MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Waspy79]

Not really. I did view the Pearce incident with one eye.

The Pepper incident too judging by your comments. The comparison is not a good one as Pepper didn’t have to bump, whereas Pearce had no reasonable alternative. You can’t tackle a bloke mid air so he braced.

I’m pleasantly surprised to see Pearce get off but hold the same cynical view of many others here that a Port player doing the same thing gets weeks.

 

[Brian McGee]

The one that it is most similar to is Peter wright on Harry Cunningham early last year. Running full steam at a marking contest and a player flew in from the side, wright went from arms out to mark to bracing for impact. He got 4 and I don’t see how you can see that these incidents are any different. I am ok with neither of these being a suspension as a football collision, but there is no way anyone can justify 4 games difference in suspension for these two incidents.

Peter Wright’s brutal bump sent directly to AFL Tribunal in latest test of high contact crackdown

Bomber’s brutal bump sent directly to AFL Tribunal in latest test of high contact crackdown

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[crafty_bernardo]

No issue with the decision being overturned but like SPP and the Robbie Gray

9

Robbie Gray

Age

37

Ht

183cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

10.1

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.4

5star

D

13.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

7.3

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.6

4star

D

10.4

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.8

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.4

5star

and McGovern incident in 2018 which both led to our players suspended and decision unchanged. It's a joke.

 

[Waspy79]

RussellEbertHandball , 1954, Ford Fairlane , et al., when the older folks here talk about our SANFL days, I have the impression that there was also a “Port tax” or something like that.

Was it so? Or was the SANFL fairer than the AFL?

Im not “older folk” but I’m old enough to remember watching SANFL wasn’t a chore as the umpires generally used common sense and rarely showed the extreme bias we see with regularity at AFL level. There was undoubtedly a Port (and Crows) tax in the SANFL for several seasons not long ago (but during both clubs existence in the AFL - it was a SANFL handicap mechanism) - the statistical discrepancy against the clubs was nothing short of a conspiracy. Look it up.

I reckon if you polled “old folk” SANFL footy followers most non-Port people would try to suggest Port were the leagues darling.

 

[Waspy79]

No issue with the decision being overturned but like SPP and the Robbie Gray and McGovern incident in 2018 which both led to our players suspended and decision unchanged. It's a joke.

Pepper deserved a holiday. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded. He elected to bump instead of play the ball. The fact the crow was slung into him is of minimal consideration when he could have tackled or played the ball. The club didn’t even contest it (will concede this is a club with the poorest judgement of any sporting organisation im familiar with).

The Gray suspension was a farce though, I will pay that one.

 

[manureid]

Lol. The whole system is a joke

 

[all seeing eye]

Agree with Pearce decision, taken from both viewpoins , if either had pulled out you would be be unhappy.

 

[Palpatine_Power]

I can't help but think the bye has helped Freo here; DBJ doesn't miss any footy and they get old mate double-man-bun off

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I can't help but think the bye has helped Freo here; DBJ doesn't miss any footy and they get old mate double-man-bun off

Nah Gleeson KC is pretty tough on players, both when he was the AFL counsel and now that he is tribunal chair

Before he became chair, the chair would instruct 3 ex players and they were the effective jury. Now he is judge and along with 2 ex players the jury.

His decision reasoing basically said that the AFL Counsel didnt prove it was rough conduct, and it was a reasonable / realistic collision.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

RussellEbertHandball , 1954, Ford Fairlane , et al., when the older folks here talk about our SANFL days, I have the impression that there was also a “Port tax” or something like that.

Was it so? Or was the SANFL fairer than the AFL?

The SANFL tribunal wasn't as worried about injury outcomes back then, so you could bump and tackle a bloke and if it was within the rules, then bad luck that he got a concussion.

John Firth was the club's legal counsel for about 30 years. My sister's best friend was his partner for about a decade before they married around 2012. I only met John in 2009, and then when I moved back to back to SA 12 months later, I then got to talk to him regularly.

My Norwood mate who is a footyhead and knows John, calls him Perry Mason because he couldn't believe John got a couple of Port players off on striking charges for striking 2 different Norwood players over 2 or 3 seasons.

I think the SANFL tribunal did get tougher on Port players after the 1982 Prelim Final David Granger case for multiple strikes.

I was living in Canada in 1988 so I've never seen the incident, but Port captain Russell Johnson got done on video evidence for striking late in the season and got 5 games, and the 5th game was the 1988 Grand Final.

I know that pissed a lot of people off that the suspension made sure he missed the grand final if Port won the 2nd semi final.

 

[GremioPower]

I'd just like to bring this case back for comparison...

It’s a textbook bump. It should have been lauded. Highlight heel stuff. “Bump of the Year” candidate. It was hard, but fair and on the ball.

Instead, it resulted in an absolute absurd 5-game suspension. The reasons: unlucky outcome; Port player; not famous (i.e. not Victorian enough).

 

[Handyandy]

SPP was running into a contest to tackle a player, in the last microsecond, the player was spun and head thrown into him. Copped 4.

Pearce forgets the ball a second or so before, braces and just takes the player out, in a collision coming for a little while.

I dont understand how in the world one got off and one got 4, when it should've been the other way around. Its such a ridiculous lottery. All based on whether the media runs a smear campaign or a passionate defence. We're always on the case of the former.

One is black

 

[Handyandy]

Georgiadis needs to get his knees up on the lead/ jump more and put a few vic defenders in a stretcher if that’s the case. Fractionally late, no problem, put your knee through their ribs/ kidney/ back of head all the same. It’s all good

 

[1954]

RussellEbertHandball , 1954, Ford Fairlane , et al., when the older folks here talk about our SANFL days, I have the impression that there was also a “Port tax” or something like that.

Was it so? Or was the SANFL fairer than the AFL?

