Jump to content

Tribunal & MRP 2021

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Danger elected to front end bump a player who had already disposed of the ball, yes it's a split second decision but he made the wrong one. There is no way he can claim he was protecting himself, he was the one who initiated the contact which resulted in a broken nose and a concussion. Would love to see 3 weeks but I think it will end up being two because of his "great" record.

 

 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    Self-protection? He should get an extra week for telling porkies.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 5

    Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it 3 weeks (or more) if 'Appeal' is dismissed and if the 'Appeal' is upheld he gets zero weeks?  ie All or nothing?

    Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

    Edited by Lucifer's Hero

  • Quote
    •  
    1 hour ago, america de cali said:


    Dangerfield saying he did nothing wrong and pleading self protection. He’s giving heads up to the tribunal to what their decision must be. 

    https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/you-ve-got-to-look-after-yourself-as-well-dangerfield-claims-no-realistic-alternative-20210322-p57cwt.html

    I’ve made it know I don’t like dangerdiver and this just confirms my distaste even more. He even swan dived after the incident, embarrassing and for a guy who spouts off on player safety he did a very poor interpretation of trying to protect old mate.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:If you give Danger 4 then what do you give the guy who genuinely bumps high and goes straight through someone?

    That’s exactly what the AFL want that guy thinking before he acts

  • Quote

    8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

    Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it the 3 weeks (or more) if Appeal is dismissed and if the Appeal is upheld he gets zero weeks?

    Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

    2019 TRIBUNAL GUIDELINES [the most recent publicly available ones]

     

    2.1 THE REPORTING PROCESS

    (D) TRIBUNAL HEARINGS

    The Tribunal will hear a charge for which a Player has pleaded not guilty or has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. The Tribunal may find the Player guilty of the original charge or lesser charge, or may find the Player not guilty of any charge. The Tribunal will determine the appropriate sanction for the ultimate Reportable Offence it finds a Player to have committed (if any).

    [The above also applies to instances where the MRP has sent it straight to the tribunal]

    ...

    4.4 PROCEDURAL AND OTHER MATTERS

    (E) EXCEPTIONAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES

    Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply financial or suspension sanctions that would usually apply to a particular Classified Offence, the Tribunal may impose any sanction it considers appropriate (as per Regulation 18.6(a)(ii)). Exceptional and compelling circumstances may arise where: (i) A Player has an exemplary record; (ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation; (iii) A Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence; or (iv) There are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event or course of conduct.

    (F) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

    In determining the appropriate classification to be given to a Reportable Offence, the MRO will not take into account any provocation or whether a Player was acting in self-defence. However, while the Tribunal will generally apply the sanction corresponding to a particular offence, the Tribunal has the power in exceptional and compelling circumstances for the Tribunal to substitute another outcome if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so.

     

    [Is it just me, or do sections E and F above contradict each other? re self defence]

  • Quote
    • Thanks 4
    14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

    Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty?  Or is it 3 weeks (or more) if 'Appeal' is dismissed and if the 'Appeal' is upheld he gets zero weeks?  ie All or nothing?

    Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

    They reduced Houli's penalty after a hearing, took in all the character witness stuff with a letter from the PM. Then the AFL appealed and got the penalty reinstated I believe.

    So I think the tribunal got the message then not to go messing around with penalties. 

    Dangerfield will argue for nothing and most likely fail.

    Or he'll argue it was high impact not severe and could get 2 not 3 if he goes that route. 

    If the tribunal finds him guilty on severe impact I'm confident it will be 3 or more.

  • Quote
    •  
    5 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    [Is it just me, or do sections E and F above contradict each other? re self defence]

    It looks like the MRO can't apply self-defence but the tribunal can.

    In other words Chrisso grades the acts without any context and then the tribunal assess things such as compelling circumstances. 

    I don't think that's what Danger is going for though. They are saying it isn't a bump similar to the Jack Viney incident. There's a fine line between brace and bump.

    It's more lineball than Danger's one because the ball is in dispute but if this happened again next week would you call it a bump or brace? I'm genuinely on the fence.

     

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    Dangermouse will argue that it was in self defence and that no-one could possibly have foreseen a clash of heads and that he was only a little bit off  the ground and he was only a little bit not going for the ball and that he was exercising his duty of care in that he could have snapped Kelly in two or given him covid, and the tribunal will accept all that with a straight face.

  • Quote
    • Haha 2

    1 hour ago, america de cali said:


    Dangerfield saying he did nothing wrong and pleading self protection. He’s giving heads up to the tribunal to what their decision must be. 

    https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/you-ve-got-to-look-after-yourself-as-well-dangerfield-claims-no-realistic-alternative-20210322-p57cwt.html

     

    1 hour ago, Demonland said:

     

     

    And this maggot is the  president of the AFLPA!  Doesn't even take concussion seriously.

