MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Ford Fairlane]

And I disagree with the Pearce reversal. He made no attempt to spoil or play the ball, just braced and cleaned up DBJ. We've had so many players suspended for similar actions but now it's ok. Probably because Eddie said so.

 

[Waspy79]

Neither do I, as it can be seen from my comment to Houston's bump:


---



Why would this be the rule only for bumping? According to the implied premise, this should be the case for all other LEGAL plays as well. After all, tackles, contested marks, etc., can also result in concussions and other injuries. If you elected to do them, then, you should also be responsible for the consequences.

Bumping on the head can be considered equivalent to a dangerous tackle. Bumping far from a contest is also another matter. Those acts are ILLEGAL plays and, therefore, not part of this conversation.

My point is that LEGAL plays should NOT be judged by their outcomes. A player should not be suspended for playing football. Houston was. Pearce wasn't. That's the connection. The rulings are inconsistent. Inconsistency is unfair.

Careless versus unfortunate is the answer.

Pearce was not careless and did not commit a reportable offence. DBJ’s concussion was unfortunate but Pearce had no realistic alternative action to take.

Houston didn’t have to bump, and was therefore careless and committed a reportable offence due to head injury sustained to Rankine.

There has to be scope for leniency when a concussion is caused by an unfortunate act otherwise we are talking non-contact sport.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

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?

You did get away with a lot more back in the day. I never thought we were particularly harshly treated at the tribunal but we certainly carried a reputation that other teams did not. Probably the David Granger 'trial by video' after the 1981 grand final opened Pandora's Box, then the persistent complaints about him in the media during 1982 by Cornes culminating in the events in the preliminary final were the final straw. Dave was hunted by the umpires from 1980 on (when Kerley also used the media to complain about him), not entirely without reason but players from other clubs were never treated the same.

In a broader sense, Port's continued success did rankle the sanfl and they were always trying ways to blunt us off-field administratively. But we always bounced back and became stronger.

 

[GremioPower]

Careless versus unfortunate is the answer.

Pearce was not careless and did not commit a reportable offence. DBJ’s concussion was unfortunate but Pearce had no realistic alternative action to take.

Houston didn’t have to bump, and was therefore careless and committed a reportable offence due to head injury sustained to Rankine.

There has to be scope for leniency when a concussion is caused by an unfortunate act otherwise we are talking non-contact sport.

Thanks. I would need to be convinced about the carelessness. I don't buy it yet. This is how I see it.

One can always argue that a bump is careless. I don't see a substantial difference between that and outlawing it altogether. It seems a way to forbid it, while pretending it's not. "If you are lucky, then it's fine." Where's the fairness in that?

If a play is legal, than it's a matter of choice. Among the legal actions available, the player should be allowed to pick any. If he does it properly, the consequences of his choice should be irrelevant. Accidents happen. As sad as it may be, he did what he was supposed to do. Play on.

Now, if he does not do it properly (unrealistic marking attempt, dangerous/high/sling tackle, etc.), then, his action becomes illegal. That's when CARELESSNESS becomes a factor. That's when consequences matter. (I still think that the risk is more important than the actual consequences; thus it should carry more weight - but I digress.)

In brief, a well-executed legal football play cannot be careless. It's more than "should not". It cannot. It's indeed impossible.

If it can be deemed careless, then, for all intents and purposes, it has been outlawed. Since it's not more dependent on the player's action itself, one cannot do it. The best case scenario is being lucky and escaping punishment.

Again, if that's the case, then it would be fairer to ban bumping.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Careless versus unfortunate is the answer.

Pearce was not careless and did not commit a reportable offence. DBJ’s concussion was unfortunate but Pearce had no realistic alternative action to take.

There has to be scope for leniency when a concussion is caused by an unfortunate act otherwise we are talking non-contact sport.

Pearce is generally a fair player and if someone is going to get off of something like this, good that it's him instead of another big Victorian club player. It's not like Maynard who was a known sniper getting off for deliberately jumping into someone and ending their career.

But the tribunal ruling that he didn't know DBJ was there until the last second is absolutely ridiculous. Humans have peripheral vision.

Pearce went into the contest too hard, got there late, lost control of his body because he'd gone in too hard and we lost a key player for a game and a half at least. I don't actually think he really even shaped to bump, but he still cannoned into a vulnerable player. It's textbook carelessness, which they've overturned because they've successfully argued that Pearce didn't know DBJ was coming back with the flight. Bullshit.

