MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Handyandy]

This is the second player of ours concussed this season & both times the afl media scumbags have been trying to get the offender off

 

[Waspy79]

This is the second player of ours concussed this season & both times the afl media scumbags have been trying to get the offender off

Reminds me of Viney barging into Boak’s back and breaking or bruising his rib/s. Boak missed two games I reckon. No punishment for Viney for the dirty act. Kornes got two weeks for doing less to Sam Mitchell. I don’t forget these inconsistencies.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I want to qualify what I'm about to say with my own view that the entire tribunal system with the lawyers and quasi legal procedures and arguments is frankly a bit laughable and there has to be a better way to do all of this keeping in mind the fact that this is ultimately just a game.

But in this system, words matter. The way arguments are put forward matter. Freo had a KC representing their player who is a very smart man and came up with a well thought out argument that had the judgment fall their way.

I think rather than thinking there is a conspiracy against Port (remembering that this is Freo, not exactly Geelong or Hawthorn we're talking about), you should be asking whether or not Port players are afforded the same quality of representation at the tribunal as Pearce was on this occasion.

Absolutely that's an issue as well.

We've repeatedly asked for lowered penalties instead of just asking for the whole charge to be thrown out, which is clearly a better strategy.

 

[portforever]

This is the second player of ours concussed this season & both times the afl media scumbags have been trying to get the offender off

That right. Our player doesn't need the protection that some other teams get. But woe to our players if they step out and break the rules. Then the legal eagles show a religious zeal to make sure the law is practiced to the full, the media singing the chorus of 'you know the rules, take your medicine'

 

[Handyandy]

That right. Our player doesn't need the protection that some other teams get. But woe to our players if they step out and break the rules. Then the legal eagles show a religious zeal to make sure the law is practiced to the full, the media singing the chorus of 'you know the rules, take your medicine'

twice last season our players were made examples of
By the media, SPP was labelled a “POS”
And by the tribunal
SPP got 4 & zero weight was given to mitigating circumstances ie Keane was slung into his path
Houston’s bump was deemed to be perfectly legal by the officiating umpire according to the rules of the game
But somehow drew a 5 week penalty for breaching the laws of the game
And there is sadly the AFL media’s institutionalised racism shining through bright and loud, like a dog whistle for racist scum to follow and to promote
Yet one of ours is concussed and “he deserved it, there were mitigating circumstances, it’s afl touch footy, it’s a captains responsibility to make them earn it, etc etc etc and suddenly the mitigating circumstances carry weight
Then Eddie declares laws like right of way, DBJ shouldn’t have been there & Sinn was weak for being knocked out by super humanly strong islander
The afl tribunal is a complete load of shit. Jobs for the ambulance chasers. The average footy supporter could sit down with a couple of mates, drink a carton & come up with more sensible & consistent results

 

[Waspy79]

Absolutely that's an issue as well.

We've repeatedly asked for lowered penalties instead of just asking for the whole charge to be thrown out, which is clearly a better strategy.

Can you post me your Sack Hinkley banner. I’d take it to the GWS game. I’ll pay for postage both ways. If not how did you make it?

 

[Handyandy]

Nice crunch from the hawks bloke
Make the f($$&@r earn it

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I want to qualify what I'm about to say with my own view that the entire tribunal system with the lawyers and quasi legal procedures and arguments is frankly a bit laughable and there has to be a better way to do all of this keeping in mind the fact that this is ultimately just a game.

But in this system, words matter. The way arguments are put forward matter. Freo had a KC representing their player who is a very smart man and came up with a well thought out argument that had the judgment fall their way.

I think rather than thinking there is a conspiracy against Port (remembering that this is Freo, not exactly Geelong or Hawthorn we're talking about), you should be asking whether or not Port players are afforded the same quality of representation at the tribunal as Pearce was on this occasion.

I agree with the premise of what you are saying and our counsel always seems to take the most obscure route, but from what I saw of David Zita's running commentary of the hearing, the AFL tribunal chair was actually pushing back at the AFL counsel's arguments about Pearce's actions.

When has that ever happened at a Port hearing?

 

[GremioPower]

if you get it right, it's not illegal

No. There’s no “right bump”; just “right outcome”. This makes all the difference.

 

[Janey]

Reminds me of Viney barging into Boak’s back and breaking or bruising his rib/s. Boak missed two games I reckon. No punishment for Viney for the dirty act. Kornes got two weeks for doing less to Sam Mitchell. I don’t forget these inconsistencies.

