4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

The AFLW Tribunal has shown it is a pushover on appeal for favoured players.   In the first round Ebony Marinoff, the Crows gun midfielder (and touted for the AFLW best player award) had her 3 game suspension overturned - no case to answer.

In fairness to Marinoff the only footage I’ve seen of that incident looks like a pure accident with a player not knowing how to protect themselves. I didn’t see a reportable offence. 
 

This one is different because Freo didn’t even argue it was a bad tackle, they just wanted the tribunal to ignore clear potential for injury.

 

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The AFLW Tribunal has shown it is a pushover on appeal for favoured players.   In the first round Ebony Marinoff, the Crows gun midfielder (and touted for the AFLW best player award) had her 3 game suspension overturned - no case to answer.

The Tribunal must apply the 'potential to do damage' rule.  No way Bowers should get off.  AFL must appeal as they did in the Houli case. 

If it was a lesser name player they would have tougher treatment than Marinoff and Bowers.

Disgraceful inconsistency by that Trubunal

Only Daisy or may be Paxy would qualify for us under the Marinoff/Bowers rule.

Perhsps a one game reduction for Marinoff and Bowers initial charge was light on for potential danger!

15 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Stevo's on the case

 

Absolutely it's Kangaroo Court decision and A disgrace. Who are  the Tribunal members here. 
I f not the AFL are a joke re head injury tackling! 

There is a reasonably high degree of "letting the team down"  in this saga that i would think would have most players there thinking....

5 hours ago, monoccular said:

ANB (and MFC) got well and truly done over on that one especially  by comparison with last night’s decision 

Nothing new. Trengove. ANB. Moloney.  3 stunning decisions. The worst was Moloney, who Tribunal saw and admitted, never made contact.

How's this for a comment:

Dangerfield initially thought a lengthy suspension was not a possibility.....

“After the game, I didn’t think there was anything in it at all, to be honest,” he said. 

“And then the hours unfold ... it goes from ‘I didn’t think there was anything in it’, because it was within play to, ‘I’m in a bit of trouble’.”

Nothing in it? He broke Kelly's nose and knocked him out [censored] cold. 

Nothing in it? 

Even if he thought it was 'within play' (please), surely a player of his experience would know instantly that such a brutal incident would be heavily scrutinized and that he was almost certainly going to be in more than 'a bit of trouble'. 

I mean c'mon, its not 1979!

And leaving aside all of that how do that pathetic comments square with his role as president of the AFLPA?

I have lost total respect for him

 

"on trial for murder"

The poor darling! Imagine how a Bugg or a Neal Bullen feels when they're on remand without the footy media pulling for them.

Good experience for the pres of the players associations, to see how the other half live

34 minutes ago, binman said:

How's this for a comment:

Dangerfield initially thought a lengthy suspension was not a possibility.....

“After the game, I didn’t think there was anything in it at all, to be honest,” he said. 

“And then the hours unfold ... it goes from ‘I didn’t think there was anything in it’, because it was within play to, ‘I’m in a bit of trouble’.”

Nothing in it? He broke Kelly's nose and knocked him out [censored] cold. 

Nothing in it? 

Even if he thought it was 'within play' (please), surely a player of his experience would know instantly that such a brutal incident would be heavily scrutinized and that he was almost certainly going to be in more than 'a bit of trouble'. 

I mean c'mon, its not 1979!

And leaving aside all of that how do that pathetic comments square with his role as president of the AFLPA?

I have lost total respect for him

 

How’s he saying he felt like he was on trial for murder, the bloke has zero self awareness and he is the president of the players lol. Imagine being a [censored] kicker and him swaggering to represent you with zero experience in your shoes. F l o g

29 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"on trial for murder"

The poor darling! Imagine how a Bugg or a Neal Bullen feels when they're on remand without the footy media pulling for them.

Good experience for the pres of the players associations, to see how the other half live

Or Viney after he was reported for tackling Dangerdiver in 2011.

Shades of Eddie McGuire here.  Sees himself as the victim and thinks it's all about him.

Did anyone else notice that his head clash was at the back of his left side, but he had a piece of sticking plaster on his RHS? ? coincidence?