The realistic alternative action Pearce needed to take was to slow down and not hit a contest late at full speed against a smaller opponent in a vulnerable position. Even by GremioPower's assessment there, he got him late and high. It was a free kick any way you slice it, but it's a free kick where he's also concussed our player.

Players make decisions at every contest to moderate the speed or angle they hit the contest at to avoid giving away frees or KOing a teammate or opponent. The AFL standard for a decade now is that if you're going into a contest, you need to do so in a way where you take all reasonable steps to avoid injuring another player. It's almost never unavoidable, and in the 95% of cases where it was avoidable, it needs to be stamped out of the game through suspensions.

Listen to the players who have long term concussion issues speak about it. It's a life ruining and sometimes life ending condition. Pearce got away with one here.

 

[El_Scorcho]

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.

This is the point. If DBJ was a Freo player, do we think for even a second that Pearce hits the contest that hard and concusses him?

Not in a million years. Friendly fire bumps like that just don't happen, basically ever.

Which means Pearce knew DBJ was there, and as soon as he knows he's there and still hits the contest that hard, it's careless and it's 3 weeks.

 

[GremioPower]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

 

[GremioPower]

I have no idea what the right answer would be in the case. If the Tribunal were consistent, since the play resulted in concussion, I expected it to uphold the MRO’s decision.

 

[Handyandy]

Get your knee up nice and high on the lead gorgeous Georgi
It’s open season on defenders who drop into the hole
Put your knees through the back of their heads. It’s all good. They won’t drop into the hole again & if you put em in a stretcher it’s fine, because they shouldn’t be there

 

[Handyandy]

See how Eddie likes it when a few of his pet vic defenders get stretchered off with concussions

 

[Handyandy]

Georgi pinged one of their defenders a beauty but now he can just clatter into them with total aba

 

[Handyandy]

Abandonment

 

[Handyandy]

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.

He did not elect to bump
Same argument as Pearce
He skirted past a contest looking for a loose ball or to strip the ball & Keane was slung into his path so he braced for impact
Same as Pearce, he charged at a marking contest, got there too late so turned to brace at the last second.
The tribunal accepted spp did not intend to bump.
SPP was done because they said his approach was reckless & he should have foreseen that contact was likely.
Yet Pearce charges recklessly at a marking contest and ends up bumping too. But apparently that’s ok, no requirement to foresee anything or apparently even open his eyes
And it is OK
So there is zero difference
Neither intended to bump
But both did
But SPP was reckless
Yet Pearce wasn’t
So the take out is you can recklessly charge at a marking contest, get there late and smash the shit out of someone & it’s all good, because Eddie doesn’t like players dropping into marking contests.

 

[Waspy79]

He did not elect to bump
Same argument as Pearce
He skirted past a contest looking for a loose ball or to strip the ball & Keane was slung into his path so he braced for impact
Same as Pearce, he charged at a marking contest, got there too late so turned to brace at the last second.
The tribunal accepted spp did not intend to bump.
SPP was done because they said his approach was reckless & he should have foreseen that contact was likely.
Yet Pearce charges recklessly at a marking contest and ends up bumping too. But apparently that’s ok, no requirement to foresee anything or apparently even open his eyes
And it is OK
So there is zero difference
Neither intended to bump
But both did
But SPP was reckless
Yet Pearce wasn’t
So the take out is you can recklessly charge at a marking contest, get there late and smash the shit out of someone & it’s all good, because Eddie doesn’t like players dropping into marking contests.

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.

 

[jac147]

You did get away with a lot more back in the day. I never thought we were particularly harshly treated at the tribunal but we certainly carried a reputation that other teams did not. Probably the David Granger 'trial by video' after the 1981 grand final opened Pandora's Box, then the persistent complaints about him in the media during 1982 by Cornes culminating in the events in the preliminary final were the final straw. Dave was hunted by the umpires from 1980 on (when Kerley also used the media to complain about him), not entirely without reason but players from other clubs were never treated the same.

In a broader sense, Port's continued success did rankle the sanfl and they were always trying ways to blunt us off-field administratively. But we always bounced back and became stronger.

