs that elect to challenge MRP decisions now risking a $10,000 cost that will be included in their soft football department cap.

In other key changes:

• Three low-level offences in a season will no longer result in an automatic one-match suspension, with a fine now applicable for the third offence.
• Cases referred directly to the Tribunal will attract at least a three-week suspension save for exceptional circumstances.
• Staging will now attract a fine for a first offence.
• Automatic loading for players with bad records has been scrapped.
• Fines for low-level offences will increase from $2000 to $3000 for first offences, $3000 to $5000 for second offences and $5000 to $8000 for third offences.
  Hocking said the MRP changes were primarily designed to ensure greater consistency with its decision-making.

Edit - for future reference and ease of finding the quotes in the future 28th Feb 2024 SPP bump on Keane vs Maynard Tribunal findings

Compare these statements:

Maynard Decision: It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

From If Maynard did the same thing in round one as he did in the qualifying final, he would not be suspended

Powell -Pepper Decision: We consider Powell-Pepper's conduct to have been very careless. He ran at speed towards a tackle that was occurring. If he didn't anticipate that the tackled player would be moving in the tackle, he should’ve reasonably anticipated that.
He had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid head high contact when seeking to assist in a tackle. He did not take any steps to avoid the contact that ultimately occurred.

Its nothing short of corrupt.

From Power star’s ban revealed after marathon 3hr AFL Tribunal amid ‘scapegoat’ claim

 

[GremioPower]

Gremio just liked a post of mine from 2017 re the tribunal offences table and the other day someone pointed out the 3rd fine offence led to a suspension was scrapped and you just keep getting fined - heavy fine but still just a fine. I looked around for a tribunal thread but couldn't find this. So in the OP I will put the rules etc and maybe we can use this thread to discuss the different charges against our players and others to see how consistent the MRO, The Tribunal and The Appeals Board is.

The 2018 changes to the system were;
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-14/major-changes-to-afl-match-review-panel

Where the MRP has until now been notionally independent from the AFL, Christian will report directly to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking.

The AFL has also scrapped the one-match discount previously offered for early pleas, with clubs that elect to challenge MRP decisions now risking a $10,000 cost that will be included in their soft football department cap.

In other key changes:

• Three low-level offences in a season will no longer result in an automatic one-match suspension, with a fine now applicable for the third offence.
• Cases referred directly to the Tribunal will attract at least a three-week suspension save for exceptional circumstances.
• Staging will now attract a fine for a first offence.
• Automatic loading for players with bad records has been scrapped.
• Fines for low-level offences will increase from $2000 to $3000 for first offences, $3000 to $5000 for second offences and $5000 to $8000 for third offences.
  Hocking said the MRP changes were primarily designed to ensure greater consistency with its decision-making.

View attachment 643911


View attachment 643912

I was researching to comment on Grimes' strike. I ended up writing this:

It was intentional, and the contact was high. Two matches should be the minimum.

Truth be told, it was way worse than Thomas' bump on Lil' Sellwood last year (4 matches!!!!) or Jonas' bump on Dahlhaus in 2017 (2 matches). However, the system is corrupted.

If it were one of ours, he would probably be suspended for the rest of the season and prosecuted in a criminal court. Grimes doesn't play for Port, though.

Thus, considering that the Tigers play the Giants away, have lost two of their main players due injury, and just got demolished in a derby, I believe AFL will pretend it is OK to throw your elbow in full speed on the head of a helpless opponent.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I was researching to comment on Grimes' strike. I ended up writing this:

Haha I think it will be Careless intent, Low impact and Head High contact and therefore a fine. Thomas got up straight away and played on so it has to be low impact.

The question the MRO will ask is, was it a careless bump with a raising of the elbow at the last second or did he intentionally line him up with and elbow but poorly performed the hit?? Given last year's decisions I think Michael Christian will go with careless over intentional.

 

[TeeKray]

$8000 is some sort of fine. I'd rather miss a match or two lol.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Given last year's decisions I think Michael Christian will go with careless over intentional.

Well he's gone intentional and Grimes gets 1 week.

Had one with Fyfe last year, where he said that raising the elbow makes it intentional.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Can't be careless. He lined him up and then raised the elbow to face height. Silly and lucky it wasn't worse. Has to be stamped out of the game.

 

[Far Kern]

Chriso said on SEN that in order to differentiate between low and medium impact he would take into account the instinctive look of an offence, the length of time a player was down or incapacitated or off, and the medical report.

What it means is that you get a different penalty for punching, for example, someone who is tough compared to not.

 

[GremioPower]

From AFL.com: "Match Review Officer Michael Christian assessed the incident as intentional conduct, high contact and low impact."

Chriso said on SEN that in order to differentiate between low and medium impact he would take into account the instinctive look of an offence, the length of time a player was down or incapacitated or off, and the medical report.

