MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

For a long time the commentators have generally avoided calling out poor umpire decisions or atleast stop short of clear criticism directed towards the umpires.

Has the time come that they should also avoid speaking about hits and providing their own on the spot adjudication which you can’t argue doesn’t impact on the MROs decisions or grading?

Why should commentators go over and over particular incidents and automatically determine if its worth a week or two, but the next game the same incident occurs and doesn’t get highlighted by the commentators and they get off with a fine.

Footy has become far too media centric and a I believe the constant cycle of 24/7 footy news and increased focus on particular incidents contributes to the inconsistency of the MRO and aids the “good bloke” defence for some while others are hung up to dry

 

[TeeKray]

These sort of incidents (accidental collisions whilst legitimately contesting the ball) don't normally get a week unless the player ends up concussed/injured. But how do you go and argue the medium impact down to low impact without using precedent? It's a flawed system.

 

[DaTBird187]

The more I watch the Ben Long hit, the more Darcy dropping to his knees stands out.

 

[Pappagallo]

These sort of incidents (accidental collisions whilst legitimately contesting the ball) don't normally get a week unless the player ends up concussed/injured. But how do you go and argue the medium impact down to low impact without using precedent? It's a flawed system.

The problem is that “impact” is being subjectively measured to begin with. It’s nothing more than what it LOOKS like to ONE person no less and that’s a BULLSHIT way of doing things. If impact is an important variable then we need to devise an accurate and reliable way of measuring it. I don’t know how exactly but I’ve seen enough episodes of Mythbusters to know that it probably involves a G-meter.

 

[GremioPower]

It's a flawed system.

It is by design. It was established FOR corruption.

The AFL wants to be able to decide on the issue as they see fitting at the moment. So, they are able to help and to harm players and teams at will.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Reading the explanation for the Ebert suspension vs the Pickett fine

"When we assessed both of those (the Shiel bump and the Ebert bump) in terms of the impact, we had one player in Curtis Taylor who went from the ground, had a concussion test ... he passed that test, but he spent most of the third quarter off the ground before being able to come back on the ground. That was starkly different to Harry Perryman's plight. He was able to get up in a few seconds and then continue to play. In terms of the potential to cause a more serious injury in both of those cases … there was similar momentum built by both players and they've both elected to bump. In determining impact, taking into account all of those factors including the impact on the player, the visual look, the medical reports for both players and then also applying the potential to cause a more serious injury provisions in both cases, we landed with medium for Ebert and high for Shiel."

and the Pickett incident..

"Isaac Heeney went to ground, but was only down for two or three seconds – maybe four seconds max – but he was able to get up and play on. Taking into account his medical report, the player reaction and the visual look of the incident … we thought the most appropriate grading was low in that particular case."

So looking at those explanations, both hit players were down for a few second, both got up and continued to play, impact on the player and the visual look should have been determined as the same. But then for one reason or another, potential to cause serious injury is only applied to Ebert.

Why was potential to cause serious injury not even considered for Pickett? We’ve seen many players cleaned up in that fashion, either apply the same criteria to all hits or don’t apply subjective interpretations at all!

 

[OneGreatClub]

Reading the explanation for the Ebert suspension vs the Pickett fine

"When we assessed both of those (the Shiel bump and the Ebert bump) in terms of the impact, we had one player in Curtis Taylor who went from the ground, had a concussion test ... he passed that test, but he spent most of the third quarter off the ground before being able to come back on the ground. That was starkly different to Harry Perryman's plight. He was able to get up in a few seconds and then continue to play. In terms of the potential to cause a more serious injury in both of those cases … there was similar momentum built by both players and they've both elected to bump. In determining impact, taking into account all of those factors including the impact on the player, the visual look, the medical reports for both players and then also applying the potential to cause a more serious injury provisions in both cases, we landed with medium for Ebert and high for Shiel."

and the Pickett incident..

"Isaac Heeney went to ground, but was only down for two or three seconds – maybe four seconds max – but he was able to get up and play on. Taking into account his medical report, the player reaction and the visual look of the incident … we thought the most appropriate grading was low in that particular case."

So looking at those explanations, both hit players were down for a few second, both got up and continued to play, impact on the player and the visual look should have been determined as the same. But then for one reason or another, potential to cause serious injury is only applied to Ebert.

