Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks

[Redleg 40,910]

26 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The thing is - it does, privileging outcome over transgression. Just think of our drink-driving laws. Get caught over the limit and you maybe lose your licence. If you just happen to hit someone you will likely go to prison. It's the same crime but comes down to a matter of luck. 

Actually you are confusing 2 separate offences.

It is an offence to drive a car drunk, even if your driving is ok.

It is also an offence to run someone down. 

It is a worse offence if you run someone down, while drunk.

Those laws are well known before you get in a car.

You don't know the law when you tackle, because the law changes depending on who you are, what club you play for and to a degree what if any injury the tackled player receives.

Then again if you play for Melbourne, you can be suspended for not making contact with a player, if that player thinks you might and hurts himself slightly trying to avoid you. ( Brent Moloney got weeks for missing Bartel ). That has never happened before or since. We did nothing about it. Just like you probably won't re ANB. IMO a statement is needed from our Footy Manager on the harsh treatment of our player for identical tackles which receive no penalty at all. After all he was effectively given 25% of this season for a tackle that others are completely getting off.

 

[Skuit 10,031]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Actually you are confusing 2 separate offences.

It is an offence to drive a car drunk, even if your driving is ok.

It is also an offence to run someone down. 

It is a worse offence if you run someone down, while drunk.

Those laws are well known before you get in a car.

 

Okay. 

[nosoupforme 3,085]

Keep the Luke Dahlhaus footage on file for future reference.  It is a farce that the stronger or better clubs can get away with a dangerous tackle.  No different to the ABN incident.  Actions were the same just didn't knock the sense out of him .

Afl said that they were going to get tough on the chicken wing tackle. They did Melbourne copped it because they knew that we weren't going to take it further..  It is only  MFC  they said, they are easy pickings. 

How long are we going to let the AFL  {censored) us around ?

[titan_uranus 25,016]

43 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The thing is - it does, privileging outcome over transgression. Just think of our drink-driving laws. Get caught over the limit and you maybe lose your licence. If you just happen to hit someone you will likely go to prison. It's the same crime but comes down to a matter of luck. 

That's two different offences though.

ANB didn't commit a second offence of "dangerous tackling while drunk". 

He and Dahlhaus did the exact same thing, but ANB got punished more than four times more heavily than Dahlhaus for the consequences.

The concept of a worse outcome leading to a more significant punishment is nothing new nor is it wrong. The issue is when, as is the case with the AFL, the outcome is overly important in the matrix.

The difference between what ANB did and what Dahlhaus did is not terribly great, yet ANB got 4 weeks and Dahlhaus no weeks at all.

IMO, if ANB was a 4 week suspension (and that's arguably justifiable), Dahlhaus was 1 week at a minimum.

[Skuit 10,031]

35 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

That's two different offences though.

ANB didn't commit a second offence of "dangerous tackling while drunk". 

He and Dahlhaus did the exact same thing, but ANB got punished more than four times more heavily than Dahlhaus for the consequences.

The concept of a worse outcome leading to a more significant punishment is nothing new nor is it wrong. The issue is when, as is the case with the AFL, the outcome is overly important in the matrix.

The difference between what ANB did and what Dahlhaus did is not terribly great, yet ANB got 4 weeks and Dahlhaus no weeks at all.

IMO, if ANB was a 4 week suspension (and that's arguably justifiable), Dahlhaus was 1 week at a minimum.

I'm pretty sure that's the point I'm making. Outcome over action. Clearly if you drive drunk you're putting other people at risk. If you get pulled up you cop a slap on the wrist. If you don't get pulled up and someone wanders across the road in front of you and you're not capable of evasive action - you go to prison. Completely a matter of circumstances but same mens rea. The only difference in ANB's case is that it's difficult to establish mens rea or any reckless intent. 

[Scoop Junior 3,471]

37 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

That's two different offences though.

ANB didn't commit a second offence of "dangerous tackling while drunk". 

He and Dahlhaus did the exact same thing, but ANB got punished more than four times more heavily than Dahlhaus for the consequences.

The concept of a worse outcome leading to a more significant punishment is nothing new nor is it wrong. The issue is when, as is the case with the AFL, the outcome is overly important in the matrix.

The difference between what ANB did and what Dahlhaus did is not terribly great, yet ANB got 4 weeks and Dahlhaus no weeks at all.

IMO, if ANB was a 4 week suspension (and that's arguably justifiable), Dahlhaus was 1 week at a minimum.

Agree completely - outcome is a factor but it should not be THE factor.

The AFL can say what they like about the importance of trying to prevent head injuries and concussion but if a decision like this is not appealed by the AFL then they're doing no more than paying lip service to it.

What this decision is telling players is they can sling tackle without fear of suspension provided the player getting tackled manages to break his fall with his arm. And this after the rules were apparently broadened as to what constitutes a dangerous tackle due to the Burgoyne incident. What a shocking message to send.