What it means is that you get a different penalty for punching, for example, someone who is tough compared to not.

Basically, if the outcome isn't bad, you get lucky.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I have written a few posts about the big head high hits since 2015 system changed where the AFL tried to apply more vertical-horizontal consistency compared to the system used between 2005-2014 when in that system a level 2 strike started at 125 pts a level 2 rough conduct charge was 225 and a level 2 kicking charge was 300 pts.

Now the equivalent of a level 2 charge is the same for whatever offence is committed (except for the ones like hitting an umpire that have always gone straight to the tribunal without any possible grading by the MRP) ie that's the vertical consistency of a list of charges. First post was when the Bachar Houli case was ragging mid 2017.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...t-with-jed-lamb.1169402/page-76#post-51055700

Lets look at 3 cases that went straight to the tribunal one in 2015 and two in 2016. Adam Cooney's case was referred direct to the Tribunal by the Match Review Panel .... after they decided they could not reach an adequate penalty on their table of offences. It was a rough conduct bump that ended up with one week

The AFL legal counsel used is why this matter has ended up at the Appeals Board. Previous counsel was Jeff Gleeson QC who used to love getting stuck into players. In Houli's case it was Andrew Woods who was acting for the AFL and was a little soft.

Alex Silvagni case Rd 20 2015

MRP Said

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-17/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-20
Alex Silvagni, Fremantle, has been charged with striking Jamie Cripps, West Coast, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Fremantle and West Coast, played at Domain Stadium on Sunday August 16, 2015. In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal for its determination of the incident, and he cannot accept an early plea.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-17/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-20

Not sure why the MRP didn't say what the conduct and impact was but
6:00pm: Silvagni has pleaded guilty as charged, so intentional, high contact and high impact.

The Tribunal
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-...match-ban-by-afl-tribunal-after-hit-on-cripps
Fremantle defender Alex Silvagni, who was handed a four-week ban for a high hit on West Coast's Jamie Cripps............
Meanwhile, Docker defender Silvagni - whose case was referred directly to the Tribunal by the Match Review Panel on Monday - pleaded guilty as charged, with his strike graded as high impact and high contact. The penalty, which was one week less than the AFL legal counsel recommended, means he would be available for Fremantle after the first week of finals.
It is likely Silvagni received a one-match discount for his guilty plea. His legal counsel, Nick Tweedie SC, also used a character reference from Fremantle CEO Steve Rosich. Tweedie asked the jury of Shane Wakelin, Wayne Henwood and Wayne Schimmelbusch to consider Silvagni was not a player who would walk straight back into the Dockers' team if handed a lengthy ban. In his evidence, Silvagni said Cripps had moved into his path to stop him pursuing his opponent, and he had responded by attempting to "move him out of the way" with a "strong, forceful" bump. "I didn't mean to strike him in the head," a contrite Silvagni said. "It didn't sit with me well at the time, during the game or still now. As a footballer I don't like seeing it and I didn't mean to do it." Silvagni said he tried to explain his actions to West Coast forward Josh Kennedy on the ground and followed up post-match to check on Cripps's condition.

AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson recommended a penalty of six matches, reduced by one match because of Silvagni's guilty plea.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-...match-ban-by-afl-tribunal-after-hit-on-cripps
So Gleeson wanted 6 weeks reduced by 1 for a guilty plea = 5 weeks and the tribunal gave him 4 instead. Cripps played the next week. I don't recall if he was off for the rest of the game but I assume so.

Stephen May case Rd 4 2016.

MRP said

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-18/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-four
Steven May, Gold Coast Suns, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Stefan Martin, Brisbane Lions, during the second quarter of the Round Four match between the Gold Coast Suns and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday April 16, 2016. In summary, he has been referred to the Tribunal directly for its consideration and is not eligible for an early plea. Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Brisbane Lions Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with severe impact to the head. The incident was referred directly to the Tribunal for its decision. The player has a bad record but no early plea is available.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-18/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-four

The Tribunal
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/may-guilty-fivegame-ban-for-sun-after-huge-bump
GOLD Coast defender Steven May has been handed a five-match ban by the Tribunal on Tuesday night, with the judiciary taking a stand on head-high bumps and concussion. Tuesday night's case set a new precedent for head-high bumps, with the Match Review Panel's severe impact grading standing up because of the concussion suffered by Martin. A medical report from the Brisbane Lions said X-rays confirmed the ruckman had suffered no facial fractures and the club hoped he would be passed fit to play this week........Despite pleading guilty to the charge, the defender's lawyer Tony Burns built a case that the impact of the bump had been made greater because Ablett pushed May towards the contest.

AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson QC argued that the hit was "at the upper end of carelessness (and) you could mount an argument that it would comfortably fit into intentional". Gleeson recommended a base sanction of no less than five weeks and urged the Tribunal to consider "the frightening prospect of a very serious spinal injury" when reaching its penalty.

