MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[RussellEbertHandball]

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?

You've dumbed it right down. Its more complex than that, and you know it.

 

[theouthouse]

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.

Herein lies the problem. Back in the day even a forward directed handball was considered not on as it was putting your team mate at risk, so players were trained not to dispose of the ball that way, same with running back with the flight, and hospital balls.

These days those sorts of disposals are considered putting it to your team mates advantage, when they are also giving greater opportunities for interceptors to get the ball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You've dumbed it right down. Its more complex than that, and you know it.

I don't think it is. He misjudged his approach to the contest, got there late and going too fast to do anything about it, hit his opponent high and concussed him.

Dictionary definition carelessness.

He got off because he managed to successfully argue that he didn't see DBJ until the last second, which is a clever argument but simply isn't true.

I tend to agree with Duckimus Prime that the tribunal needs scope to lessen suspensions where there are mitigating factors such as Pearce not really shaping to bump. I don't think anyone would have been upset with a week for something like this, but they decide that 3 weeks is too harsh so they over turn it altogether.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Also, DBJ wasn't running back into a pack but into open space, Pearce came in from the side and must have known he was running straight at a Port player. Byrne-Jones on the other hand wouldn't have been expecting it until the last nanosecond if at all.

Different perspectives and all that but it looked to me like Pearce just smashed him in the head with his shoulder. And that has always been games when one of our players has done it.

I heard the tribunal accepted Pearce was going for the mark and had his arms out, but no matter how many times I watch the vision, Pearce's arm is tucked in as he hits DBJ in the head and concusses him.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/g...r/news-story/88a8c2cfcafc0e08d16e55f6084ed213

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't think it is. He misjudged his approach to the contest, got there late and going too fast to do anything about it, hit his opponent high and concussed him.

Dictionary definition carelessness.

He got off because he managed to successfully argue that he didn't see DBJ until the last second, which is a clever argument but simply isn't true.

I tend to agree with Duckimus Prime that the tribunal needs scope to lessen suspensions where there are mitigating factors such as Pearce not really shaping to bump. I don't think anyone would have been upset with a week for something like this, but they decide that 3 weeks is too harsh so they over turn it altogether.

That's right because the dopey rules/matrix is written in such a way to handle AFL's fear of being sued for concussion.

But I go back to Gleeson's ruling - remember he used to be an AFL Legal Counsel who used to hang shit on players and always wanted the highest possible penalties for players who were sent straight to the Tribunal by the MRO or the MRP before that.

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.
....
However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:

A) he intended to mark the ball.

B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball

C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late

D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player

E) This was not in fact a bump

 

[bringbackbucky]

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.

This is the problem. Players are now so protected that they feel safe to run back with the flight. You think anyone would run into the hole that Tony Lockett was leading in to?

Running back may not be against the rules, but it is definitely careless.
I discourage my kids from doing it. Its not bravery - its stupidity.
Should be a last resort, and an act of absolute desperation.
Players should be coming at the ball, not going the other way...

 

[Waspy79]

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.

Aerial contests are different. If Pearce didn't go at that ball he loses the respect of his team mates. If he doesn't brace at the last second he probably breaks ribs or loses a testicle.

 

[El_Scorcho]

If Pearce didn't go at that ball he loses the respect of his team mates.

Firstly, no he wouldn't. Players slow to avoid giving away frees when approaching contests in every other marking contest in every game. It's normal.

And secondly, who gives a ****? He's not allowed to concuss our player because he wants to look tough in front of his teammates. This 1980s attitude has to disappear in the era when every single club has past players who are either living with bad concussion/CTE issues or have died due to them.

 

[El_Scorcho]

That's right because the dopey rules/matrix is written in such a way to handle AFL's fear of being sued for concussion.

But I go back to Gleeson's ruling - remember he used to be an AFL Legal Counsel who used to hang shit on players and always wanted the highest possible penalties for players who were sent straight to the Tribunal by the MRO or the MRP before that.

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.
....
However, when all of the vision was closely examined and the evidence of Pearce was taken into account, it was clear that:

A) he intended to mark the ball.

B) He was a realistic chance to mark the ball

C) His eyes never left the ball until it was too late

D) He did what he could at the last minute to minimise impact to the oncoming player

E) This was not in fact a bump

A) Not relevant when we're talking about carelessness. Nobody is accusing him of doing this intentionally.

