MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Duckimus Prime]

So Gleeson and the 2 ex players are just lackeys of Dillon, Kane and Christian?? I don't buy that.

Or are you saying the AFL instructed their counsel Sally Flynn to argue in a certain way so Pearce would get off? That's more of a chance, but I don't buy that either.

Gleeson stuffed up in the 2022 Cripps case according to the Appeals board by -" the failure to afford procedural fairness," so he got off on the error of law reason, 1 of the 4 reasons you can win an appeal. But the hearing took 4 1/2 hours.

The Appeals board found Glesson had poorly instructed the panel, and then in future cases he went out of his way to instruct them and cover all bases.

From back on page 51

The Appeals Board dubbed the Tribunal’s decision “unreasonable” and “an error of law”, with the Appeals Board unconvinced the evidence provided to the Tribunal was enough for it to find Cripps had turned his body into “classic bumping position”.

Yes, Gleeson stated to the jury in his instructions that Patrick Cripps shaped to pump Ah Chee.

That was not something that the AFL representative had put into argument, so Cripps never got to contest that. That is why Cripps got off because of "a failure to afford procedural fairness". Hence if the AFL's representatives aren't calling into question Alex Pearce's version of events, then Gleeson can't direct the jury to question it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hence if the AFL's representatives aren't calling into question Alex Pearce's version of events, then Gleeson can't direct the jury to question it.

Did you read what Sally Flynn said??

The MRO charged him with Rough Conduct



From David Zita's posts in the live feed that I copy and pasted a few pages back.

The AFL suggests Pearce could've slowed his momentum much earlier.
Pearce: "My role as a defender in that situation isn't to let the opponent mark the ball."

AFL: Do you accept you should've been aware much earlier of Byrne-Jones?
Pearce: No, I don't.

Sally Flynn (AFL): Pearce has engaged in conduct which it was reasonably forseeable doing so would result in committing a reportable offence.
Flynn (AFL): The AFL aruges it was inevitable Pearce was going to be second to that contest.
Flynn (AFL): A reasonable player would've attempted to slow his momentum and do so much earlier.

Gleeson's reasoning he said

First, the AFL quite properly conceded that if, contrary to their submissions, Pearce had a realistic chance of marking the ball until the last moment, this was not rough conduct.

So Pearce didn't get off because the AFL didn't question his evidence, he got off because they couldn't prove it was rough conduct - which is what they charged him with.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Association Football, in its Law 12, defines three illegal approaches to a play:

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

With these tools, one might assess a play. I know it’s a different sport, but those are legal definitions. They should be translatable.

Acting carelessly, recklessly, and/or with excessive force is illegal. A proper legal action is none of those.

They maybe legal definitions but given its a collision sport you still have to prove reasonable or unreasonable conduct.

I assume Brazilian law uses the reasonable man/person interpretation like common law countries use.

In a play, one must analyze the action from all players involved. For instance, in the DBJ/Pearce clash, it can be that neither were fair, both, or just one of them. The fact that DBJ was hurt may save him from further punishment, but it shouldn’t save him from scrutiny.

The AFL have been too scared to look at the actions of the player who has been hurt.

In 2023 Gary Rohan knocked out his teammate Jeremy Cameron. Some people said - me included, Rohan should have received an suspension. But the MRO and a lot of the industry said its friendly fire so you can't suspended Rohan. But if an oppo player did 100% exactly what Rohan did the MRO would have given him games. He braced and the MRO have given games to players who brace and the tribunal upheld the MRO's penalty.

The vision is viewable at this AFL video page, but from the picture below shows Rohan has bumped Cameron in the head.

So the AFL say you have a duty of care to your opponent - but not to your teammate or yourself - it seems.

Massive blow with Jezza KO'd in sickening friendly fire

Geelong gets rocked by an injury to Jeremy Cameron after the star forward leaves the field on a stretcher following this clash with a teammate

www.afl.com.au

Houston was neither careless, nor reckless, and didn’t use excessive force. He also didn’t “endanger the safety of an opponent” more than any regular bump would. It shouldn’t be a free, let alone a 5-game suspension.