That Cornes/Mitchell incident was a joke. Mitchell took a huge dive after Kane barely brushed a hand against him and then hung him out to dry whenever he spoke about the incident.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Can you post me your Sack Hinkley banner. I’d take it to the GWS game. I’ll pay for postage both ways. If not how did you make it?

I've left it at a friend's place sorry so I don't have it to mail to you.

I went to Spotlight and got a few metres of white cotton poplin fabric, which is just the cheapest material. I then laid out the fabric on the floor of my garage, and wrote out the Sack Hinkley with a lead pencil to get the spacing right. Once it was right I filled in with black poster paint and a cheap brush, both of which I also got at Spotlight when I was there. I think I paid about $15 total. Simple but effective.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Lloyd Meek apparently not facing the tribunal?

It's open season ladies and gentlemen. Concuss whoever the hell you like provided there was a marking contest there in the previous few seconds and you'll be fine. Football collision.

Until a Port player does it ofcourse and it's time to reset expectations with a big 6 weeker.

 

[theouthouse]

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.

Dislocate a players shoulder or break their collarbone when going the bump should be out for the same amount of time with that perspective, you know, for equality.

Fact that a fair and legal bump resulted in an opponents injury shouldn't matter as that's the reality of combat.

It could be suggested that the injured player hasn't done all they could have in terms of duty of care by not protecting themselves.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Dislocate a players shoulder or break their collarbone when going the bump should be out for the same amount of time with that perspective, you know, for equality.

Fact that a fair and legal bump resulted in an opponents injury shouldn't matter as that's the reality of combat.

It could be suggested that the injured player hasn't done all they could have in terms of duty of care by not protecting themselves.

The shoulder to shoulder bump is currently a legal act, and will likely remain that way. Hitting people high is illegal with even a very light touch.

There's also a significant disparity in risk between a firm shoulder bump and a firm bump to the head, not to mention the devastating long term impacts of CTE.

Everyone on the field needs to have a duty of care for everyone else on the field (or at least, that was the expectation before this week). Players can play footy but if they reasonably know they are entering a contest where the wrong approach could hurt an opponent, they need to avoid doing that.

Which is something players do at every contest, every week. I'm not asking for the game to change, it's already played by players who 99.9% of the time don't charge too hard into contests when a player is vulnerable, mostly because they don't want to give away a free.

 

[Waspy79]

Lloyd Meek gets off despite being an hour late

 

[Waspy79]

Dislocate a players shoulder or break their collarbone when going the bump should be out for the same amount of time with that perspective, you know, for equality.

Fact that a fair and legal bump resulted in an opponents injury shouldn't matter as that's the reality of combat.

It could be suggested that the injured player hasn't done all they could have in terms of duty of care by not protecting themselves.

I respect what you’re saying but a broken bone doesn’t cause the CET that will get the league sued if they aren’t seen to be protecting the head

 

[El_Scorcho]

Lloyd Meek gets off despite being an hour late

It's insane.

Late, high, way too fast into something that wasn't even really a marking contest. Hits Lipinski hard in the head with his arm and gives him a brain injury that will put him out for at least 1 more game.

That's just a footy collision though mate i'm sick of these SNOWFLAKES who should go and watch NETBALL.

 

[Waspy79]

It's insane.

Late, high, way too fast into something that wasn't even really a marking contest. Hits Lipinski hard in the head with his arm and gives him a brain injury that will put him out for at least 1 more game.

That's just a footy collision though mate i'm sick of these SNOWFLAKES who should go and watch NETBALL.

If what Meek did doesn’t constitute careless conduct I’ve never looked up the leagues reportable offence guidelines.

 

[theouthouse]

I respect what you’re saying but a broken bone doesn’t cause the CET that will get the league sued if they aren’t seen to be protecting the head

So how can Pearce get off, citing he had no awareness of DBJ until he ran into him. Did he honestly think Atkins was kicking the ball to him or no one in particular.

Saying he had no awareness of the situation and went full speed into it would almost automatically show reckless behaviour. Yet the AFL have okayed his action and has said its OK to flat out at a contest without consequence provided its not a bump.

The inconsistencies in the way they deal with things means they'll be more likely to be sued by people who were cleaned up and the player not suspended, unless it was purely accidental, which in 99% of cases it isn't.

