MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Rising Power]

Powell-Pepper should be able to play the trial against Freo, and then play SANFL trials vs North Adelaide and South Adelaide.

What's the timeline between the last SANFL trial and AFL round 5? Not sure it would be worth playing him in a trial and then he can't play for 3-4 weeks anyway. Match fitness would wear off plus injury risk.

 

[240volt]

Is he allowed to play in the trial game?

Not sure I think they make up the rules as they go along depending on what team you play for.

 

[RossFC]

What's the timeline between the last SANFL trial and AFL round 5? Not sure it would be worth playing him in a trial and then he can't play for 3-4 weeks anyway. Match fitness would wear off plus injury risk.

Freo trial March 1st
North Adelaide trial March 16th
South Adelaide trial March 22nd
SPP's round 5 AFL return April 13th vs Freo.

 

[It Just Is]

4 weeks is a lot of football

 

[Enviable Tradition]

What's the timeline between the last SANFL trial and AFL round 5? Not sure it would be worth playing him in a trial and then he can't play for 3-4 weeks anyway. Match fitness would wear off plus injury risk.

The SANFL will give him 9 weeks given half a chance.

 

[LittleLika]

If he had hair would he have copped it? I hate him being labelled as a thug.

 

[Us against the rest]

2 crows players should be looked at here. Head high bump, and a dangerous sling tackle.
View attachment 1912059
View attachment 1912060

Ha ha, Port getting screwed at the tribunal again, who would have guessed, the other way around it's 2 weeks.
I hate being a Port Supporter sometimes, if it's not Hinkley, it's the rigged AFL and their bullshit.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

Are we appealing or rolling over again ?

I’m thinking a Russell Ebert Tribute game response.

 

[RossFC]

 

[RossFC]

How does a 4 match ban turn into 7 weeks out? What a rort.

 

[Grave Danger]

 

[wayb2912]

Harry McKay

10

Harry Mckay

Age

28

Ht

200cm

Wt

106kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.5

3star

HB

2.4

2star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.4

5star

D

6.6

1star

K

4.6

2star

HB

2.0

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.4

2star

G

1.4

5star

D

8.8

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

G

2.0

5star

just laid a bigger high bump than SPP, let's see if he gets 4

Sent from my PHN110 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[240volt]

Roll over Rover

 

[Brian McGee]

Harry McKay just laid a bigger high bump than SPP, let's see if he gets 4

Sent from my PHN110 using BigFooty.com mobile app

At least 2

 

[Buget]

Fox Footy reporting that he will be ineligible to play in the trial match on Friday as well - so that's actually a 5 week ban from AFL games:

Powell-Pepper's suspension will see him miss the opening month of the season and he will most likely be ineligible for the Power's upcoming practice match.

He will be absent as Port Adelaide’s season begins with a home fixture against West Coast before they travel to Victoria to take on Richmond.

The utility will also miss back-to-back home games against Melbourne and Essendon before the suspension ends for Round 5.

Apparently the AFL is yet to make a decision on this week's game v Freo. Unless of course that decision was made in the last hour...

Port's Powell-Pepper feels the wrath of AFL's tougher stance on high hits with lengthy suspension

Port Adelaide's Sam Powell-Pepper becomes the first victim of the AFL's tougher stance on high bumps, after being handed a four-match suspension for his hit on Adelaide’s Mark Keane in an AFL practice match.

www.abc.net.au

Reading the above article one could be forgiven for thinking that Sam Powell Pepper was responsible for Angus Brashaw's early retirement. Linking the two is gutter journalism imo.

If the AFL was anything approaching professional it would have the ambit of the penalty worked out. There should be no need to piss about deciding if this week's practice game counts in the four weeks. The AFL are past masters of shutting the stable door after the horse has done a runner, what about a bit of pro active thinking?

The Fox story was ambiguous but this just now:

We have to ask the permission of the AFL to allow SPP to play on Friday. How feckin cooked is that.