Houtson hit his opponent in the head, so its immediately illegal and therefore he had to prove his action was reasonable.

Port didn't argue what Dockers and Pearce argued that his actions were reasonable, Port argued he should get a lower penalty because it wasn't a super severe bump.

Now, on Pearce and DBJ, I don’t think the Tribunal approached the play as it should have. The ball was in play, both players went for it, neither got it, there was a clash. For their rulings, the MRO and the Tribunal should answer these questions:

Did they time the ball correctly? Did they calculated properly the distance they were from the ball? Were they just as far from the point-of-contact at the beginning of the play? If not, did one of them try to compensate the difference? If so, was he in any way careless or reckless, or did he use excessive force in such an attempt? (Etc.)

It was a wet and windy night and the ball was wet, so heavier than normal, and as it was a miskick, so it was difficult to make a perfect calculation of where the ball would land.

There are more questions, but I hope those are enough to get the idea. Instead of that, my impression is that the ruling comes first. Then, they only pick the questions that validate it. The lack of precedents helps with that.

If I am being unfair, please correct me.

The police makes a charge, then the lawyers have to prove it in court. That's no different here, the MRO like the cop makes the charge and the AFL counsel like the police/public prosecutor has to try and validate it. The lack of precedent means things can and do stay in shades of grey.

 

[GremioPower]

Houtson hit his opponent in the head

He did not. That’s key. If he had, this conversation would’ve been completely different.

 

[GremioPower]

The lack of precedent means things can and do stay in shades of grey.

Gray is the natural status. One must try reducing it for fairness.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

He did not. That’s key. If he had, this conversation would’ve been completely different.

That's what Houston said but the tribunal didn't believe him. Also High Contact in 2024 Tribunal guidelines is defined as -

High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact
to the top of the shoulders.

So even if it wasn't directly to the head it still fits definition of High Contact if it hit him in the neck or top of his shoulder. Plus the smack of the head to the ground is similar to smack of an opponents head to the ground in a tackle.

 

[GremioPower]

That's what Houston said but the tribunal didn't believe him. Also High Contact in 2024 Tribunal guidelines is defined as -

High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact
to the top of the shoulders.

So even if it wasn't directly to the head it still fits definition of High Contact if it hit him in the neck or top of his shoulder. Plus the smack of the head to the ground is similar to smack of an opponents head to the ground in a tackle.

Yep. But he hit first and foremost the ball. The rest was the Tribunal just b*llsh*tt*ng.

 

[Waspy79]

Yep. But he hit first and foremost the ball. The rest was the Tribunal just b*llsh*tt*ng.

He didn’t have to bump. That’s what sunk him as the bump caused the concussion, either directly or indirectly as per REH it doesn’t matter. 5 weeks instead of 3 is the bullshit part.

 

[bomberclifford]

He didn’t have to bump. That’s what sunk him as the bump caused the concussion, either directly or indirectly as per REH it doesn’t matter. 5 weeks instead of 3 is the bullshit part.

We're talking very fine nuance in the interpretation of what happened in both instances, yet the difference in penalty is nothing vs 5 games. The latter including finals games, one a prelim, and if we'd won that, a grand final.

That's the issue. It's the only issue.

Throw in bullshit like Maynard taking out Brayshaw and ending his career, not only getting to play the following week but ending up a premiership player, and the whole thing stinks.

 

[Handyandy]

You are incorrect, presumably blinded by bias. I just watched the incident again, PP deserved a holiday, he pleaded guilty, the club argued for 3 weeks. They know the rules, you don’t.

You are full of shit

 

[portforever]

We're talking very fine nuance in the interpretation of what happened in both instances, yet the difference in penalty is nothing vs 5 games. The latter including finals games, one a prelim, and if we'd won that, a grand final.

That's the issue. It's the only issue.

Throw in bullshit like Maynard taking out Brayshaw and ending his career, not only getting to play the following week but ending up a premiership player, and the whole thing stinks.

