The Tribunal has an extra arrow in its quiver not available to the MRO. It can take into consideration a player's exemplary record. That option does not exist for the MRO who can only judge a matter on the criteria available. Whether Ablett used the "exemplary record" option or not, I don't know, but I'm just pointing out that the Tribunal and MRO can come to different results on the same incident.

And if Ablett, who has played more than 300 games over 18 years and has won two Brownlow Medals and throughout that time has never been suspended and only once been fined (for accidental contact with an umpire) can't get off on the "exemplary record" criterion, I don't know who could. In other words, Ablett was always going to be cleared to play by the Tribunal.

 

56 minutes ago, poita said:

Should have been a fine at most. The hand wringers in this thread are really saying they would be happy for Clayton Oliver to be suspended for that? I very much doubt it.

Of course I would be happy in any way were Clarrie suspended for the same offense, but the big difference is that he probably would have been.

Now if Gablett was suspended then it could be a confirmation that the AFL is actually consistent in their pious claims that the head is always sacrosanct, and flowing that we’re Clarrie to do the same and get suspended whilst not happy I would understand.

But it is the blatant consistent inconsistency and clear bias towards certain players, two Geelong “superstars” already being cleared of what many would not, that angers many.

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Tribunal has an extra arrow in its quiver not available to the MRO. It can take into consideration a player's exemplary record. That option does not exist for the MRO who can only judge a matter on the criteria available. Whether Ablett used the "exemplary record" option or not, I don't know, but I'm just pointing out that the Tribunal and MRO can come to different results on the same incident.

And if Ablett, who has played more than 300 games over 18 years and has won two Brownlow Medals and throughout that time has never been suspended and only once been fined (for accidental contact with an umpire) can't get off on the "exemplary record" criterion, I don't know who could. In other words, Ablett was always going to be cleared to play by the Tribunal.

 

Interesting. Is this rule written somewhere?

I'd like to read it.

Within a few rounds, some journeyman mug player will whack someone in the head, with a raised elbow, airborne, and will cop 4 weeks, because (a) the head is sacrosanct!, and (b) no one in the media will be sticking up for them, saying "aw, we don't want to see players rubbed out just because of something like that"

The whole issue is not how many weeks it deserves. Give it nothing, or give it 8 weeks. Give it anything you want. But give the same thing every time, every player, for that offence. The current chooklotto, with inside running for stars, is what pisses people off.

Notwithstanding the fact that this bloke's "exemplary" record, if reviewed on camera would not stand up to scrutiny,  there must have been an amazingly quick phone call from a certain coach to a past Captain of the Cats in the AFL to get this moving at speed.

Why does Christian keep getting overruled?

12 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Surprise surprise.

gablett gets off.  It was a blatant attack on the player, he left the ground, made contact with both arms to the head.

the system is wretched and officially broken.  One rule for the favourites, one rule for us.

Much worse an action by Ablett than that body and head protection of May's, earlier in the season.

36 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Interesting. Is this rule written somewhere?

I'd like to read it.

See here, in particular page 7, part (G).

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

See here, in particular page 7, part (G).

Love the photo of Danger and Gablett right under part (G).

18 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Love the photo of Danger and Gablett right under part (G).

A visual clue for the Tribunal in case they can't read, perhaps?

System broken? I don't think so. The tribunal as actually a proper hearing with varied results now. Unlike the past where it was a complete waste of time. The removal of the extra week when challenging is best change the AFL has made in the last decade. You go in get your case assessed and an outcome is determined. The problem is MRO seems to be a little trigger happy on suspensions.

Taking who he is out of it, the incident was obviously careless and not intentional. Should have been a fine in the first place. 

2 hours ago, poita said:

Should have been a fine at most. The hand wringers in this thread are really saying they would be happy for Clayton Oliver to be suspended for that? I very much doubt it.

Of course not. But the point is Oliver would get suspended for that because he isn’t Ablett. That’s the entire flaw in the system. 

Ablett could murder a basket of kittens and publicly support religious homophobes and he still wouldn’t get so much as a please explain from the AFL. 

Big names and big clubs get an armchair ride from all sections of the AFL hierarchy. The rest don’t. 

respect Ablett as a footballer, don't much care for his personality and views but to be fair i think if this is his first offence after so many games and with minimal impact it is reasonable to let him off with a fine. I agree if it happened to one of ours they would be given "the chair."

41 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

respect Ablett as a footballer, don't much care for his personality and views but to be fair i think if this is his first offence after so many games and with minimal impact it is reasonable to let him off with a fine. I agree if it happened to one of ours they would be given "the chair."

but the "exemplary record" condition was not invoked in this case with respect to his suspension (accidental vs intentional).

it was argued later, only with respect to the downgrading to a fine, where the tribunal did not accept the argument and the fine stayed.

