MRP / Trib. Vs Essendon

[dlanod]

Well he mightn't have left the ground, but he did put his elbow out. The difference would probably be whether he was pointing it at Kav's back or if he simply put it up to defend himself. The fact he didn't put his hands out, and used his arm instead is why it could be reckless.

I'll never say never with the MRP but going by their usual standard it simply wasn't reckless. It was a simple hip and shoulder delivered late. Kavanagh played out the game, there was no high contact and Clarke didn't leave his feet at all, let alone late.

 

[JasRulz63]

I'd argue Kavanagh played better after that hit

 

[bomberswarm2]

Well he only had 10 minutes before, I'd say everyone except Hurely played better after that.

 

[Ironmonger]

I think the Clarke one is reasonably clear cut. Rough conduct, reckless to the body. The only question is whether they'll determine it to be medium or high impact. That'll be the difference between two games pleaded down to one or three games pleaded down to two. I think it's pretty much a 50/50 call.

The Merrett one though is a bit more complicated. It wasn't an inherently dangerous tackle, the player didn't leave the ground, it was a tackle in a single motion. Normally you'd add all that up and say Merrett was no worse than negligent, if that.

My best guess is negiglent conduct, high impact, high contact, which is a level 3 rough conduct offence, which along with the points from that thing against Riewoldt last year, might push him over 400. If he accepts the charge he could take three weeks.

Which doesn't sit right somehow. I reckon you could make a good case that his conduct wasn't negiglent at all, in which case he'd get off scot free.

 

[Balony_pony16]

I think the Clarke one is reasonably clear cut. Rough conduct, reckless to the body. The only question is whether they'll determine it to be medium or high impact. That'll be the difference between two games pleaded down to one or three games pleaded down to two. I think it's pretty much a 50/50 call.

The Merrett one though is a bit more complicated. It wasn't an inherently dangerous tackle, the player didn't leave the ground, it was a tackle in a single motion. Normally you'd add all that up and say Merrett was no worse than negligent, if that.

My best guess is negiglent conduct, high impact, high contact, which is a level 3 rough conduct offence, which along with the points from that thing against Riewoldt last year, might push him over 400. If he accepts the charge he could take three weeks.

Which doesn't sit right somehow. I reckon you could make a good case that his conduct wasn't negiglent at all, in which case he'd get off scot free.

Merrett trying to "sling" him out of the field of play would be his best defense, as it wasnt your typical sling tackle aimed to dump the opponent into the ground

 

[Football Pope]

In normal speed..11:22 of the 1st Clarke was slightly late... IIRC a free kick and a 50 meter given?

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-18/highlights-essendon-v-brisbane

 

[lions_den]

Honesly Clarke should get 4 weeks Merrett 0

 

[patfullfankezz]

As far as I am concerned both players were punished on the field. Dan with a free and Clarke with a 50. Neither were reported by the umpires.

 

[bomberswarm2]

As far as I am concerned both players were punished on the field. Dan with a free and Clarke with a 50. Neither were reported by the umpires.

Clarke was reported.

 

[Jorgo]

Clarke was reported.

I read that comment above & thought the same as you, that he had been.

The Lions official match report however lists "nil" next to reports.

Haven't read the AFL one as yet...

Edit: just read the AFL match report. Talks about the Clarke incident, only refers to a free kick & also lists "nil" next to reports at bottom.

 

[Judge]

I think the Clarke one is reasonably clear cut. Rough conduct, reckless to the body. The only question is whether they'll determine it to be medium or high impact. That'll be the difference between two games pleaded down to one or three games pleaded down to two. I think it's pretty much a 50/50 call.

The Merrett one though is a bit more complicated. It wasn't an inherently dangerous tackle, the player didn't leave the ground, it was a tackle in a single motion. Normally you'd add all that up and say Merrett was no worse than negligent, if that.

My best guess is negiglent conduct, high impact, high contact, which is a level 3 rough conduct offence, which along with the points from that thing against Riewoldt last year, might push him over 400. If he accepts the charge he could take three weeks.

Which doesn't sit right somehow. I reckon you could make a good case that his conduct wasn't negligent at all, in which case he'd get off scot free.

Within the laws of the game, how, exactly, is Merrett supposed to tackle Hurley in that situation? A gentle grab with the arms?

It's clear that Hurley's shoulder hit the ground first, then his head. You can't tell me that Merrett would be in trouble for that tackle if Hurley hadn't hit his head, or that Merrett should reasonably have anticipated that tackling him in that manner put him at any greater risk of injury than usual.

Put simply, in my view Hurley hitting his head was a genuine accident, and by definition accidents don't fall within the concept of negligence. In legal terms, an accident is something which was probably not preventable by the exercise of reasonable care, and I'm comfortable that Merrett's tackle wasn't negligent in that it involved nothing more than a forceful, legal tackle of a heavy, powerful opponent.

The laws of physics also need to be taken into account - there was over 200kg of force in motion in that tackle, so how the tackler can be held responsible for the outcome if the tackle itself was reasonable, i.e. not a sling, is beyond me.