Each time a Port player does something the thought police in Adelaide can perform a maximum investigative analysis with the media blasting the video non stop until the Victorian media come onboard too and then it is seen as fait accompli that the action needs to be sent to the tribunal and said player is obviously guilty and needs games etc. The good citizen defense becomes irrelevant and no one cares a hoot when its Port.

 

[Handyandy]

The tribunal accepted SPP did not intend to bump but said his approach to the contest was reckless & a reasonable person would have foreseen a collision was likely.
Yet Pearce charges recklessly at a marking contest, gets there late, concusses our player & he has no duty of care and no responsibility to foresee anything.
So there is no duty of care in a marking contest. In fact you have to make them ‘earn it’ to maintain respect from your teammates.

So Georgi can now put his knee through anybody’s head that drops in is the takeaway. If he is late no biggie. He has to go to maintain respect & Eddie thinks players shouldn’t drop in anyways

 

[GremioPower]

He didn’t have to bump.

Again…

Is it legal to bump? If it is, it’s his choice.

If he can only bump if the opponent doesn’t get hurt, then bumping is actually illegal. There’s no right way of bumping, just right outcome.

 

[Waspy79]

Again…

Is it legal to bump? If it is, it’s his choice.

If he can only bump if the opponent doesn’t get hurt, then bumping is actually illegal. There’s no right way of bumping, just right outcome.

There's a duty of care to not cause a head injury when electing to bump. Bumping is not illegal - as demonstrated by Evans' bump on Simpson that caused Simpson to dislocate his shoulder.

 

[Waspy79]

We're talking very fine nuance in the interpretation of what happened in both instances, yet the difference in penalty is nothing vs 5 games. The latter including finals games, one a prelim, and if we'd won that, a grand final.

That's the issue. It's the only issue.

Throw in bullshit like Maynard taking out Brayshaw and ending his career, not only getting to play the following week but ending up a premiership player, and the whole thing stinks.

Yes we are often talking split second decisions being the difference between a suspension and not. I'm in full agreement that the Houston ban was too long, particularly as there was no evidence of a direct bump to Rankine's head. 5 weeks was a farce, it reeked of Port tax to ensure Houston couldn't play again in 2024, yet he should have lined up against Sydney instead of Boak kicking goals for Sydney across half-back.

The Maynard incident and subsequent non penalty was typical biased rubbish by the league, but to their credit they have now amended the rules to specifically call out a duty of care in that spoil scenario.

 

[portforever]

Yes we are often talking split second decisions being the difference between a suspension and not. I'm in full agreement that the Houston ban was too long, particularly as there was no evidence of a direct bump to Rankine's head. 5 weeks was a farce, it reeked of Port tax to ensure Houston couldn't play again in 2024, yet he should have lined up against Sydney instead of Boak kicking goals for Sydney across half-back.

The Maynard incident and subsequent non penalty was typical biased rubbish by the league, but to their credit they have now amended the rules to specifically call out a duty of care in that spoil scenario.

They may have amended the rule but when the whips are cracking at the end of the year and a Collingwood or Geelong player is being done then the media and supporters will bring a crescendo of 'but but he's such a good guy or what else could he have done etc' to massage the right verdict and what could have been 5 games becomes nothing to see here verdict.

 

[Waspy79]

They may have amended the rule but when the whips are cracking at the end of the year and a Collingwood or Geelong player is being done then the media and supporters will bring a crescendo of 'but but he's such a good guy or what else could he have done etc' to massage the right verdict and what could have been 5 games becomes nothing to see here verdict.

Tend to agree - Trent Cotchin (2017) and Patrick Cripps (2022) come immediately to mind.

 

[GremioPower]

There's a duty of care to not cause a head injury when electing to bump. Bumping is not illegal - as demonstrated by Evans' bump on Simpson that caused Simpson to dislocate his shoulder.

It’s just luck. You cannot know the outcome. If it causes a concussion for WHATEVER reason, you are screwed. Bumping simply became a footy Russian roulette.

 

[Waspy79]

It’s just luck. You cannot know the outcome. If it causes a concussion for WHATEVER reason, you are screwed. Bumping simply became a footy Russian roulette.

