Why do we contest EVERY tribunal decision?

[Stifler's mom]

I truly believe Rocca deserved to get off last night but why do we contest every single charge?
IIRC we have now had 3 players receive more weeks than they could have received had we not challenged the original finding. ( Didak, Holland and Pebbles )
We really have an average, at best, record of swaying the tribunal yet we ALWAYS gamble and very often lose.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I reckon it was a 40/60 chance at best of getting off. The odds did not stack up. I think it was a foolhardy decision to contest it, and an underestimation of StKilda to assume we could do without him for two weeks if worst came to worst (which it has). We do it with injured players (give them an extra week off to make sure they are right) - why dont we make the same practical decisions at the tribunal sometimes?

Its not the first time we've done this - we did it a few years back (Didak or Tarrant, cant remember)

Pragmatism is sometimes missing at the club.

 

[DWil6]

I guess if the club is firmly of the belief that a player has done no wrong then they are obligated to fight it. If they didn't fight it, what would the game become? We can't just let the tribunal hand out decisions at will without at least making sure we are being fairly dealt with. (not suggesting they got this one right).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He hit him high with considerable and unneccessary force. Getting him cleared of that was always going to be an uphill battle.

Its a matter of knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em.

 

[DWil6]

He hit him high with considerable and unneccessary force. Getting him cleared of that was always going to be an uphill battle.

Its a matter of knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em.

Not sure Rocca could have avoided the incident cause it was clearly a split second decision. He clearly got low (bent knees) and still collected him high as he was turning to chase Didak. Intent isn't everything, i know.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not sure Rocca could have avoided the incident cause it was clearly a split second decision. He clearly got low (bent knees) and still collected him high as he was turning to chase Didak. Intent isn't everything, i know.

He could have just stood and blocked him, that would have sufficed. But its not a matter of whether or not he's not guilty, its a matter of whether we had a strong enough case to prove it, to risk the extra weeks suspension. Thats what matters, and when you hit somebody head high and hard, and you get offered just one week, its probably worth taking the one week to save another.

 

[DWil6]

He could have just stood and blocked him, that would have sufficed. But its not a matter of whether or not he's not guilty, its a matter of whether we had a strong enough case to prove it, to risk the extra weeks suspension. Thats what matters, and when you hit somebody head high and hard, and you get offered just one week, its probably worth taking the one week to save another.

I don't know whether they had spoken to the umpire but perhaps they suspected that the umps opinion held more weight then the tribunal did. If the umpire stands by his call that it was worthy of a free kick and no more, which he did, you'd hope that might help sway the decision. I'm just looking at the other side of the arguement. Not trying to say you are wrong.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fair point. There have been cases this year when the umpires evidence seems to overrule what we can all see on the video. Judd's eye-ball extraction being the obvious one.

The evidence is there though that Collingwood seem more reluctant than other clubs to take the pragmatic approach and fall on their swords.

 

[Hadders]

I reckon it was a 40/60 chance at best of getting off. The odds did not stack up. I think it was a foolhardy decision to contest it, and an underestimation of StKilda to assume we could do without him for two weeks if worst came to worst (which it has). We do it with injured players (give them an extra week off to make sure they are right) - why dont we make the same practical decisions at the tribunal sometimes?

Its not the first time we've done this - we did it a few years back (Didak or Tarrant, cant remember)

Pragmatism is sometimes missing at the club.

I agree with you Timmy.

But the true impact of the decision won't come until the St Kilda game. We were without Rocca for the Hawks game regardless so win or lose it doesn't make a difference wondering what would have happened if he was there.

But if we lose the St Kilda game by a couple of goals the decision to contest will look very stupid then and possibly at the end of the year when a top 4 position is up for grabs.

 

[mdc]

I reckon we had to contest it after what Mick said in his post-match, would have looked pretty bad for him if we didn't.

 

[Pie eyed]

Collingwood and every other Team should contest every charge.
The "Discount" suspension scheme is simply a way for the AFL to take some of the heat off the ludicrous decisions taken by the "Investigating Officers" and the "Tribunal".
In the Rocca case you have a player who was actively supported by the Field Umpire 6 metres away from the incident being found guilty of doing one of the fundamental "Team Things" which win games, Shepherding.

If the current rule was in place while Brisbane were winning their three grand finals they would have had ten players out for six weeks each season because of their commitment to the ball and each other and "Zero" Premiership Cups.