Or maybe it gets to the stage where players either accept a suspension for causing a concussion, absolving them of future legal action, or risk it and the player becomes part of potential defendant in a legal case.

 

[El_Scorcho]

So how can Pearce get off, citing he had no awareness of DBJ until he ran into him. Did he honestly think Atkins was kicking the ball to him or no one in particular.

Saying he had no awareness of the situation and went full speed into it would almost automatically show reckless behaviour. Yet the AFL have okayed his action and has said its OK to flat out at a contest without consequence provided its not a bump.

The inconsistencies in the way they deal with things means they'll be more likely to be sued by people who were cleaned up and the player not suspended, unless it was purely accidental, which in 99% of cases it isn't.

Or maybe it gets to the stage where players either accept a suspension for causing a concussion, absolving them of future legal action, or risk it and the player becomes part of potential defendant in a legal case.

What you're saying is 100% correct, but the tribunal uncritically accepted Pearce's claim that he didn't know DBJ was there despite him stating that he knew he had to make a contest. The AFL weren't able to or didn't want to challenge it despite it being clear bullshit.

Pearce should have been suspended. It's careless every day of the week.

 

[Waspy79]

So how can Pearce get off, citing he had no awareness of DBJ until he ran into him. Did he honestly think Atkins was kicking the ball to him or no one in particular.

Saying he had no awareness of the situation and went full speed into it would almost automatically show reckless behaviour. Yet the AFL have okayed his action and has said its OK to flat out at a contest without consequence provided its not a bump.

The inconsistencies in the way they deal with things means they'll be more likely to be sued by people who were cleaned up and the player not suspended, unless it was purely accidental, which in 99% of cases it isn't.

Or maybe it gets to the stage where players either accept a suspension for causing a concussion, absolving them of future legal action, or risk it and the player becomes part of potential defendant in a legal case.

I’ve gone over this a million times. I don’t think Pearce had a realistic alternative than to contest the ball and then protect himself. That’s my opinion, I’m not the only one who shares it. I have a different view about Meek though. That looked careless borderline intentional. His hand was nowhere near the ball and he was very late hence a 50m penalty. It’s astounding that illegal act can get zero weeks and Houston can get 5. **** Hawthorn.

 

[Handyandy]

What you're saying is 100% correct, but the tribunal uncritically accepted Pearce's claim that he didn't know DBJ was there despite him stating that he knew he had to make a contest. The AFL weren't able to or didn't want to challenge it despite it being clear bullshit.

Pearce should have been suspended. It's careless every day of the week.

Yes. He has zero peripheral vision & as captain, even if he did see him, he still had to make him earn it and set an example.

The afls prosecutor is a clown to accept this on face value. he has shown he can go in hard against lowly educated black fellas, but pisses his pants against a kc and a half educated argumentative defendant

Let’s watch the fallout. It’s open season on drop ins. Get your knees up high and go in late

 

[Handyandy]

I said there would be fallout

“The MRO added: "It could not have been reasonably foreseen that Lipinski’s head would make forceful contact with the ground as a result of Meek’s conduct."

Contrast and compare to the findings on SPPs bump on Keane

“We consider Powell peppers conduct to be extremely reckless, 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 have 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”

So ultimate duty of care for dangerous black fellas skirting a pack
But no duty of care for white fella charging at marking contest very late

Hilarious how corrupt they are and how they change the narrative

Haha, shifting the goal posts & digging themselves deeper to hide their mistakes

Won’t be long before someone is in a wheelchair and we see a correction

 

[Waspy79]

“The MRO added: "It could not have been reasonably foreseen that Lipinski’s head would make forceful contact with the ground as a result of Meek’s conduct."

I have no idea how or why that is relevant for what was blatantly careless conduct. Pure biased spin.

The same argument is better applied to Houston’s legal bump not Pepper’s illegal bump.

 

[portforever]

Dislocate a players shoulder or break their collarbone when going the bump should be out for the same amount of time with that perspective, you know, for equality.

Fact that a fair and legal bump resulted in an opponents injury shouldn't matter as that's the reality of combat.

It could be suggested that the injured player hasn't done all they could have in terms of duty of care by not protecting themselves.

Yes it would always be who did the bump when going for the ball which is more about the intent. If Port there would be intent to hurt not go for the ball excuse.