This bloke has lost touch with reality with his on trial for murder remarks. Is he serious? Does he expect sympathy?

Did he watch the story about the suffering of Shane Tuck and the damage hits to the head did to his brain before his tragic death? 

No, I suppose he did not. Silly me, He is always only thinking about himself.

5 hours ago, Dame Gaga said:

This bloke has lost touch with reality with his on trial for murder remarks. Is he serious? Does he expect sympathy?

Did he watch the story about the suffering of Shane Tuck and the damage hits to the head did to his brain before his tragic death? 

No, I suppose he did not. Silly me, He is always only thinking about himself.

I get the feeling he would be a very friendly guy to chat to and all round good bloke, but he also has a bit of a privilege smell to him that when things go against him he expects the rules of the world to bend to suit him. 

I get that the media is asking for comments from him but he’s making a choice to speak to them, he could quite easily just have left his comments afterwards to what he said about understanding the position of the AFL wanting to protect players and say he’ll take the time to reflect and learn. Instead he keeps talking, and coming across as if he’s been victimised. His collision broke a former teammate’s nose and concussed him, he needs to shut his gob and take his lumps. 

An insufferable [censored]. 
Sometimes you can be an elite player and yet such a [censored], you make it impossible for anyone to appreciate your skills as your horrible personality overshadows them. 

13 hours ago, picket fence said:

Did anyone else notice that his head clash was at the back of his left side, but he had a piece of sticking plaster on his RHS? ? coincidence?

The rhs of his head hit the ground when he fell to his right.

Glad everyone can now see Dangerfield for the [censored] [censored] he is.

Me?  I have known it for years   ?

 

 

Edited March 24, 20214 yr by Pickett2Jackson

16 hours ago, Cards13 said:

How’s he saying he felt like he was on trial for murder, the bloke has zero self awareness and he is the president of the players lol. Imagine being a [censored] kicker and him swaggering to represent you with zero experience in your shoes. F l o g

His lack of awareness is how he got involved with that “shocking” Trengove incident all those years ago. 

15 hours ago, picket fence said:

Did anyone else notice that his head clash was at the back of his left side, but he had a piece of sticking plaster on his RHS? ? coincidence?

Maybe he though that showing it on his “media” facade ie right side could draw sympathy or even admiration?

5 hours ago, Pates said:

I get the feeling he would be a very friendly guy to chat to and all round good bloke, but he also has a bit of a privilege smell to him that when things go against him he expects the rules of the world to bend to suit him. 

I get that the media is asking for comments from him but he’s making a choice to speak to them, he could quite easily just have left his comments afterwards to what he said about understanding the position of the AFL wanting to protect players and say he’ll take the time to reflect and learn. Instead he keeps talking, and coming across as if he’s been victimised. His collision broke a former teammate’s nose and concussed him, he needs to shut his gob and take his lumps. 

And why not?  They have so many times, up until this one. 

Edited March 25, 20214 yr by monoccular

I'm intrigued with how the AFL will navigate the issuing of sanctions on actual vs potential damage going forward. The commentary on this site with respect to previous sanctions based on potential have in part contributed to the AFL determining sanction based on outcome, as evidenced by both the Dangerfield and Kiara Bowers findings.

But in doing this, the AFL are not providing guidance on how they'd like to see duty of care in stopping your opponent applied. They are leaving this to the clubs, and providing guidance after the damage has been inflicted. This approach must leave the AFL wide open for future lawsuits. I'm not sure that providing a future fund for players dealing with concussion is going to cut it. But by providing sanctions based on the potential to cause damage, the AFL are potentially killing their sport with players and fans disillusioned with tribunal findings based on opinion and no evidence. It's a real dilemma.

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

I'm intrigued with how the AFL will navigate the issuing of sanctions on actual vs potential damage going forward. The commentary on this site with respect to previous sanctions based on potential have in part contributed to the AFL determining sanction based on outcome, as evidenced by both the Dangerfield and Kiara Bowers findings.