The hearing became tense when Burns objected to the suggestion that May's bump could be considered intentional. "That's the most unfair thing I've ever heard put in this Tribunal … I ask you to reject it," May's lawyer said. Tensions finally boiled over when Gleeson QC raised a provision in the Tribunal guidelines that the jury is able to re-classify an offence if it does not agree with the MRP's findings. Gleeson QC said he wished to remind the jury that they could find May's conduct to be intentional, rather than careless, because of this provision.

Burns says such a move would be "grossly unfair". "Let's all start moving the goal posts after we have submitted a guilty plea," he said. Chairman Ross Howie told the jury of Wayne Henwood, Shane Wakelin and Stewart Loewe that it was a matter for them. They eventually took 10 minutes to reach their final penalty of five matches.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/may-guilty-fivegame-ban-for-sun-after-huge-bump

So Gleeson wanted at least 5 weeks and the tribunal to up the charge from careless to intentional which would have been at least 6 weeks maybe 7 weeks. The tribunal panel gave him 5 weeks. Martin missed the rest of the game but played the next week against the Bulldogs.

Tom Jonas case Rd 9 2016

MRP Said
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-23/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-nine
Tom Jonas, Port Adelaide, has been charged with striking Andrew Gaff, West Coast, during the third quarter of the Round Nine match between Port Adelaide and West Coast, played at Adelaide Oval on Saturday May 21, 2016.In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal for the case to be heard, and does not have the option of accepting an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the West Coast Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with severe impact to the head. The incident was classified as a direct referral to the Tribunal. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea was not available for this offence.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-23/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-nine

The Tribunal
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff
Jonas, who had been referred directly to the Tribunal for his late hit on Gaff, chose to argue his case and sought to have the intent downgraded from intentional to careless. His decision to challenge elements of the charge cost the defender his right to a one-match discount for an early guilty plea.

The 25-year-old told the Tribunal he had taken the "soft option" of protecting himself and the forearm he raised was intended to protect his body from impact in the collision......"One thing I'm sure of is I didn't intend to make contact with him like that," a contrite Jonas told the Tribunal. "I regretted it immediately and I felt terrible. "It's a little bit embarrassing. I took the soft option and was scared for my own safety. "At no time during the incident did I have the intention of striking Andrew Gaff in the neck or head and hurting him." Jonas's argument was dismissed by the jury of Hamish McIntosh, Shane Wakelin and Emmett Dunne, who deliberated for seven minutes before settling on their penalty.

The final ban was one-match shy of the seven-week penalty recommended by AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson, who accused Jonas of reconstructing the truth. "It's a human response to convince yourself that you didn't intend to do what the evidence shows you did," Gleeson said in his case against Jonas. He said the jury should reject the defender's evidence that he had intended to spoil and braced for contact at the last minute. "That doesn't leave many other palatable alternatives ... at the last minute he intended to strike," Gleeson said.

Jonas did everything he could to express his regret and contrition, Tribunal chairman David Jones said, and had been aware of his mistake immediately. Umpire Shane McInerney gave evidence that the defender had been "melancholy" when told he was on report and didn't attempt to plead his innocence on the spot like others players. When giving evidence, Jonas admitted his actions had been a "clumsy mess". "I expected I would only make contact with his back or shoulder," he said. "I never intended to make contact with his head or neck." The Eagles' medical report stated that Gaff had been found unconscious and remained so for two minutes after the incident. Gaff had suffered a "moderate severity neck injury from impact", and required physio treatment and medication for neck pain and headaches. "This is not a Barry Hall punch," he said, in reference to the former Western Bulldogs, Sydney Swans and St Kilda goalkicker, who punched Brent Staker in 2008, earning a seven-match suspension.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-...jonas-after-intentional-strike-on-andrew-gaff

Gaff went off for the rest of the game and missed a week. Gleeson wanted 7 the tribunal panel gave him 6 but according to the report if he had just pleaded guilty to intentional and not argued careless he would have got 5. I dont know if that is fact or opinion.

Bachar Houli Case Rd 14 2017

The MRP said

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-14
Bachar Houli, Richmond, has been charged with striking Jed Lamb, Carlton, during the first quarter of the Round 14 match between Richmond and Carlton, played at the MCG on Sunday June 25, 2017. Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with high impact to the head. The incident was referred directly to the Tribunal for its decision, with no early plea available to the player. The player has no record which impacts the penalty.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-14

The Tribunal
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/houli-cops-a-twoweek-whack
The Tiger, represented by Sam and Michael Tovey, argued the contact was careless, rather than intentional as was found by the Match Review Panel........In the incident against the Blues, Houli swung his left arm behind him and struck Lamb, who was left unconscious and didn't return to the game.
.....
AFL legal counsel Andrew Woods submitted to Tribunal chairman Ross Howie QC that a four-game ban was the appropriate sanction, while Sam Tovey, representing the club and Houli, asked for a two-game suspension. Tribunal members David Neitz, Hamish McIntosh and Wayne Henwood deliberated for five minutes before finding Houli intentionally struck Lamb and another five minutes before settling on his penalty. The entire case took almost two hours.