Why was potential to cause serious injury not even considered for Pickett? We’ve seen many players cleaned up in that fashion, either apply the same criteria to all hits or don’t apply subjective interpretations at all!

Yes it seems Christian can pick and choose.
Still, maybe a week’s rest for Ebo won’t be a bad thing.
With frequency of games about to ramp up, players might need a rest here and there anyway.

 

[manureid]

Hilarious again by Christian. This guy gets paid for this right?

 

[Macca19]

Meh. Ebert deserved a week. Doesn't matter what other players get. Next man up

 

[GremioPower]

Meh. Ebert deserved a week. Doesn't matter what other players get. Next man up

It is not the punishment the issue; it's the reasoning behind it.

 

[manureid]

Meh. Ebert deserved a week. Doesn't matter what other players get. Next man up

Yeh, I agree, I am not a fan of consistent rulings either.

 

[chachi11]

Michael Christian, Travis Auld, Gill....
3 stooges.

 

[Tibbs]

so stupid. Careless contact. Would love to throw a machete at Christian and when he gets hurt tell him he had longer to react and get out of the way than Ebert did.

such a stupid system that punishes people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Only way ebert was escaping contact there would have been teleporting.

Yep. If the rules say Ebert must be rubbed out for one, then the rules need changing! Ebert DID NOT choose to bump. Shiel CHOSE to bump, and had no intention of going for the ball. Ebert was going full tilt at the ball, and a collision was unavoidable. He chose to protect himself at the last micro-second, if not it would have been head-on-head, and both players would have been injured, concussed, or worse.

This is just dumb, dumb, dumb. It is forcing players to back off from a contest. Ridiculous! To be consistent, the same rule must apply if you are going for a mark, miscalculate, and hit the other player's head.

This just destroys our game.

 

[Forzaport]

I see it as a football collision. Ebert was clearly attempting to mark the ball before bracing for impact. There was no decision to bump unless the MRP believe Ebert could have teleported himself away before colliding.

It’s also clear from the footage that Ebert tried to minimise force of contact and since Perryman played out the game, it should be thrown out altogether. It was a free kick for high contact, nothing more.

 

[spookism]

Lol...nothing to see...Surprised Marshall didn't get a week for pulling Corr's arm downwards.

Incidents assessed:
Contact between GWS GIANTS Aidan Corr and Port Adelaide’s Todd Marshall from the second quarter of Sunday’s match was assessed. Marshall pulls Corr’s left arm downwards and simultaneously Corr pushes Marshall’s head into the ground. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Corr’s actions did not constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

It certainly wasn't a reportable offence.
The free-kick to GWS should have been reversed though and he should have had a shot directly in front.

 

[philthy05]

Yep. If the rules say Ebert must be rubbed out for one, then the rules need changing! Ebert DID NOT choose to bump. Shiel CHOSE to bump, and had no intention of going for the ball. Ebert was going full tilt at the ball, and a collision was unavoidable. He chose to protect himself at the last micro-second, if not it would have been head-on-head, and both players would have been injured, concussed, or worse.

This is just dumb, dumb, dumb. It is forcing players to back off from a contest. Ridiculous! To be consistent, the same rule must apply if you are going for a mark, miscalculate, and hit the other player's head.

This just destroys our game.

The twist that running on the ground and accidentally hitting the head in an unavoidable collision is something that gets severely and routinely punished but if you make contact with the head like by say, punching a marking player in the head (Mumford on lycett, the hit on gray last week) or just shove the head into the ground is entirely looked over and warrants zero attention.

it’s bizarre logic.

 

[philthy05]

It certainly wasn't a reportable offence.
The free-kick to GWS should have been reversed though and he should have had a shot directly in front.

If it’s legal, as proposed by this precedent why wouldn’t you as a coach tell your 22 players to put Dustin martins head into the ground every time he hits the deck.

there isn’t a person on earth that doesn’t snap like a psycho by the third time it happens. He would give away a billion free kicks in retaliation and get reported.

this mob doesn’t think at all.

 

[LFC2010]

It is not the punishment the issue; it's the reasoning behind it.

and comparing the actions to Pickett and G Rohan who both got fines.

 

[Macca19]

I see it as a football collision. Ebert was clearly attempting to mark the ball before bracing for impact. There was no decision to bump unless the MRP believe Ebert could have teleported himself away before colliding.