Not too sure there is a Port tax as such, it's more a swings and roundabouts situation to me where the media unfortunately controls the narrative and our legal representation (compared to some other clubs) has at times appeared to have dropped the ball in their method of defence.

I do think there are regular `nothing to see here ' situations (also media controlled) re some of the more powerful Melbourne clubs (eg Maynard of collingwood), and I suspect if he played for Port he would have to make some adjustments to his game style or he could end up watching more games than he played.

I am sure though that Nicholas Nickleby and Ford Fairlane wouldn't be too impressed at being placed in that same `older folk' category as a bloke who is a lot closer to 80 than he is to 70.

 

[GremioPower]

Not too sure there is a Port tax as such, it's more a swings and roundabouts situation to me where the media unfortunately controls the narrative and our legal representation (compared to some other clubs) has at times appeared to have dropped the ball in their method of defence.

I do think there are regular `nothing to see here ' situations (also media controlled) re some of the more powerful Melbourne clubs (eg Maynard of collingwood), and I suspect if he played for Port he would have to make some adjustments to his game style or he could end up watching more games than he played.

I am sure though that Nicholas Nickleby and Ford Fairlane wouldn't be too impressed at being placed in that same `older folk' category as a bloke who is a lot closer to 80 than he is to 70.

I’m 44. Everyone over 50 is in the “older folk” category.

 

[Janey]

I’m 44. Everyone over 50 is in the “older folk” category.

When you’re 20 (not that I am ) everyone over 40 is in the “older folk” category.

 

[GremioPower]

When you’re 20 (not that I am ) everyone over 40 is in the “older folk” category.

I’m aware. I’ve been 20 before.

 

[theouthouse]

It's a fair verdict to say you've never seen a bloke until you've knocked him into next week.

Wonder what's next.

I saw him at the last second. I thought he was my team mate, so I braced to protect one of us, as a team we can't afford to have two players being subbed out with concussion.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Mark Duffield on SEN today had the West Oz's footy writer Craig O'Donoghue on to discuss the tribunal case . O'Donoghue watched the case - I suspect in the room where Pearce was giving evidence.

Craig O'Donoghue is an ex WAFL umpire, and might be still umpiring at lower level footy in Perth.

He starts off saying - "That was as compelling a case as I can recall the way Fremantle presented it ..... don't try to sugar coat things, don't try to get yourself off on a technicality, just tell the truth about what happened and make a case for why you didn't do anything wrong.... it was really compelling to listen to."

He also said the proceedings only went for 55 minutes, before the panel went and made their deliberations which took a similar amount of time. He also repeated what chair Gleeson said;

Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Next time a Port player is up I hope they remind the tribunal of this quote.

Its worth listening to - hope our club does and more importantly our players do so they learn how to give compelling evidence.

 

[Waspy79]

I'd just like to bring this case back for comparison...

Houston elected to bump and concussed an opponent doing so. 3 weeks was appropriate, 2 more was blatant Port tax.

This is not comparable to the Pearce incident.

 

[Waspy79]

Mark Duffield on SEN today had the West Oz's footy writer Craig O'Donoghue on to discuss the tribunal case . O'Donoghue watched the case - I suspect in the room where Pearce was giving evidence.

Craig O'Donoghue is an ex WAFL umpire, and might be still umpiring at lower level footy in Perth.

He starts off saying - "That was as compelling a case as I can recall the way Fremantle presented it ..... don't try to sugar coat things, don't try to get yourself off on a technicality, just tell the truth about what happened and make a case for why you didn't do anything wrong.... it was really compelling to listen to."

He also said the proceedings only went for 55 minutes, before the panel went and made their deliberations which took a similar amount of time. He also repeated what chair Gleeson said;

Secondly, it it is not and never has been the position of the tribunal, or as far as we can ascertain, the MRO that an outcome of concussion inevitably results in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Next time a Port player is up I hope they remind the tribunal of this quote.

Its worth listening to - hope our club does and more importantly our players do so they learn how to give compelling evidence.

Pretty sure when Houston tried to defend himself after the Rankine bump he basically admitted to not knowing why he bumped. It was the most ridiculous defence one could present and demonstrated a lack of due diligence by the clubs legal team.

 

[MrChow]

I hate the current system. Common sense, would remove the impact part of grading suspensions, and look at intent. A better/easier and consistent public framework would help.

I’m also starting to think in terms of fairness, anything reportable that warrants a game suspension or even close, that player should sit the rest of the game out. Especially when players get concussed.

Pearce absolutely could have sat the rest of the game out for that hit. Should have been an automatic 50m too. An upstairs umpire could have sent him off. Whether he got one week or not, that would have been a fair response considering the game.

This would change the behaviour of players, more than the current system.

 

[GremioPower]

Houston elected to bump and concussed an opponent doing so. 3 weeks was appropriate, 2 more was blatant Port tax.

This is not comparable to the Pearce incident.

Then, make bump illegal or judge all incidents by their outcomes. Otherwise, it’s just BS.

 

[Waspy79]

Then, make bump illegal or judge all incidents by their outcomes. Otherwise, it’s just BS.

I don’t agree. Players know if they elect to bump despite having alternatives and concuss an opponent they get suspended. Contesting the footy should be a non negotiable and that is what Pearce was doing and it wasn’t careless it was unfortunate and the tribunal summary shared by Ebert Handball nailed it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Then, make bump illegal or judge all incidents by their outcomes. Otherwise, it’s just BS.

Logan Evans bumped Freo's Cody Simpson - shoulder on shoulder about 5 minutes into the first quarter and Simspon's shoulder was dislocated and he was subbed out.

Why should this be banned. Its a collision sport and that was a collision and it was all legal and its bad luck that a serious injury happened.

I don't want this type of play outlawed.