Houli categorically denied intending to strike Lamb in the head. "It's false, absolutely false. I've never hit anyone in my life," Houli said.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/houli-cops-a-twoweek-whack

Lamb didn't play the rest of the game and wont play on Saturday because of his concussion.

The Appeals Board
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/houli-ban-increases-to-four-matches-after-successful-appeal
The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued three points:

• The original penalty was manifestly inadequate
• There was an error of law when the Tribunal made its judgement
• The decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision

The three Appeals Board members were Peter O'Callaghan QC (chairman), Brian Collis QC and Michael Green and came to a decision in about 10 minutes.

When explaining the decision, O'Callaghan said the character references from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Gold Logie winner Waleed Aly were not relevant to his act on the football field. He explained why the Appeals Board saw a greater punishment necessary. "A blow from a person of exemplary character has just the same impact of a person of bad character," O'Callaghan said.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/houli-ban-increases-to-four-matches-after-successful-appeal

I will put this here for the record. Its the first AFL appeal against a tribunal decision, Only 2 players out of 16 have successfully had the Tribunal decision overturned by the Appeals Board since the 2005 system came into place ( pretty sure there wasn't an appeals board before that). And last time a player appeal was in 2014. Its stacked against the player.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/houli-ban-increases-to-four-matches-after-successful-appeal
While this is the first time the AFL has ever appealed a Tribunal decision, only two of 16 players have been successful in front of the Appeals Board. Melbourne midfielder Jack Viney had a two-game suspension overturned in 2014 for a rough conduct charge on Adelaide forward Tom Lynch. The other successful challenge was in 2009 when Collingwood defender Nick Maxwell successfully fought a rough conduct charge for a bump on West Coast tough nut Patrick McGinnity. The last time an appeal was held was when Fremantle's Nat Fyfe failed to have a two-match ban for striking then-Hawthorn midfielder Jordan Lewis overturned in August 2014.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/houli-ban-increases-to-four-matches-after-successful-appeal

So to summarise the cases
Silvagani - Intentional + High impact to head - Gleeson wanted 6 down to 5 for guilty plea, Silvangi accepted guilty charge at start of proceedings and tribunal panel gave him 4. Injured player off but played the next week

May - Careless + severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted at least 5 and to change charge from Careless to Intentional, which could have meant 6 or 7, May pleaded guilty but said Ablett pushing him caused it to be worse, tribunal panel gave him 5. Injured player off but played the next week

Jonas - Intentional + Severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted 7, Jonas tried to get a downgrade from intentional to careless and supposedly that cost him one week discount for an early guilty plea, tribunal gave him 6. injured play off and also missed the next week

Houli - Intentional + High impact to the head - Woods wanted 4 weeks, Houli tried to get down grade to careless, played the good bloke card and that his 11 year clean record should be taken into account. The tribunal panel gave him 2 weeks. The injured player off and will miss next week. Appeals Board gives him 4 weeks,

AFL counsel Andrew Woods ****** up. If it was Gleeson he probably would have said starting point is at least 5 weeks and because of Houli's 11 year good behaviour record he should get 1 weeks discount, but no early plea as he contested the intentional charge, unlike Silvagni and May. That would have left it for the tribunal to give him 4 weeks like Silvagni. But I wouldn't be surprised if Gleeson would have went for 6 weeks less 1 week for 11 year good behaviour record, just as he started with 6 for Silvagni which was an intentional + high impact charge.

************************************************
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tommy-jonas-6-weeks-suspension.1133529/page-28#post-44688786

The May case also looked at intentional vs careless and it got willing between legal counsels. May ended up with careless but Gleeson QC wanted it upgraded.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/may-guilty-fivegame-ban-for-sun-after-huge-bump

Despite pleading guilty to the charge, the defender's lawyer Tony Burns built a case that the impact of the bump had been made greater because Ablett pushed May towards the contest. AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson QC argued that the hit was "at the upper end of carelessness (and) you could mount an argument that it would comfortably fit into intentional". Gleeson recommended a base sanction of no less than five weeks and urged the Tribunal to consider "the frightening prospect of a very serious spinal injury" when reaching its penalty.

The hearing became tense when Burns objected to the suggestion that May's bump could be considered intentional. "That's the most unfair thing I've ever heard put in this Tribunal … I ask you to reject it," May's lawyer said.