[Scoop Junior 3,471]

8 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I'm pretty sure that's the point I'm making. Outcome over action. Clearly if you drive drunk you're putting other people at risk. If you get pulled up you cop a slap on the wrist. If you don't get pulled up and someone wanders across the road in front of you and you're not capable of evasive action - you go to prison. Completely a matter of circumstances but same mens rea. The only difference in ANB's case is that it's difficult to establish mens rea or any reckless intent. 

But it's not the same actus reus. The first offence is driving drunk. The second offence is hitting someone while driving drunk. It's not about outcome, it's about a separate action.

[Skuit 10,031]

Okay fine. My logic is obviously completely out of whack with everyone else's. Anyone who wants to justify the act of drink-driving compared to hitting someone while drunk based on our legal code is welcome to do so. I can't see it but whatever. 

[deanox 9,915]

6 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree completely - outcome is a factor but it should not be THE factor.

The AFL can say what they like about the importance of trying to prevent head injuries and concussion but if a decision like this is not appealed by the AFL then they're doing no more than paying lip service to it.

What this decision is telling players is they can sling tackle without fear of suspension provided the player getting tackled manages to break his fall with his arm. And this after the rules were apparently broadened as to what constitutes a dangerous tackle due to the Burgoyne incident. What a shocking message to send.

Its all lip service.  I'd bet they have legal advice that says something like:

"In order to avoid liability in a future compensation claim for brain injuries, you should have a visible record of punishing every instance where a player is concussed to demonstrate that concussions were only caused when other players broke the rules i.e it is their fault not the league's."

[hemingway 7,627]

Forget that ANB is Melbourne. 

If you just look at the outcomes the disparity is simply staggering. We accept that the process is not perfect and we are not dealing with fine points of constitutional law, and certainly those in charge do not have the intellect of High Court judges, but we are simply talking about the complete lack of consistency and common sense. 

Staggering. 

[Kick_It_To_Pickett 3,293]

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Langdon's fine is being appealed tonight - see two posts above yours.

So did it get overturned? Haven’t seen a thing on it

[Gunna’s 2,104]

10 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

So did it get overturned? Haven’t seen a thing on it

Written submission- result tomorrow 

https://www.afl.com.au/news/490575/afl-tribunal-tigers-to-appeal-staging-sanctions

 

[Gunna’s 2,104]

No mention on outcome..........

 

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2019/12/04/68a18e95-713c-4408-a269-06b2aef6db34/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

FMD.

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

Dahlhaus - initial charge is one of careless conduct, medium impact and high contact.

Reading the tweets from Fox Sports of the tribunal proceedings ;

Gleeson :  "The more logical and obvious and natural interpretation of the video is that Crouch's head snaps back up again because it hits the ground and hits it with some force. I'm concluding there was contact and meaningful contact with the ground.   Forceful in this context need only be something more than negligible, slight or brushing contact with the ground and that is what the vision reveals. He is not only rotated into the ground, he is leveraged into the ground.

"We got lucky here and we're all to be grateful that (injury) was not the outcome, but that level of surprise should not benefit Mr Dahlhaus. The force with which he was brought to the ground would typically result in injury...."

"The AFL has taken steps during the course of this season to implement changes to guidelines. The potential to cause serious injury is the very thing that has been beefed up in the changes to this language. You should be satisfied the impact of the tackle had the likelihood of causing serious injury......"

Mr Ihle says : "the revised AFL guidelines only broaden the scope for 'rough conduct', it doesn't change whether the head hit the ground and the level of impact.... the vision shows a tackled player who has the opportunity to get rid of the ball. He tries to take on the tackler. Rather than brace himself for any fall he tries to kick the ball. He's contributed to the overall action. I'm not disputing this was rough conduct but let's look at this in the entire context of what happened....Crouch lands on his upper arm and all the force is absorbed by his upper arm. Perhaps it's the bounce of his body...that causes the head to appear to bounce off the ground....."

After deliberation;

Tribunal Chairman David Jones : Not clearly satisfied on balance of probabilities that the contact was high. They were not clearly satisfied on balance of probabilities that forceful contact with ground by the head occurred as a result of the tackle. 

Free to play. Fine $1500.

Did the AFL ignore their own guidelines? "You should be satisfied the impact of the tackle had the likelihood of causing serious injury."

Sounds like members of the tribunal (ex footballers perhaps ) latched onto a petty fact whether a head actually made contact with the ground or not to let Dahlhaus off. What happened to the other aspects of the dangerous tackle?

On another note, I was appalled to read David Zita of Fox Sports quote Brendon Gale, who cannot comprehend the "outrageous" scrutiny on premiership forward Tom Lynch, saying the star Tiger is being treated "like he's Ivan Milat." How dare he compare the media coverage or public commentary of a pampered AFL player to the reporting of a vicious serial killer. He should apologize to Milat's victim's families for even mentioning a comparison. Another blunder by this stupid, self important club who have lost the plot this year.