Edited May 8, 20196 yr by daisycutter

Ablett was airborne at the point of impact with a raised elbow

I thought the head area was sacrosanct. 

I don’t trust anyone who recites Bible passages and believes them to be fact....

Maybe Gary’s shiny bald nut will become target practice in September...

Jeelong are a true enemy...

 

Haven't Selwood, Dangerfield and now Ablett all been let off or a reduced sanction at appeal this year

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

but the "exemplary record" condition was not invoked in this case with respect to his suspension (accidental vs intentional).

it was argued later, only with respect to the downgrading to a fine, where the tribunal did not accept the argument and the fine stayed.

Are you saying the Tribunal did not accept that Ablett had an "exemplary record"? If so, given the Dalai Lama doesn't play AFL, who would?

14 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Are you saying the Tribunal did not accept that Ablett had an "exemplary record"? If so, given the Dalai Lama doesn't play AFL, who would?

i said it wasn't raised in the question of 1 weeks suspension based on intentional vs accidental. Presumably, if they had considered it was in fact intentional then the defence may have raised it, but because it was ruled accidental it was moot.

it was raised subsequently by the defence in an attempt to get the downgraded fine to be canceled but the tribunal (in this case) declined the argument and the fine remained. Presumably they felt a fine was not an appropriate condition to invoke the "exemplary record" provision.

This was how i heard it explained by a reporter shortly after the decision (forgotten who). Bottom line being that this provision played no part in the final findings.  i'm sure the tribunal would accept he had an exemplary record, just that they deemed it inappropriate just for setting aside a fine which doesn't impact eligibility for the brownlow.....meaning he still (possibly) has it up his sleeve for the future

Edited May 8, 20196 yr by daisycutter

When will the AFL realise they are damaging the Game itself ...   in an irreparable way,  with they're deceit's.

They are building layers of deceit,  one ontop of the other...  in the thinking that peoples Love of the game,  is unbreakable.

 

They are wrong.

4 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Why does Christian keep getting overruled?

The AFL decided to let the game itself wear this black-eye.

9 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Why does Christian keep getting overruled?

Perhaps because he is inconsistent and that he seems pretty clueless.  

So he gets off because it was not intentional! Well what was he doing then? He did not need to make contact with the Essendon Player as I saw it. It wasn’t vicious by any means but it seemed deliberate contact to me. 

Happy for him to get off based on his exemplary record but really to overturn the MRP must give Christian the Shytes. 

12 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

See here, in particular page 7, part (G).

Thanks.

 

On 5/7/2019 at 9:55 PM, buck_nekkid said:

Surprise surprise.

gablett gets off.  It was a blatant attack on the player, he left the ground, made contact with both arms to the head.

the system is wretched and officially broken.  One rule for the favourites, one rule for us.

At the end of the day Buck the system is more 'compromised' than broken as such.

The AFL wish to protect their major assets as best they can and see them out on the park wherever possible, getting the turnstiles clicking and keeping their ratings on the up and up.

There is a system that's for sure, but as for it being run as a truly  independent/fair one?  Highly unlikely and i doubt it has ever been such.

Very subtely managed and massaged to produce said outcomes regardless of gradings on force, intent etc.

Outcomes by the MRO, Michael Christian are effectively not independent anyway as they are determined in conjunction with the AFL General Manager- Football Operations and can then of.course be appealed and overturned at the tribunal. 

Those reported can also be sent directly to the tribunal by the MRO if deemed fit, and again i assume the AFL GM is involved here.

And their record on upholding original determinations on the big names of late??  (courtesy of the West Australian).  And low and behold the losers aren't big names and if they are...we are talking only a fine.  Surprise surprise.

AFL 2019 TRIBUNAL WINNERS

• Shane Mumford (GWS, striking) - One-game ban reduced to $3000 fine
• Mason Cox (Collingwood, rough conduct) - One-game ban and charge thrown out
• Dustin Martin (Richmond, striking) - Two games down to one
• Taylin Duman (Fremantle, striking) - Two games down to one
• Gary Ablett (Geelong, striking) - One game down to $2000 fine

AFL 2019 TRIBUNAL LOSERS

• Jack Riewoldt (Richmond, misconduct) - $1000 fine increased to $1500
• Luke McDonald (North Melbourne, rough conduct) - One-game ban upheld
• Steven May (Melbourne, rough conduct) - One-game ban upheld
• Taylor Walker (Adelaide, rough conduct) - $3000 fine upheld.

Edited May 8, 20196 yr by Rusty Nails

On 5/7/2019 at 9:55 PM, buck_nekkid said:

Surprise surprise.

gablett gets off.  It was a blatant attack on the player, he left the ground, made contact with both arms to the head.

the system is wretched and officially broken.  One rule for the favourites, one rule for us.

Stupid thread. Shouldn’t have even got a fine. You wouldn’t find a fairer player in 20 years of AFL.