B) Veerrryyy generous. DBJ was able to grab it and drop it before Pearce reached the contest. But even so, to be a realistic chance of marking the ball, he had to put himself and his opponent at risk of a very heavy collision.

C) He has peripheral vision and effectively admitted he knew DBJ was there, so this doesn't matter.

D) Agree, which is why I wouldn't be opposed to a 1 or 2 weeker.

E) Agree

None of these factors eliminate his duty of care to the other players on the field. And B doesn't matter. Players who think they are a reasonable chance of contesting the ball will knock players out a bunch of times this season. This is why it's careless and not intentional.

 

[El_Scorcho]

This is the problem. Players are now so protected that they feel safe to run back with the flight. You think anyone would run into the hole that Tony Lockett was leading in to?

Running back may not be against the rules, but it is definitely careless.
I discourage my kids from doing it. Its not bravery - its stupidity.
Should be a last resort, and an act of absolute desperation.
Players should be coming at the ball, not going the other way...

It shouldn't matter, because the rules and normal behaviour by opponents will almost always protect them.

I don't think anyone wants to go back to the era where running with the flight to take a mark is usually dangerous, do we?

Players take marks running with the flight of the ball constantly.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Also, DBJ wasn't running back into a pack but into open space, Pearce came in from the side and must have known he was running straight at a Port player. Byrne-Jones on the other hand wouldn't have been expecting it until the last nanosecond if at all.

Different perspectives and all that but it looked to me like Pearce just smashed him in the head with his shoulder. And that has always been games when one of our players has done it.

Bang on. Don't expect the kind of generous assessment of actions that Pearce got when one of our guys does it. We'll just get the 3 weeks.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A) Not relevant when we're talking about carelessness. Nobody is accusing him of doing this intentionally.

B) Veerrryyy generous. DBJ was able to grab it and drop it before Pearce reached the contest. But even so, to be a realistic chance of marking the ball, he had to put himself and his opponent at risk of a very heavy collision.

C) He has peripheral vision and effectively admitted he knew DBJ was there, so this doesn't matter.

D) Agree, which is why I wouldn't be opposed to a 1 or 2 weeker.

E) Agree

None of these factors eliminate his duty of care to the other players on the field. And B doesn't matter. Players who think they are a reasonable chance of contesting the ball will knock players out a bunch of times this season. This is why it's careless and not intentional.

A is very relevant. Intent is a pretty important determinate on what you do - and what you are charged with.

Its irrelevant what you think about one week or two weeks etc. If the jury rules that it isn't an offence, then its not an offence and you cant impose a penalty.

 

[Waspy79]

Firstly, no he wouldn't. Players slow to avoid giving away frees when approaching contests in every other marking contest in every game. It's normal.

And secondly, who gives a ****? He's not allowed to concuss our player because he wants to look tough in front of his teammates. This 1980s attitude has to disappear in the era when every single club has past players who are either living with bad concussion/CTE issues or have died due to them.

I’d be a concerned coach if player Pearce had let DBJ have a free run at the ball and embraced DBJ with open arms to stop his momentum having taken an uncontested mark.

I am 100% behind protecting the head which is why I’ve no issue with the Pepper and Houston bans (the length of both was too harsh and Port tax though) but fair players contesting the ball who misjudge by a microsecond deserve some leniency.

Not every collision that could cause a concussion is a careless footy act, but you are suggesting it is. The game needs to become non contact if so.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

A is very relevant. Intent is a pretty important determinate on what you do - and what you are charged with.

Its irrelevant what you think about one week or two weeks etc. If the jury rules that it isn't an offence, then its not an offence and you cant impose a penalty.

The AFL allowed them to find an excuse to rule that it wasn't an offence because they thought that the punishment was excessive, as per the media narrative since it had occurred.

Gleeson isn't allowed to look at the things we've discussed here with the problems with Freo's defence because the AFL itself never brought them up. They just uncritically accepted Pearce's position.

Gleeson calling out questions on the defendants position is what Gleeson did in the famous Patrick Cripps case, and is why Cripps got off.