Back in the late ‘60’s we had a bloke called Tyrell (no a different guy than the Woodville Tyrell) who played a few A grade games for Port and was rubbish but he was one of those guys who was a star in the B’s. Only trouble was he wanted to fight all the time and eventually Port had had enough and showed him the door, He was always up at the tribunal on charges that were legitimate. Sad thing he was loaded with talent but apparently suffered from that white line syndrome.

 

[bringbackbucky]

I honestly think there will become a time where the bloke running at the football in a marking contest has right of way, and the full duty of care lies with the bloke running back with the flight of the ball...

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Byrne-Jones ran back with the flight of the ball. The kick was fairly high, and the players arrived at the ball in roughly opposite directions at almost precisely the same time.

That last point is critical.

Pearce’s attempt to mark was entirely realistic.

Its bullshit.

Pearce never made it to the marking contest. If he did, then his hit would've caused DBJ to drop the mark, but it doesn't.

If DBJ manages to hang onto the wet ball, its a late hit on a player thats taken a mark and DBJ should've been kicking from the goal line.

And the expectation should absolutely be on Alex Pearce to recognise that he's not making it to the marking contest.

Pearce said that his eyes never left the ball until the last split second when he glanced down to Byrne-Jones and it was too late to pull out of the contest. The vision supports that evidence.

Its the same bullshit defence that the AFL let Collingwood get away with in the Maynard case.

See this is the problem, they argue he wasn't acting careless because when he saw DBJ it was too late to avoid the collision. But the reality is, it was his careless approach to the contest that put him in the situation where he couldn't avoid the collision.

Its the same as Maynard's defence of "I wasn't being careless when I smashed into Brayshaw, because I had no control after I went air borne", completely ignoring the fact that going airborne was the carless act that caused the collision.

He claims he couldn't approach the contest differently because he's the captain and has to set an example, and as a defender his job is to not let the opponent just mark the ball. Which means he obviously knew that DBJ was at the marking contest... yet he claims he didn't see DBJ there until it was too late? Which is it?

Two positions in his defence completely contradicts itself, yet the AFL just lets it slide by. Because the media ran with the poor Alex Pearce story. And the AFL wanted a popular win.

And the jump to take the mark? What a load of rubbish, he would've been trying to grab a ball at below his knees after jumping. The only way he gets to the ball to take a mark is by sliding. Which frankly would've resulted in a Waugh-Gillespie-esque collision.

He jumps to protect himself by getting his head above DBJ. And he does look to mitigate the damage to DBJ by not tucking his arm and turning his shoulder.

Quite frankly its similar to Archer. He's acted carelessly on approach, and then at the last second gone "oops I dun ****ed up".

Was it a dirty snipe? No.
Was it careless? Yes.
Does it deserve a 3 weeks suspension because of the matrix? No, but really the Tribunal should be given flexibility around suspensions. Ie drop a week off because Pearce made an effort to reduce the impact.

 

[Waspy79]

As per AFL guidelines, in considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being Careless no charge will be laid against the Player.

A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where their conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. In order to constitute a breach of duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

Interesting wording there regarding duty of care and 'reasonable Player' - perhaps a poll of all reasonable Players in the league needs to decide whether a duty of care has been breached.

Pearce's conduct was found to fall short of being Careless as he had no other realistic alternative than to take the action he took, and I suspect most 'reasonable Players' would agree, even Darcy.

 

[Grave Danger]

As per AFL guidelines, in considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being Careless no charge will be laid against the Player.

A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where their conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. In order to constitute a breach of duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

Interesting wording there regarding duty of care and 'reasonable Player' - perhaps a poll of all reasonable Players in the league needs to decide whether a duty of care has been breached.

Pearce's conduct was found to fall short of being Careless as he had no other realistic alternative than to take the action he took, and I suspect most 'reasonable Players' would agree, even Darcy.

Fine - all we want to see is consistency. Don't hold your breath.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Its bullshit.

Pearce never made it to the marking contest. If he did, then his hit would've caused DBJ to drop the mark, but it doesn't.

If DBJ manages to hang onto the wet ball, its a late hit on a player thats taken a mark and DBJ should've been kicking from the goal line.

And the expectation should absolutely be on Alex Pearce to recognise that he's not making it to the marking contest.


Its the same bullshit defence that the AFL let Collingwood get away with in the Maynard case.

See this is the problem, they argue he wasn't acting careless because when he saw DBJ it was too late to avoid the collision. But the reality is, it was his careless approach to the contest that put him in the situation where he couldn't avoid the collision.