I would imagine they will just give Sam a break from the club rather than put him under more public scrutiny and tell him to come back to training next week.

(remember what Channel Seven and that shameful Elspeth Hussey did at Unley Oval when he played in the SANFL while serving a suspension for inappropriate behaviour?)

We need to sort out a game plan without him for the next month anyway so why bother.

Correct me if I’m wrong, Kossie Pickett was suspended for a high bump in the semi final. So has 1 game hanging over his head.

He is currently playing in the pre-season…. as I write this….

I’m waiting for the reason for any inconsistency from the AFL.

 

[MrChow]

So, basically if you bump somebody in the head as they are slung around into your path, they anre concussed in any way, and you only have x amount of time to react is minimum 4 weeks.

 

[TeeKray]

So on 99% of occasions when he hits the contest hard you probably stand up and applaud, but when he gets it slightly wrong he’s dumb and over zealous?

Well yeah, his physicality is fantastic when he gets it right, but I'd be lying if I said that I don't regularly see those hits and think 'gee, if he just gets that a little bit wrong ...'.

 

[TeeKray]

4 games imo is about correct weight with the concerns about concussion. Club support for a team does not come into appraisal of any player given a significant penalty.

thundercloud and TeeKray in fierce agreement, Janus and tribey in fierce agreement - the deck has been well and truly shuffled El_Scorcho.

 

[raptalia]

Correct me if I’m wrong, Kossie Pickett was suspended for a high bump in the semi final. So has 1 game hanging over his head.

He is currently playing in the pre-season…. as I write this….

I’m waiting for the reason for any inconsistency from the AFL.

I know, this AFL logic is dumbfounding. A player is suspended for 4 weeks but cannot play in five games.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Weak as piss by Port.

We know you probably won't win but the optics of just continually bending over to the AFL who control our board just grinds the members gears.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TeeKray]

So, basically if you bump somebody in the head as they are slung around into your path, they anre concussed in any way, and you only have x amount of time to react is minimum 4 weeks.

Just becuase you and others here want to reduce the entire incident down to the last milliseconds before impact, doesn't mean that's how the tribunal saw it. The tribunal was very clear that Powell-Pepper's approach to the contest was what ultimately made him culpable for the concussion.

See ...

We do not accept that the conduct involved minimal culpability.

Powell-Pepper ran to Keane, who was in the process of being tackled. We accept he was seeking to assist with the tackle. We don’t accept Keane moved in such a way when being tackled by Rioli that Powell-Pepper could not have reasonably anticipated the movement.

As contact was about to occur, Powell-Pepper altered the position of his right shoulder and with his right arm tucked in made heavy and high contact with Keane.

Even if the shoulder movement was a reflex action, that fact does not mean that the conduct as a whole involved minimal capability.

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.

Even if we accept the shoulder movement was a reflex action, the reflex action occurred because he ran at speed at a player who was already being tackled. Powell-Pepper took no steps to avoid high contact with the player being tackled. In all of those circumstances we consider four weeks to be an appropriate sanction.

 

[gbear]

Nankervis and De Goey last year got three weeks instead of the four that the AFL argued - because they showed remorse. Has SPP showed sufficient remorse? Maybe if he gets four weeks they'll let him serve one of them in the trial game - if he's been sufficiently remorseful.

WTAF. You can’t make this shit up

 

[gbear]

SPP is the easy sacrificial lamb for the AFL who behind the scenes would have loved seeing the bump in the pre-season to make an example of

No chance someone at a big Victorian club gets 4 weeks for the exact same action, not to mention Victorian media would go into overdrive on how much of a good bloke the accused is, couldn’t prevent the collision etc

Maynard should never have been able to play in The GF period. His was far more reckless.

 

[gbear]

If a similar incident to this happens with Dusty, De Goey, Petracca or Warner in a Qualifying Final we can totally expect their season to be over then, right?

Right?!

Otherwise Port should sue the afl

 

[gbear]

Good to know the Vic media sets the tribunal penalties.

It’s utter bull crap