Tensions finally boiled over when Gleeson QC raised a provision in the Tribunal guidelines that the jury is able to re-classify an offence if it does not agree with the MRP's findings. Gleeson QC said he wished to remind the jury that they could find May's conduct to be intentional, rather than careless, because of this provision. Burns says such a move would be "grossly unfair". "Let's all start moving the goal posts after we have submitted a guilty plea," he said.

Chairman Ross Howie told the jury of Wayne Henwood, Shane Wakelin and Stewart Loewe that it was a matter for them. They eventually took 10 minutes to reach their final penalty of five matches.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/may-guilty-fivegame-ban-for-sun-after-huge-bump

The live reporting was interesting showing the tension between the counsels.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/the-may-verdict
6:08pm: Burns is continuing to push the case that Ablett's push made the impact of the bump more severe. He says it should be a four-match penalty, with the bad record and early guilty plea cancelling each other out.
6:10pm: Burns is also asking that the jury, which can set whatever penalty it feels appropriate, communicate in their final penalty what weight they put on his early guilty plea and what weight they put on his bad record.
6:11pm: The Tribunal doesn't usually communicate whether a discount or bad-record loading has been applied. Chairman Ross Howie says the jury may "if they are inclined to".
6:13pm: Tony Burns has also alleged that the AFL Tribunal is a "consequence driven" Tribunal, which Jeff Gleeson QC has objected to.
6:17pm: Howie suggests May's guilty plea and bad record should offset each other.6:15pm: Ross Howie is now providing a brief summary for the jury. It's been agreed by both parties that the impact is severe and the conduct careless. Howie also says the potential to cause serious injury should be considered.
6:20pm: Jeff Gleeson is "reminding" the Tribunal that the jury can re-classify the charge if they feel it is appropriate. Therefore by extension, they can find May's bump was intentional and not careless.
6:22pm: Burns says such a move would be "grossly unfair". "Let's all start moving the goalposts after we have submitted a guilty plea," he says.
6:23pm: "I am here to assist the jury ... it is me performing my role properly. (Burns's) submission that i am changing the goal posts is incorrect." - Gleeson QC
6:25pm: "You now know and it's a matter for you," Howie tells the jury.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-19/the-may-verdict

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Thomas Bugg Case Rd 15 2017
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...now-with-a-poll.1169865/page-34#post-51149347

I wrote about the other 4 cases that went to the tribunal since the 2015 tribunal changes at the link below including the MRP rulings and stories from the tribunal cases
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...t-with-jed-lamb.1169402/page-76#post-51055700

My summary was as follows - Gleeson = AFL counsel Jeff Glesson QC. He used to like going after players

Silvagani - Intentional + High impact to head - Gleeson wanted 6 down to 5 for guilty plea, Silvangi accepted guilty charge at start of proceedings and tribunal panel gave him 4. Injured player off but played the next week

May - Careless + severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted at least 5 and to change charge from Careless to Intentional, which could have meant 6 or 7, May pleaded guilty but said Ablett pushing him caused it to be worse, tribunal panel gave him 5. Injured player off but played the next week

Jonas - Intentional + Severe impact to the head - Gleeson wanted 7, Jonas tried to get a downgrade from intentional to careless and supposedly that cost him one week discount for an early guilty plea, tribunal gave him 6. injured play off and also missed the next week

Houli - Intentional + High impact to the head - Woods wanted 4 weeks, Houli tried to get down grade to careless, played the good bloke card and that his 11 year clean record should be taken into account. The tribunal panel gave him 2 weeks. The injured player off and will miss next week. Appeals Board gives him 4 weeks,

AFL counsel Andrew Woods ****** up. If it was Gleeson he probably would have said starting point is at least 5 weeks and because of Houli's 11 year good behaviour record he should get 1 weeks discount, but no early plea as he contested the intentional charge, unlike Silvagni and May. That would have left it for the tribunal to give him 4 weeks like Silvagni. But I wouldn't be surprised if Gleeson would have went for 6 weeks less 1 week for 11 year good behaviour record, just as he started with 6 for Silvagni which was an intentional + high impact charge.

The AFL got a new legal counsel for the Bugg case. Someone a bit harder than Andrew Woods. I have moved the AFL website story around so it makes a bit better flow of proceedings

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-04/afl-tribunal-hits-demon-bugg-with-huge-ban

AFL legal counsel

Nick Pane QC argued for a ban of six matches, within a range of four to seven,with chairman David Jones telling the jury that was appropriate and they would need a "good reason" not to apply a one-match discount for Bugg's guilty plea.

Bugg pleaded guilty at the first opportunity on Tuesday night and chose not to challenge any aspect of the MRP's gradings, with Findlay saying his client "looks upon this quite seriously … he is severely embarrassed he is here tonight".