Correct, it's a gamble, but if you get it right, it's not illegal. That's why the field umpire was right to not call a free kick against Houston as it was a legally executed bump, the problem is it caused a referred concussion which the umpire would not have known at that immediate point of impact.

I try to look at it like this - if you elect to bump when you had alternatives and concuss an opponent - that opponent misses the rest of the game being played, and the game after, plus has to deal with the potential longer term health impact. The offending player should be getting no less time out of the game, hence a 3 week suspension seems a reasonable baseline.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The AFL suggests Pearce could've slowed his momentum much earlier.
Pearce: "My role as a defender in that situation isn't to let the opponent mark the ball."

AFL: Do you accept you should've been aware much earlier of Byrne-Jones?
Pearce: No, I don't.

These two lines directly contradict each other. Which one is it?

It's like the Maynard case all over again where the AFL and the tribunal just conveniently overlook the facts of the case to get a player off.

Apparently it's okay to kill a guy on a football field with your shoulder if you're attempting to stop him marking the ball? Not saying that's what Pearce was doing here, but the logical extension of the argument accepted by the tribunal is that if a player can argue they believed they opportunity to mark the ball and takes their opponent's head off while doing it, that's fine.

It's absolute bullshit and we would never get that sort of free pass given to us.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

These two lines directly contradict each other. Which one is it?

It's like the Maynard case all over again where the AFL and the tribunal just conveniently overlook the facts of the case to get a player off.

Apparently it's okay to kill a guy on a football field with your shoulder if you're attempting to stop him marking the ball? Not saying that's what Pearce was doing here, but the logical extension of the argument accepted by the tribunal is that if a player can argue they believed they opportunity to mark the ball and takes their opponent's head off while doing it, that's fine.

It's absolute bullshit and we would never get that sort of free pass given to us.

Not really. He said he was aware late, of DBJ - the AFL says he should have been aware earlier.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The tribunal accepted SPP did not intend to bump but said his approach to the contest was reckless & a reasonable person would have foreseen a collision was likely.
Yet Pearce charges recklessly at a marking contest, gets there late, concusses our player & he has no duty of care and no responsibility to foresee anything.
So there is no duty of care in a marking contest. In fact you have to make them ‘earn it’ to maintain respect from your teammates.

So Georgi can now put his knee through anybody’s head that drops in is the takeaway. If he is late no biggie. He has to go to maintain respect & Eddie thinks players shouldn’t drop in anyways

Yep, it's absolute bullshit.

The "I had to go in hard because otherwise my teammates wouldn't respect me" argument needs to be actively removed from these processes, because it's applied so selectively. That argument being made at all should be an instant finding of carelessness. It's admitting you did something dangerous.

Pearce 100% knew a collision was likely and went in at 100% anyway and concussed our player, but it's okay because being a big tough guy in front of your teammates is more important than the brain health of another player. Sometimes. Not if you're a Port player though.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Not really. He said he was aware late, of DBJ - the AFL says he should have been aware earlier.

He says his job is to not let an opponent mark the ball. He's saying he didn't even know the opponent was there until the last second. So how can he use needing to stop an opponent potentially marking the ball and his overriding need to prevent that as a defence? He didn't even know DBJ was there, apparently.

Just a soft prosecution that we would never get.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

He says his job is to not let an opponent mark the ball. He's saying he didn't even know the opponent was there until the last second. So how can he use needing to stop an opponent potentially marking the ball and his overriding need to prevent that as a defence? He didn't even know DBJ was there, apparently.

Just a soft prosecution that we would never get.

See ball, get ball. Not hard to assume the opposition is going to come for the footy if you have your eyes fixed on that and it has been miskicked and gone high in the air.

 

[El_Scorcho]

See ball, get ball. Not hard to assume the opposition is going to come for the footy if you have your eyes fixed on that and it has been miskicked and gone high in the air.

Human beings have peripheral vision, DBJ would have been clearly in his field of vision. He knew DBJ was coming and his comments make that very clear.