They should count their blessings for not being down here in Victoria and shut up. 

 

 

[Lucifers Hero 39,765]

12 hours ago, Pates said:

I’m beyond filthy, the same f-ing tribunal that hung out Nibbler has let Failhouse off. Please please please someone from the club HAS to say something. I don’t care if the AFL cuts of money from us, sanctions every player at the club, fines the president, I DON’T CARE!!!! 

I can’t fathom how the hell Nibbler gets 4 weeks and only a couple of weeks later, the same bloody action gets downgraded to nothing but a fine. The system the [censored], the AFL are [censored], and they can all get [censored]. 

I usually try to avoid the censorship from Demonland but this is an absolute disgrace. 

Therein lies part of the problem.  It wasn't the same Tribunal.  It had a different Chair and a different panel (ex players) with different interpretations and different instructions/agendas.  Remember last year Toby Greene got a week suspension before the GWS/Collingwood prelim final.  The Tribunal were nearly all ex-Coll players as (was and is) the MRO.   If the AFL can't ensure indpendence for a prelim what hope is there in season.

And the Tribunal don't look at 'precedent' and I doubt most of the panel would understand what it means.  Also it usually doesn't allow videos of past similar events (altho this is being relaxed these days) which is a perfect smoke screen to say 'each case on its merits' but it really means 'we can do what we like the AFL want us to do'.

There is no chance of consistency by Christian and even less so by the Tribunal until they have independent people on the Tribunal and the same people/Chair case to case.  Of course it will never happen as the AFL likes to manipulate outcomes.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 29,613]

#freenibbler

[Lord Nev 13,512]

 

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

As we all know, the AFL have their favs both club and player wise.  Unfortunately for too long we haven't been one of them and we continually cop the short end of the stick....and seem to accept it more often than not.

How does a club that rarely pushes back with appeals or stand up for it's players in glaring examples of injustice such as the ANB one (and there's been others eg ; this from 2010 to an ex R.I.P. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/sport/afl/no-charge-after-kennedy-breaks-colin-sylvias-jaw-20100315-q9bw.html )

then expect that its players (in general) will do the opposite and stand up and fight for the jumper?

ANB was always going to be outed but to roll over and accept 4 weeks then cop the SHIZENHaus decision without a yelp?

[Lucifers Hero 39,765]

21 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

A bit wishy washy.  It would have been more powerful if he had mentioned the ANB ban.

[titan_uranus 25,016]

10 hours ago, Skuit said:

Okay fine. My logic is obviously completely out of whack with everyone else's. Anyone who wants to justify the act of drink-driving compared to hitting someone while drunk based on our legal code is welcome to do so. I can't see it but whatever. 

Hold on @Skuit, that's hardly fair. I'm not justifying the act of drink-driving.

The distinction between what's happened here and your example is that Dahlhaus and ANB are both guilty of the same offence, but ANB's offence did greater damage than Dahlhaus'. Your example involves ANB committing a second, separate, offence on top of the first one. That's not what happened.

As I said though, I agree with the principle that it's fine for ANB to have received a harsher penalty than Dahlhaus. The issue I have is that Dahlhaus' penalty is borderline non-existent (is there any evidence to suggest $1,500 fines deter players, or are considered punishment to players?) and is too far away from ANB's penalty. That indicates to me another example of the AFL over-weighting the importance of the outcome on the penalty, when the action should be what is the key factor. When you add to that the repeated instances of the AFL saying that sling tackles are bad, the head needs to be protected, and the possibility of head damage is enough to make sling tackles bad, IMO it all points to a sign that the AFL's system on this issue is not working.

[sue 9,102]

Another question for our legal experts looking at the weight the outcome should have in these cases.  Consider the pedestrian hit by the drunk driver.  If for example, the pedestrian ran against a red light which may have led to him being hit by any driver, sober or not, does that help the driver.  Does the fact that in ANB's case the 'pedestrian' kept trying to kick the ball rather than protect himself carry any weight?

[layzie 33,796]

10 hours ago, Skuit said:

Okay fine. My logic is obviously completely out of whack with everyone else's. Anyone who wants to justify the act of drink-driving compared to hitting someone while drunk based on our legal code is welcome to do so. I can't see it but whatever. 

I get your thinking on the outcome element. There was a time when we judged these things purely on intent and the outcome or level of damage was not as much of a consideration. This has changed and is still very much taking some getting used to. 

[godees 861]

Absolutely absurd that Langdon has been fined for that tackle

[DeeZee 7,392]

With dahlhaus getting off , the AFL are now saying it’s ok to sling tackle.

Absolutely ridiculous and it defies logic.

[sue 9,102]

No depths to which the AFL won't sink sadly.