Findlay asked the jury of Wayne Henwood, Paul Williams and David Pittman to consider the four-match penalty handed to Richmond defender Bachar Houli, given it was graded the same as Bugg's by the MRP. The player advocate argued for a ban of five matches, suggesting a range of four to six would be appropriate when Bugg's remorse, apology and guilty plea were considered.

The jury was presented with two medical reports from Sydney, which stated Mills had been diagnosed with concussion and was recovering well, with his playing status this week to be decided on Thursday.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-04/afl-tribunal-hits-demon-bugg-with-huge-ban

Bugg got 6 so it looks like it was 7 as requested by Pane QC and 1 week less for his guilty plea. That makes it 2 more than Silvagni who pleaded guilty and 2 more than Houli who contested his case but did have an 11 year clean record who also were charge with Intentional + High Impact hit to the head .

I reckon Bugg suffered an extra week maybe 2, because of the Houli hooha and the fact it was a few days later, not a few weeks or months later.

Andrew Gaff Case Rd 20 2018
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-07/afl-tribunal-hands-down-gaff-verdict

In what the AFL's legal counsel Jeff Gleeson QC described as an "historically significant event", Tuesday night's defining Tribunal hearing lasted just over two hours before Gaff's eight-match ban was eventually handed down.

Gaff had pleaded guilty to the crude off-the-ball strike that left his 18-year-old opponent with a fractured jaw and four displaced teeth.

Gleeson described Gaff's strike as "unrestrained in its execution, ferocious in its impact and grave in its consequences" as he argued for an unprecedented ban of eight to 12 games.

"Good people do bad things. It doesn't make them bad people," Gleeson said. "But the jury's responsibility is to punish the act, not just the person, and the act is very bad."

Gaff had his head bowed throughout the submissions process, with his legal representative David Grace QC saying Gleeson's suggestion of an 8-12-game ban would be "manifestly excessive" and a "demonstratively high figure".

But the Tribunal's jury – which was made up of Wayne Henwood, David Neitz and Shane Wakelin – deliberated for just 14 minutes before reaching its conclusion, serving Gaff with an eight-game ban that levels Dean Solomon's 2008 suspension as the longest this century.

But Gleeson countered, labelling Gaff's evidence as "troubling". He said: "The alternative isn't very colouring. If it was a clear-headed, un-frustrated Andrew Gaff who threw this strike, it is a strike worthy of even more condemnation."

Before the decision I wrote about Gaff compared to Barry Hall case and how Barry got 25% discount and why he only got 7 games as the starting points was 1,050 pts ie 10 games.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/andrew-gaff-hit-on-brayshaw.1201072/page-52#post-57208766

People talk about the Barry Hall incident and it should be at least as many games as Hall got. But they dont realise the system has changed, first in 2015 when they got rid of the points system and brought in vertical-horizontal consistency ie whatever the offence is, if it was graded as careless, high impact and to the body it was 2 weeks and 1 week for early plea, and unlike the previous points system where a level 2 offence could generate anywhere between 125 pts and 325 pts depending on the offence. The second time in 2017 when they got rid of the early plea discount BS.

In 2008 Hall initially received a 1,050 points penalty from the tribunal panel and in that 2008 case then (and now) chairman David Jones, who in 2017 before the Tom Bugg case spent the first 13 minutes giving some speal about how independent they were and that criticism of the Tribunal last week of the 2 games to Houli was miss informed, pleaded with the jury that Hall had a clean recorded at Sydney and that he pleaded guilty, so he should get 25% off - despite the fact Hall punched Matt McGuire in the guts in the 2005 PF and got off on a legal technicality on appeal, which Hall acknowledged in his HoF acceptance interview with Whateley was dodgy but legally technically the in play argument reduced his penalty so he could play in the GF. The jury agreed and they gave him 25% off and he ended up with 790 points ie 7.9 games so he only served 7 with 90 pts carried forward.

Barry Hall 2005 Prelim Final incident with Matt McGuire?? 100m from where the ball was, was judged to be in play by the tribunal. So next year the AFL scrapped that condition as part of the infringement demerit points calculation.

Since 2015 the points sysstem have gone, so you dont get 25% off for a guilty plea or good record you get a week off for a guilty plea and maybe a week off if your record is very good over a long period of time. The automatic discounts for your prior good record was abolished in 2015 when the points system was removed, however a bad record over 2 years still has a loading and your 3rd $$$ fine over 2 years results in an automatic 1 game.