But in doing this, the AFL are not providing guidance on how they'd like to see duty of care in stopping your opponent applied. They are leaving this to the clubs, and providing guidance after the damage has been inflicted. This approach must leave the AFL wide open for future lawsuits. I'm not sure that providing a future fund for players dealing with concussion is going to cut it. But by providing sanctions based on the potential to cause damage, the AFL are potentially killing their sport with players and fans disillusioned with tribunal findings based on opinion and no evidence. It's a real dilemma.

Agree with this.  Leaving the MRO decisions to the medical outcome means it is a lottery for players. The same bump or collision could be no concussion, a broken nose, full concussion just based on the timing and exact point of contact.

Best thing to do, is to tell your players to not bump at all. (I think Goody did this today). it is not worth getting a 3 week ban.

Seeing the Carl Ditterich thread and watching some of his highlights and hearing him say “you were blooded at a young age”. Him saying players of his ilk going through brain issues and how they seaport each other. I’m glad that thuggery has gone out of the game. I used to love that stuff, but at an early 40s with 2 kids 5 and under I’m so happy they don’t have to deal with that rubbish any more.
 

Will contact sports survive is the big question, Rugby is under huge pressure and has take a very conservative approach. AFL, Rugba League, NFL, Ice Hockey... all players have a duty of care that was not around not too long ago and thank goodness.

Bumping was a “beautiful” part of our game. RIP.

Just listened to the W show on the AFL website

https://womens.afl/video/67897/the-w-show-bowers-v-prespakis-tackles-four-games-to-shape-finals

Daisy talks about the Bowers tribunal decision. I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt because she’s conflicted given it was her teammate that was on the wrong end of the tackle. Her comments about Bowers..would never want a fellow professional rubbed out…she’s a good competitor…good for her she’s available to play.. are very trite. I’m a big fan of Daisy and her analysis but this is not her best work.

It’s as plain as day Bowers should have been banned. I hope in private Daisy thinks the same.

When is a suspension not a suspension?

patrick-dangerfield-geelong-suspension-tribunal-vfl-practice-match

Suspended players are being allowed to play in VFL practice matches.  Not sure that is in the spirit of suspensions as commented in the article.

I would think this 'allowance' by the AFL would not apply to VFL games for premiership points. 

imv, if suspended then suspended from all comps.  Otherwise players could go and play in the lower (than VFL) comps just to keep up some match fitness.

Then where does it stop?.

 

Edited March 28, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

When is a suspension not a suspension?

patrick-dangerfield-geelong-suspension-tribunal-vfl-practice-match

Suspended players are being allowed to play in VFL practice matches.  Not sure that is in the spirit of suspensions as commented in the article.

I would think this 'allowance' by the AFL would not apply to VFL games for premiership points. 

imv, if suspended then suspended from all comps.  Otherwise players could go and play in the lower (than VFL) comps just to keep up some match fitness.

Then where does it stop?.

 

Looks like it might be a loophole. Is this a Match conducted by the Controlling Body?

Not defined. But for me, if they're using VFL umpires, VFL timekeepers, etc, in this "scratch match", then it's conducted by the Controlling Body. It's certainly against the spirit of the rules. Sanctioned by the AFL? Of course it is. What is  a rule but something to be meddled with at their convenience?

 

22.4.4 Effect of Suspension
(a) Unless Law 22.4.4(d) or 22.4.4(e) applies, a Player or Official suspended by a Controlling Body is, for the period of the suspension, or while the suspension remains unserved, prohibited from playing or participating in a Match conducted by the Controlling Body imposing the suspension and a Match conducted by any other Controlling Body.
(b) Where a suspended Player or Official transfers from one Club to another Club competing in the same or another competition, the Player or Official shall complete the period of suspension with their new Club if that Club competes  in a competition conducted during the same period as the Club from which the Player has transferred.

 

Match: the contest of Australian Football played between two Teams.

 

Controlling Body: a Controlling Body includes:
(a) the AFL;
(b) AFL Affiliates;
(c) any league, association or body responsible for the organisation and conduct of Matches of Australian Football, who has  determined to play such Matches in accordance with these Laws; and
(d) any league, association or body responsible for the organisation and conduct of Matches of Australian Football which is  affiliated to the AFL Affiliates.