    He should put his hand up for once, be a man and take a 6 week holiday.  The head is sacrosanct after all, or so the AFL keep telling us.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    11 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    (E) EXCEPTIONAL AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES

    Where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply financial or suspension sanctions that would usually apply to a particular Classified Offence, the Tribunal may impose any sanction it considers appropriate (as per Regulation 18.6(a)(ii)). Exceptional and compelling circumstances may arise where: (i) A Player has an exemplary record; (ii) A Reportable Offence was committed in response to provocation; (iii) A Reportable Offence was committed in self-defence; or (iv) There are multiple Reportable Offences that arise from the same event or course of conduct.

    Thanks.

    From the Age article it seems Danger is relying on the self-defence exception to get off.

  • Quote
    13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    It's more lineball than Danger's one because the ball is in dispute but if this happened again next week would you call it a bump or brace? I'm genuinely on the fence.

    It is a tough one. Basically the situation is, if you elect to bump, and there's head contact, tough bickies. It's on you.

    But wait!

    4.3 REPORTABLE OFFENCES (D) FORCEFUL FRONT-ON CONTACT Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball is a Reportable Offence. Unless Intentional, such actions will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or » The bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

     

    It looks in the video as if Viney bumped Lynch and the head contact was with the other Melbourne player ... which Viney most likely wouldn't have anticipated. You can see it going either way but the decision to let him off was probably right. (Don't ask me how I would feel if it was Danger and some Geelong player sandwiching Clarry or Tracc.) The rules were different back then but the Trengove principal still applied which is why Viney was charged at all.

  • Quote

    AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE RULES 19 March 2020

    41. Disciplinary Tribunal

    41.18 Public Comment and Criticism

    a) A person subject to the AFL Rules and Regulations shall not publicly comment on: (i) the contents of a Notice of Charge prior to the conclusion of any determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal, as the case may be: (ii) a Notice of Investigation and any matter touching upon or concerning an Investigation under the AFL Rules and Regulations, until completion of such investigation and relevant determination by the Disciplinary Tribunal.

    (b) Where a person contravenes Rule 41.18(a)(i), the person’s Club shall also be liable to a sanction unless the person establishes to the reasonable satisfaction of the General Counsel that such public comment was not intended to influence or affect the conduct of the Disciplinary Tribunal hearing or the process of the investigation, as the case may be

    Sanction: Maximum 20 Units

    [1 unit = $1000]

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    29 minutes ago, Demonland said:

    ?

    That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

    He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time (10 steps) to assess the options.

    Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

    Edited by Lucifer's Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Author
    1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

    That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

    He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time to assess the options.

    Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

    Surely this evidence sinks any defence Dangerfield puts up. Must get 3 or more otherwise the whole system is a joke which we all know it already is.

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

    That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media.

    He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!.  He clearly had the option to tackle.  Chose not to.  So much for his defence of split second decision making.  He had plenty of time (10 steps) to assess the options.

    Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion.   Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

    Option 2. He could have tried to smother the hand pass release.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    5 minutes ago, Demonland said:

    Surely this evidence sinks any defence Dangerfield puts up. Must get 3 or more otherwise the whole system is a joke which we all know it already is.

    All the stars are aligning for a fine and eligibilty for the Brownlow

  • Quote
    23 minutes ago, Demonland said:

    ?

    Yep, he accelerates into the contact. No apparent thought of smothering the handball.

    A telling part of this episode happens seconds prior to the hit, if anyone can find the vision. Dangerfield is brought down in a vigorous tackle as he motors through the centre with the ball. As a result he was fired up and angry, and Kelly was the next target to present on his radar.

  • Quote
    • Like 6

    17 minutes ago, america de cali said:

    Option 2. He could have tried to smother the hand pass release.

    So in summary:

    • Had 10 steps to assess options (2 - 3 seconds)
    • Chose not to tackle
    • Chose not to smother
    • Chose to bump
    • Picked up speed to reach Kelly
    • Contact was late
    • No evidence of self-defence

    It is a compelling case to find him guilty.

    There is no evidence to get him off - except for the AFL's 'secret herbs and spices. 

    Edited by Lucifer's Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 8

    If he does get let off, rest assured the next Alex Neal Bullen type who does similar will get six weeks to make up for it.

    Edited by america de cali

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
     
    53 minutes ago, Demonland said:

    ?

    That vision is even more damning!! Should get 8 weeks He instigated the contact. Actually make it 10 weeks 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Haha
        • Like
      • 91 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Haha
      • 351 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Haha
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All