I did a summary of the big hits to the head since 2015 in this post which has a link back to my long post after the Houli case of the full MRP rulings and stories from the tribunal cases before Bugg's case. See

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...now-with-a-poll.1169865/page-34#post-51149347

In all that it showed that how hard the AFL Counsel/QC goes determines how long a suspension the player gets. Usually the tribunal panel gives the player 1 less game than the maximum the AFL Counsel/QC wants if the player pleads guilty. All the 5 cases I listed in the link above for 2015-17 years show this. The Cameron case this year I said he will get 1 week less than the AFL Counsel/QC wants. That's what happened - Nick Pane QC for the AFL wanted 6 and Cameron got 5. See
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-thread-part-8.1196882/page-105#post-56461342

So if this case is like Barry Hall's the AFL Counsel/QC should ask for 10 games and the tribunal panel will give him a 1 week discount for an guilty plea and he ends up with 9. Gaff will suffer the harshest penalty if Jeff Gleeson QC, who loves getting stuck into players, is appointed AFL counsel.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

From the Gaff story on AFL website link above.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[chachi11]

From the Gaff story on AFL website link above.

View attachment 644032

I forgot about the Solomon suspension..

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I forgot about the Solomon suspension..

Under the Gaff stuff I wrote about Barry Hall and why he only got 7 games because his starting point by the Tribunal panel was 1,050 pts and the tribunal chairman pleaded he get 25% guilty plea which ended up at 790 pts. he had a "clean record" despite punching McGuire in the guts in 2005 PF but got off on a technicality.

What Hall did was worse than what Solomon did but this is why Solomon got 8 games and not 7 like Hall, he had carry over points and a bad record which had a points loading - I think 10% at the time but might have been a bigger percentage. Hall's incident was Rd 4 2008, Solomon's was Rd 15 2008.

https://web.archive.org/web/2011051....freeservers.com/Footystats/Tribunal2008.html
Dean Solomon (Fre) was charged with striking Cameron Ling (Gee) during Q1. The incident where Solomon struck the head of Ling with a left elbow was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of nine activation points, and any offence with nine points results in the charge being automatically forwarded to the Tribunal for its determination under MRP guidelines. He has an existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years. He also has 32.81 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months.

The Tribunal heard the evidence on Tuesday and the jury after deliberation found Solomon guilty of the offence. He was suspended for eight premiership matches.

 

[It Just Is]

Contact off the ball is going to be an interesting point of discussion this weekend. The MRO set a precedent with Liam Jones in round 1 and was obliged to follow that 2 days later when Tom Jonas bumped Gawn. Come round 2 he’s done a 180 and suspended Mason Cox for an almost identical action.

That’s not even taking into account only fining Ben Cunnington for an off the ball gut punch in round 1. Clearly a worse action than Cox’s forceful block.

 

[VineValerian]

Contact off the ball is going to be an interesting point of discussion this weekend. The MRO set a precedent with Liam Jones in round 1 and was obliged to follow that 2 days later when Tom Jonas bumped Gawn. Come round 2 he’s done a 180 and suspended Mason Cox for an almost identical action.

That’s not even taking into account only fining Ben Cunnington for an off the ball gut punch in round 1. Clearly a worse action than Cox’s forceful block.

To me, Cox looked like he raised the elbow and got Grimes head high and it was 30m off the ball too. Richmond said later Grimes was suffering concussion symptoms.

 

[Vic_Vinegar]

Will be interesting to see what happens to Lycett and Martin after incidents over the weekend. Lycett will probably get a week because Ports and Martin will cop a fine.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

To me, Cox looked like he raised the elbow and got Grimes head high and it was 30m off the ball too. Richmond said later Grimes was suffering concussion symptoms.

The AFL industry is full of s**t. Crows saying Charlie Cameron playing golf with Don Pyke a few days before he wants a trade. WCE CEO Trevor Nisbett saying Andrew Brayshaw playing golf with Gaff and Hamish Brayshaw a few days before the hit. Now its the Grimes concussion. Cox got downgraded from Intentional to Careless as i argued with Gremio.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...g/news-story/498ead43459d507eb72d48a2b9b13c98
...... Cox and the Magpies attempted to downgrade the low impact grading, but the tribunal deemed Christian’s original decision on that front was correct. The Pies opted not challenge the high grading. What they did successfully argue, however, was for Cox’s conduct to be downgraded from intentional to careless. That subsequently saw the ban handed down by MRO Michael Christian on Friday reduced to a $3000 fine. But here’s where the possible misunderstanding might lie.

There were suggestions amid the footy media in the lead-up to the tribunal hearing that Richmond’s medical report indicated the incident left Grimes with either concussion or concussion-like symptoms — a clear hindrance for Cox’s then-upcoming case. That may have been sparked by Christian’s comments to AFL Media on Monday afternoon, where he suggested the ‘high’ contact grading was “reinforced by the (Richmond) medical report”, as well as multiple camera angles that showed Cox’s shoulder making contact with Grimes’ head.

Then after his full Round 2 findings were released early Monday evening, Christian constantly referred to the medical report being part of his decision, alongside player reaction and incident ‘look’, in his weekly press conference. Due to confidentiality, Christian didn’t disclose any medical report details, but there was a definite sense it’d played some role in his grading process.