Its the same as Maynard's defence of "I wasn't being careless when I smashed into Brayshaw, because I had no control after I went air borne", completely ignoring the fact that going airborne was the carless act that caused the collision.

He claims he couldn't approach the contest differently because he's the captain and has to set an example, and as a defender his job is to not let the opponent just mark the ball. Which means he obviously knew that DBJ was at the marking contest... yet he claims he didn't see DBJ there until it was too late? Which is it?

Two positions in his defence completely contradicts itself, yet the AFL just lets it slide by. Because the media ran with the poor Alex Pearce story. And the AFL wanted a popular win.

And the jump to take the mark? What a load of rubbish, he would've been trying to grab a ball at below his knees after jumping. The only way he gets to the ball to take a mark is by sliding. Which frankly would've resulted in a Waugh-Gillespie-esque collision.

He jumps to protect himself by getting his head above DBJ. And he does look to mitigate the damage to DBJ by not tucking his arm and turning his shoulder.

Quite frankly its similar to Archer. He's acted carelessly on approach, and then at the last second gone "oops I dun ****ed up".

Was it a dirty snipe? No.
Was it careless? Yes.
Does it deserve a 3 weeks suspension because of the matrix? No, but really the Tribunal should be given flexibility around suspensions. Ie drop a week off because Pearce made an effort to reduce the impact.

Rubbish, watch the video closely, at full speed, not slowed down.

Pearce is going at the ball and at the last fraction of a second takes his eye off it. He said he knew DBJ was there but thought he would beat him to the ball.

I was at the game on level 5, on that side of the ground, pretty much in line with the centre circle and I saw him and DBJ going for the mark and thought is going to be a collision, because they will both get to the ball at the same time.

Until the AFL writes in black and white who has right of way, either the player running at the ball or the player running back with the flight, then collisions like this will continue to happen and more concussions will result from these collisions.

I have written in this thread several times, and yes even when our guys have been charged for an offence when a collision happens, that you have as much a duty of care to protect yourself as you have a duty of care to the other player.

The AFL counsel haven't used these words in their arguments, but they have basically said bad luck if you injure yourself you have to protect your opponent first. That's rubbish. You protect yourself first - not at the expense of the opponent - but to try and stop 2 people being concussed or badly injured.

The AFL in its pants wetting fear and paranoia of being sued - like the NFL - have conned footy fans into believing that every incident is heinous and suspensions have to occur. They don't.

 

[El_Scorcho]

As per AFL guidelines, in considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being Careless no charge will be laid against the Player.

A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where their conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. In order to constitute a breach of duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

Interesting wording there regarding duty of care and 'reasonable Player' - perhaps a poll of all reasonable Players in the league needs to decide whether a duty of care has been breached.

Pearce's conduct was found to fall short of being Careless as he had no other realistic alternative than to take the action he took, and I suspect most 'reasonable Players' would agree, even Darcy.

Pearce's conduct was found to fall short of careless because the AFL accepted the argument that he didn't know DBJ was there until the last minute, and only for that reason.

Which is total bullshit.

Do we believe for a second that Pearce would have knocked out a Freo player running back with the flight in the same situation? Pearce admitted in his evidence that he knew he had to go in hard to a contest as the captain of the side. What contest if you don't know the player is there?

It'd be great for the AFL to just ignore reality to let one of our players off one day.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Pearce is going at the ball and at the last fraction of a second takes his eye off it. He said he knew DBJ was there but thought he would beat him to the ball.

Sounds pretty careless to me REH.

Is everyone who poleaxes someone just allowed to argue that they thought they'd be first to the ball and get away with it?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Also, there doesn't need to be a "right of way". Everyone is responsible for competing for the ball in a way that takes reasonable care to avoid hurting other people on the field. And players do that at every contest in every game, moderating how they approach the contest to avoid giving away frees or getting suspended.

People are arguing that Pearce had no choice but to go in that hard when players slow their approach to contests like that to avoid giving away frees all the time, at almost every contest.

 

[bringbackbucky]

I reckon DBJ's attempt at marking was more careless than Pearce's actions...

 

[El_Scorcho]

I reckon DBJ's attempt at marking was more careless than Pearce's actions...

Are players not allowed to run back with the flight and take a mark?

DBJ ran back with the flight confident the rules (and the accepted standard that players don't poleaxe other players) would protect him.