I am in no way denigrating Brisbane, that's the way game should be played and they played it well. AFL is a Tough Physical Contest.

The current AFL administration are not ex-footballers of any note.
They cut there teeth in accounting and business, which while considered to be tough is not. Businessmen only like to promote this image. It is mostly luck and being in the right place at the right time or knowing the right people or getting the right "insider" information" or greasing the right palm.

 

[Chase the Ace]

I truly believe Rocca deserved to get off last night but why do we contest every single charge?
IIRC we have now had 3 players receive more weeks than they could have received had we not challenged the original finding. ( Didak, Holland and Pebbles )
We really have an average, at best, record of swaying the tribunal yet we ALWAYS gamble and very often lose.

1. Its our right

2. We don't think our player is guilty of anything

3. The MRP's "offer" might seem excessive to the Club

 

[Fireman_sam]

Absolute Joke! Rocca should never have been cited for it.. how can a st kilda bloke run past and smack someone on the head.. fair enough it was not hard enough but either was pebbles one.. he could of absolutey smashed dempster to smitherines, he didnt and it was fair and in the rules of football. What is this game coming to seriously. collingwood should re-appeal the suspension!

 

[Somebody]

why didn't they appeal??

Absolute Joke! Rocca should never have been cited for it.. how can a st kilda bloke run past and smack someone on the head.. fair enough it was not hard enough but either was pebbles one.. he could of absolutey smashed dempster to smitherines, he didnt and it was fair and in the rules of football. What is this game coming to seriously. collingwood should re-appeal the suspension!

Yeah I don't understand why having taken it this far, they didn't take the extra step and appeal it?? Especially if they were contesting on principle as has been suggested here. Apparently it would not have added more penalty if it failed. Might have cost a few bob but they're not exactly hard up.

 

[doppleganger]

He could have just stood and blocked him, that would have sufficed. But its not a matter of whether or not he's not guilty, its a matter of whether we had a strong enough case to prove it, to risk the extra weeks suspension. Thats what matters, and when you hit somebody head high and hard, and you get offered just one week, its probably worth taking the one week to save another.

I fail to see how the incident is any different to the Whelan on Ball shephard in rnd 1??

Both players attempting to lay legit shephards, both players ended up making high contact...........Whelan on Ball much worse as Ball went off the ground a bloodied mess and missed the next 2 weeks, compared to Dempster who was a bit shaken up but fine.

Whelan didn't get anything, and Rocca will miss 2......don't understand that?

Rocca's bump is fundamentally different to the front on hits given by Hille, Rooke, M.Johnson etc. as they were only ever going to make head high contact..........and the player bending down to pick up the footy is now ruled as a no go zone by the afl

Dempster like Ball wasn't bending down to pick up the ball, it was a legit shephard on a player who was fair game that went wrong and got him high, why is one case reportable and the other not??

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Evidently they thought the umpire's evidence would be heeded.

 

[Coin_Toss]

most of it is a joke.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

All I can tell you tribunals are inconsistent and will always be.

 

[nick_savo]

did we appeal the rocca hit?

 

[mulhollanddrive]

Because you have a sense of entitlement. You fine players more than is allowed, refuse to have a clash strip because black and white is more sacred than any other club's colours, defend ANZAC day like its sacrilidge to take it away from you guys.

 

[twoforjoy]

Evidently they thought the umpire's evidence would be heeded.

I was happy that we contested on the basis of what the umpire said he saw. He clearly thought it was a free kick only. It is worth another appeal too as he will not cop more weeks but the club may be fined. I say go for it.

 

[BroadhurstMonk]

Because you have a sense of entitlement. You fine players more than is allowed, refuse to have a clash strip because black and white is more sacred than any other club's colours, defend ANZAC day like its sacrilidge to take it away from you guys.

So who do you barrack for?

We are pretty special though arent we

 

[Thommo 42]

Didak got off thanks to the evidence given by the umpire.

I guess we assumed the same for Rocca, and it was a pretty fair assumption.

 

[richardnose]

Because you have a sense of entitlement. You fine players more than is allowed, refuse to have a clash strip because black and white is more sacred than any other club's colours, defend ANZAC day like its sacrilidge to take it away from you guys.

correct.

 

[richardnose]

I truly believe Rocca deserved to get off last night but why do we contest every single charge?

talk about answering you're own question...