On Tuesday night, the Tigers’ medical report, which was tabled early in the hearing, indicated they had reason to believe Grimes may have had some concussion symptoms, hence they conducted a test. But the report stated Grimes hadn’t suffered a concussion and wasn’t expected to miss any games as a result of the collision with the big American.

If you were under the impression the medical report wouldn’t benefit Cox due to the possible stating of concussion symptoms, you would’ve been surprised when it was revealed to the tribunal on Tuesday night. Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley revealed on SEN on Wednesday morning that there was “nothing in the medical report” around concussion, but added Christian mightn’t have helped the situation. “I think that there’s Chinese whispers in media, and that’s no good, but I also think that Michael contributed to that in some way by stating the medical report contributed to the finding,” Buckley told SEN’s Whateley. “That is not a specific statement but it leads to a misjudgment about what Richmond wrote, from what I can gather.”

The confusion particularly irked AFL 360 co-host and keen MRO follower Gerard Whateley, who upon hearing about the medical report claimed the AFL community had been “misled” in the lead-up to Cox’s tribunal hearing. Whateley said the downgrade to the fine was “only a minor win for football”, as Cox’s incident should never have been a reportable offence in the first place. “I’m happy to say this: This is the wrong decision,” Whateley told Fox Footy’s AFL 360. “Mason Cox is not guilty of rough conduct — and here’s why. The medical report — which I’ll say, and I object to this — it was hung out there with an air of ‘oh but there’s the medical report’. The medical report said there were no signs of concussion, there was no ongoing treatment and Grimes stayed on the bench because there was only seven minutes left in the game.
.....
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...g/news-story/498ead43459d507eb72d48a2b9b13c98

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I wouldn't be questioning whether Michael Christian misled everyone with his comments about the medical report, but I'd be questioning his competancy over actually comprehending what the medical report said.

It wouldn't surprise me that he actually thought the report stated Grimes was suffering from concussion.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Some work experience kid at AFL media hasn't given the full explanation ie careless conduct, low impact and high conduct and stupidly says it was a spiteful game
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-08/dusty-hit-with-ban-star-pie-in-the-clear-for-late-bump
In other incidents assessed over the weekend, two fines were handed out following a spiteful clash between Brisbane and Port Adelaide at the Gabba on Saturday night.

Scott Lycett copped a $2000 fine for his high bump on Mitch Robinson, while his young teammate Zak Butters was also lucky to escape with only a monetary sanction for his clumsy collision with Hugh McCluggage.

Butters left the ground before electing to bump McCluggage, but walked away with just a $2000 fine after the incident was graded careless conduct, with low impact to the head.

McCluggage himself was let off without penalty after an unfortunate incident that left Port Adelaide midfielder Tom Rockliff with a concussion.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-08/dusty-hit-with-ban-star-pie-in-the-clear-for-late-bump

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Port Adelaide ruckman Billy Frampton has been offered a two-match ban with an early guilty plea for striking South Adelaide’s Joel Cross at Alberton Oval on Saturday.
Billy Frampton (Port) – Striking
Conduct: Intentional
Impact: Medium
Contact: High
Base Sanction: 3 Matches
Early Guilty Plea: 2 Matches

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Port Adelaide ruckman Billy Frampton has been offered a two-match ban with an early guilty plea for striking South Adelaide’s Joel Cross at Alberton Oval on Saturday.
Billy Frampton (Port) – Striking
Conduct: Intentional
Impact: Medium
Contact: High
Base Sanction: 3 Matches
Early Guilty Plea: 2 Matches

Not good.

 

[Alberton Proud]

Winner Winner

Chicken Dinner

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It must have been the only time an umpire saw a Port player at Alberton on Saturday.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Some work experience kid at AFL media hasn't given the full explanation ie careless conduct, low impact and high conduct and stupidly says it was a spiteful game
https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-08/dusty-hit-with-ban-star-pie-in-the-clear-for-late-bump
In other incidents assessed over the weekend, two fines were handed out following a spiteful clash between Brisbane and Port Adelaide at the Gabba on Saturday night.

Scott Lycett copped a $2000 fine for his high bump on Mitch Robinson, while his young teammate Zak Butters was also lucky to escape with only a monetary sanction for his clumsy collision with Hugh McCluggage.

Butters left the ground before electing to bump McCluggage, but walked away with just a $2000 fine after the incident was graded careless conduct, with low impact to the head.

McCluggage himself was let off without penalty after an unfortunate incident that left Port Adelaide midfielder Tom Rockliff with a concussion.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-08/dusty-hit-with-ban-star-pie-in-the-clear-for-late-bump

Who wrote that report? Ian Shuttleworth?