So, the tackle wasn't negligent, and it certainly wasn't reckless (which requires even greater culpability), therefore any charge should be dismissed. The defence rests.

What do I expect to happen? Exactly what Tom says above, 3 week suspension....

 

[steveys]

Tribunal always looks at what duty a player has to ensure that he doesnt dish out excessive harm to other players. The tackle causing the head collission will defs be deemed as being too agressive/reckless.

 

[dlanod]

What do I expect to happen? Exactly what Tom says above, 3 week suspension....

Unfortunately yeah. I could see Clarke getting anything between 2 weeks reduced to 1 through to getting off, but Merrett's tricker - IMO it was just a tackle that went wrong. It wasn't a sling, there wasn't two motions, he wasn't driven into the ground, it was just bad luck. But because Hurley hit his head and got concussed, Merrett's pretty much guaranteed to be cited and probably something reasonably high.

 

[Ironmonger]

Within the laws of the game, how, exactly, is Merrett supposed to tackle Hurley in that situation? A gentle grab with the arms?

It's clear that Hurley's shoulder hit the ground first, then his head. You can't tell me that Merrett would be in trouble for that tackle if Hurley hadn't hit his head, or that Merrett should reasonably have anticipated that tackling him in that manner put him at any greater risk of injury than usual.

Put simply, in my view Hurley hitting his head was a genuine accident, and by definition accidents don't fall within the concept of negligence. In legal terms, an accident is something which was probably not preventable by the exercise of reasonable care, and I'm comfortable that Merrett's tackle wasn't negligent in that it involved nothing more than a forceful, legal tackle of a heavy, powerful opponent.

The laws of physics also need to be taken into account - there was over 200kg of force in motion in that tackle, so how the tackler can be held responsible for the outcome if the tackle itself was reasonable, i.e. not a sling, is beyond me.

So, the tackle wasn't negligent, and it certainly wasn't reckless (which requires even greater culpability), therefore any charge should be dismissed. The defence rests.

What do I expect to happen? Exactly what Tom says above, 3 week suspension....

Yeah, I think we see it pretty much exactly the same way, Judge.

Ultimately I think the MRP will be faced with a decision between 3 weeks or nothing, and I reckon they'll go with 3 weeks. If it wasn't for the outcry about the James Kelly incident, and the (in my opinion unjustified) criticisms of inconsistency, I'd be more confident.

 

[Harris Specter]

Hearing on the radio that Merrett might get 3 weeks and Clarke gets 1. Seems about right, because of the existing bad record of Merrett.

 

[lions27]

I really can't see either getting suspended, Clarkes was a high speed collision with 2 players converging on the same spot it wasn't late and there was no time to pull out.
Merrets tackle was flat not head first one motion. Maybe wishful thinking on the merret one will find out in a couple of hours.

Watch the Clarke incident in freeze frame it looks a lot better for him

 

[lions27]

Meant to say Clarkes wasn't that late*

 

[bomberswarm2]

I read that comment above & thought the same as you, that he had been.

The Lions official match report however lists "nil" next to reports.

Haven't read the AFL one as yet...

Edit: just read the AFL match report. Talks about the Clarke incident, only refers to a free kick & also lists "nil" next to reports at bottom.

Listen to the audio, umpire reports him.

 

[Lions1024]

Merrett will be out for 3-4 weeks. This was Trengoves tackle on Dangerfield, which is pretty similar.



Clarke will probably get 1-2 weeks.

 

[bomberswarm2]

I read that comment above & thought the same as you, that he had been.

The Lions official match report however lists "nil" next to reports.

Haven't read the AFL one as yet...

Edit: just read the AFL match report. Talks about the Clarke incident, only refers to a free kick & also lists "nil" next to reports at bottom.

Listen to the audio, umpire reports him.

 

[bomberswarm2]

I read that comment above & thought the same as you, that he had been.

The Lions official match report however lists "nil" next to reports.

Haven't read the AFL one as yet...

Edit: just read the AFL match report. Talks about the Clarke incident, only refers to a free kick & also lists "nil" next to reports at bottom.

Listen to the audio, umpire reports him.

 

[lions27]

Merrett will be out for 3-4 weeks. This was Trengoves tackle on Dangerfield, which is pretty similar.



Clarke will probably get 1-2 weeks.

A bit different... Mainly dangers head hitting the turf first, Hurley was flat and merret only had one hand on him. Hurley while groggy wasn't knocked out and remembered the incident. So who knows

 

[Jorgo]

Listen to the audio, umpire reports him.

I know mate, which is why I said my initial reaction was that he was reported also. Just found it interesting that both "official" sources didn't record that in match reports.

 

[bomberswarm2]

When do they release the findings? Isn't it usally out by now? Must be taking extra long.
JB might me in trouble for striking

 

[joshhem]

Any minute now. Usually 2PM-4:30PM if the past 4 weeks are anything to go by...