It’s also clear from the footage that Ebert tried to minimise force of contact and since Perryman played out the game, it should be thrown out altogether. It was a free kick for high contact, nothing more.

It was a handball so he wasnt trying to mark it. There was absolutely a decision to bump.

If he wanted to minimise contact he wouldnt have collected him at all

 

[philthy05]

It was a handball so he wasnt trying to mark it. There was absolutely a decision to bump.

If he wanted to minimise contact he wouldnt have collected him at all

When he squares his shoulder perryman is about 1-2 feet away from him.

if you can run full pelt and do anything else in the time it takes to cover 1 foot while the other guy is moving towards you I’ll eat a deep fried Uggboot.

there isn’t an athlete in history that could do that. Hell nasa couldn’t build a robot that could do that. It’s a stupid and unrealistic expectation that Ebert could have avoided that contact.

here’s a good test. watch the footage. Have your hand open and when you see perrymans knees buckle snap your fingers.

if you can’t before the hit or it’s close I’m not sure how 87kgs of mass is changing direction.
Ebert is going at the ball, the point of realising contact is there is just too late. Incidental contact that the player immediately sprang up from. The commentary really sold ebert up the river with their dramatics.

view it next to the Shiel hit where Shiel clearly makes a decision to bump and runs up to a stationary player.

 

[philthy05]

In a way i was hoping and wanted ebert to get a game because there’s a chance we give that game to a young developing player (especially with Sutcliffe injured lol) rather than pumping more games into a 30 year old ebert (who has definitely earned his spot in the side though)

but it’s still a stupid ruling especially in light of other rulings.

 

[shewho]

When he squares his shoulder perryman is about 1-2 feet away from him.

if you can run full pelt and do anything else in the time it takes to cover 1 foot while the other guy is moving towards you I’ll eat a deep fried Uggboot.

there isn’t an athlete in history that could do that. Hell nasa couldn’t build a robot that could do that. It’s a stupid and unrealistic expectation that Ebert could have avoided that contact.

Doesn't matter. He elected to bump. He hit him high. The only issue is the force. They graded 3 of the 4 bumps pretty harshly- Long=severe, Shiels=high, Ebert=medium. Pickett was the lucky one. Normally someone with that surname gets games for running through the banner.

I only hope Shiels loses his appeal. If he gets downgraded to Ebert's level, ill be pissed.

 

[Macca19]

Ebert should have tackled him. He chose to bump. He collected him high at pretty much full speed. Its a week suspension every day.

Hopefully a MG or Bergman comes in to replace him.

 

[philthy05]

Doesn't matter. He elected to bump. He hit him high. The only issue is the force. They graded 3 of the 4 bumps pretty harshly- Long=severe, Shiels=high, Ebert=medium. Pickett was the lucky one. Normally someone with that surname gets games for running through the banner.

I only hope Shiels loses his appeal. If he gets downgraded to Ebert's level, ill be pissed.

he didn’t elect to bump. He was going for the ball and realised too late there was going to be contact.

feel free to slow down the footage and show me where he choose to bump and my question to you when you show the frame that a ebert who is 0.03 seconds away from colliding with a player diving into him will be what evidence you had to assume he intended to bump (did he change direction towards him did he run past a ball, the answer is no) and what else ebert has time to do in that moment

Of course the real expectation placed here is that ebert shouldn’t have been running into a contested situation whereby contact could happen, and if that’s the way we want afl to be played no thanks. Would rather pack it up and I’ll go watch nba and nfl thanks.

 

[philthy05]

Ebert should have tackled him. He chose to bump. He collected him high at pretty much full speed. Its a week suspension every day.

Hopefully a MG or Bergman comes in to replace him.

theres no reality where he could have opened up his arms and tackled a collapsing player without taking his head off. He wouldn’t have even had time but yeah if he had it would have been way worse.

Once perrymans knees buckled as he went down any contact would have been high. Eberts only option then was to change direction. Good luck with that.

the only thing I could say is that maybe ebert could have read it better and realised that running past a contest at full speed wouldn’t be a likely way to win the ball and slowing down approaching would have been better and he would have had time then to adjust to the unexpected. But yeah that’s a bizarre expectation to have on players.