 

[AflNerd22]

Not related but the title made me think of
Sticky situation, discombobulation
Caught me red-handed, palms itchin' like rosacea
Standin' like ovation on business occupation
Drippin' condensation, gotta whisper conversations

 

[Waspy79]

I get the noise, there is no consistency when it comes to Port players. I reckon Jonas got banned for less a few times. That doesn’t mean Pearce getting off is wrong, it just reinforces my and our belief there is a Port tax.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Not every collision that could cause a concussion is a careless footy act, but you are suggesting it is. The game needs to become non contact if so.

No, I fully agree that some collisions that result in injury are just bad luck, because both players couldn't reasonably have known they'd make heavy contact or even that the injured player was at fault. But when one player can reasonably take steps to avoid hurting an opponent, the expectation needs to be that they do so.

If you can't get to a contest without hurting someone, you can't get to the contest. Slow down.

I'll note that that is usually how the AFL treats these incidents, Pearce got away with one here. The lack of critical analysis of Pearce's argument by the tribunal was very generous, we certainly wouldn't get that.

 

[portforever]

Also, DBJ wasn't running back into a pack but into open space, Pearce came in from the side and must have known he was running straight at a Port player. Byrne-Jones on the other hand wouldn't have been expecting it until the last nanosecond if at all.

Different perspectives and all that but it looked to me like Pearce just smashed him in the head with his shoulder. And that has always been games when one of our players has done it.

I heard the tribunal accepted Pearce was going for the mark and had his arms out, but no matter how many times I watch the vision, Pearce's arm is tucked in as he hits DBJ in the head and concusses him.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/g...r/news-story/88a8c2cfcafc0e08d16e55f6084ed213

Typical Port player decision frankly. Imagine if a Port player had smashed into a Crows player like that. The howls of anguish and shaming would have been ongoing until he was banned for life.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL allowed them to find an excuse to rule that it wasn't an offence because they thought that the punishment was excessive, as per the media narrative since it had occurred.

Gleeson isn't allowed to look at the things we've discussed here with the problems with Freo's defence because the AFL itself never brought them up. They just uncritically accepted Pearce's position.

Gleeson calling out questions on the defendants position is what Gleeson did in the famous Patrick Cripps case, and is why Cripps got off.

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”.

 

[Grave Danger]

Sounds unrelated to his clash with DBJ, but the karma bus might've side swiped him...


The Fremantle captain has been ruled out of Saturday’s Round 12 clash with the Gold Coast Suns due to a stress response in his shin.

On Tuesday, Pearce advised the Club that he had some lingering pain in his lower leg following Saturday night’s win over Port Adelaide. Pearce had sustained an impact injury earlier in the season, though investigations did not find any abnormalities.

Further investigation after a scan on Wednesday revealed a stress response in his left shin.

Pearce will now undergo a deloading period and complete an off legs program. He will be reassessed after the Club’s bye when Fremantle will be able to provide a further update.

 

[P4Life]

Firstly, no he wouldn't. Players slow to avoid giving away frees when approaching contests in every other marking contest in every game. It's normal.

And secondly, who gives a ****? He's not allowed to concuss our player because he wants to look tough in front of his teammates. This 1980s attitude has to disappear in the era when every single club has past players who are either living with bad concussion/CTE issues or have died due to them.

Couldn’t agree more. Longmuir comes out straight after the game and advises Pearce would be crucified if he doesn’t run through Byrne-Jones, intimating he would be regarded as soft if he did anything else.
So a concussion because of that action is collateral damage to maintaining an “image”. Really makes you think about how serious the AFL is about this Duty of Care mantra they push.
Interestingly Longmuir doubled down on TV after the incident about “pulling out” which I found disappointing because if we are going to reduce concussions I would have thought getting players to play with a Duty of care was a good starting point.

 

[240volt]

Bang on. Don't expect the kind of generous assessment of actions that Pearce got when one of our guys does it. We'll just get the 3 weeks.

I’m not even arguing if it was right or wrong, the fact is we all know a Port player would be out for weeks.
The system sucks but if your only screwing a small section of the league nobody really gives a shit.

 

[Waspy79]

If you can't get to a contest without hurting someone, you can't get to the contest. Slow down.

This is only known with the benefit of hindsight in these situations.

 

[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.