3 minutes ago, mo64 said:

If Rioli chose to contest the mark, he would have had his arms in a position where he could have taken a chest mark. He chose to turn sideways, which could be construed as bracing himself against contact or deliberate head high contact to Rowell with a hip and shoulder. As with the Mitch Robison case, bracing yourself is no defence.

FWIW, the tribunal panel member's name is Jeff Gleeson.

Interestingly he was for a long time the AFL's preferred advocate for Tribunal hearings.

This year he was appointed by the AFL to sit as its sole chairperson for Tribunal hearings.

So they took their advocate, planted him into the Tribunal seat, and then on their first real test he found against them.

It's kinda funny in a way, but not because I think he's got this one very wrong.

The funny thing about those that are defending Rioli is that they will be the same people screaming "Why didn't the AFL do something!" in about 10 years when all the lawsuits make the AFL bankrupt. It's coming, and cases like this will only make it harder for the AFL to defend itself.

I must say I’m baffled by the Rioli decision, by the time he leaves the ground he’s taken his eyes off the ball and becomes totally ballistic. To use a Soccer analogy they give a red card to players who tackle dangerously the moment they leave the ground regardless of whether they get the ball. There must be a similar precedent set where if you choose to leave the ground in a dangerous manor and no longer show duty of care to your fellow player than you must be sanctioned. 

What’s the bet the Nibbler will do something similar and get 4-6 weeks. 

The tribunal reasoning for Rioli getting off seems to be:

"but you know, that Riewoldt mark? that's a reason right?"

Replace Rowell with a smaller/skinnier player, he would likely be concussed/injured

then the outcome would be 3 weeks plus for Rioli

so the outcome of the tribunal is based on the size of the bloke hit

Also - just because Rowell wasn't concussed on the night, this type of hit can build up over time and contribute to long term brain issues.  the AFL must be keen for some lawsuits unless then overrule this farce

Maybe the tribunal were on some of willies dope. O.K. So he gets off but to then rub Robinson out is a joke. 

49 minutes ago, DubDee said:

The tribunal reasoning for Rioli getting off seems to be:

"but you know, that Riewoldt mark? that's a reason right?"

Don't they realise that Riewoldt took the mark; didn't spoil it.

Edited March 22, 20223 yr by monoccular

What a shocking night for the MRP

The AFL better appeal this one today, otherwise the entire year will be a mess 

17 minutes ago, dl4e said:

Maybe the tribunal were on some of willies dope. O.K. So he gets off but to then rub Robinson out is a joke. 

Agree or as the late great Bobby Davis once said, “fair dinkum unbelievable” 

It really does make you wonder about the competency and objectivity of the decision makers. It seems to fly in the face of the AFLs commentary and actions regarding head high contact and the rolling uncontrollable snowball of current and future litigation which as others have pointed out is going to be “huge.”  Peter Jess will be rubbing his hands. 

I’ ve forgotten….   was it Rioli or L Jetta that mocked Gawn after Liam Ryan took that hanger in Perth?

It only took one round for the MRP to completely stuff up this season. Completely tone deaf to player safety. They act like a get out of jail free card. They seem to be influenced by populist and emotional reactions of fans and media. Now we have former West Coast player Daniel Venables threatening to sue over his concussion issues. The flood gates will open soon. The AFL should set a more stringent standard criteria for lodging appeals or get rid of the MRP. 

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by John Crow Batty

On 3/9/2022 at 8:30 PM, Sydney_Demon said:

I'm no Geelong apologist but really? Thuggery? I don't like the way Selwood always whinges to umpires and plays for free kicks but I don't think he has a thuggery element to his game. And Tom Hawkins?

Hawkins regularly recklessly clobbers opponents with forearm or elbow. Is every time an accident?

Three cases. Three errant decisions. And sadly, our Neita is on the panel.

The AFL must appeal to overturn each decision or the rules will mean nothing and there will be no precedents.

Can you believe using a Reiwoldt mark as a defence and Sloane using his own former eye problems as a defence? Ludricous reasoning by all concerned.

Robinson was standing still and was hit by a head. Is there not a duty of care owed by the owner of the head to the player?

Never thought the day would come where I was defending Mitch Robinson but I feel for the poor bloke. He could have gone full Michael Long / Troy Simmonds and caused some serious damage but instead he stopped and braced for oncoming contact. To my eye he displayed & exercised his duty of care. His only other option, given the speed of the incident, was to "flop". Had he done so, yes, contact would have been avoided but he'd have been mocked for the rest of his career and there'd be a conga line of former players / commentators going "soft" and "that's not good enough".

The game remains a 360 degree contact sport. At speed. Despite all best efforts from players & administrators, accidents will still happen. Not every incident needs a scapegoat.

Draper should have got 1 week.

Rioli should have 2 weeks.

Mitch Robinson should have been cleared.

The Sloane one, I'm comfortable with a fine I think.

What a horrible way to start the year for the AFL and tribunal.

 

 

 

In light of “free Willy” getting off Brisbane should issue the AFL with a WTF not a please explain. The system is broken when it is about the outcome or size of person on the receiving end instead of the actual incident itself.

Another example of the AFL wanting to limit head knocks and future concussion liability, and the tribunal in diametric opposition.

1 hour ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

In light of “free Willy” getting off Brisbane should issue the AFL with a WTF not a please explain. The system is broken when it is about the outcome or size of person on the receiving end instead of the actual incident itself.

 

7 hours ago, Pates said:

I must say I’m baffled by the Rioli decision, by the time he leaves the ground he’s taken his eyes off the ball and becomes totally ballistic. To use a Soccer analogy they give a red card to players who tackle dangerously the moment they leave the ground regardless of whether they get the ball. There must be a similar precedent set where if you choose to leave the ground in a dangerous manor and no longer show duty of care to your fellow player than you must be sanctioned. 

What’s the bet the Nibbler will do something similar and get 4-6 weeks. 

Baffled, I am absolutely FLABERGASTED at the inconsistency and lack of logic applied in this case. Mitch Robinson should feel aggrieved. I'll tell you now that if Willie Rioli was Rod Grinter or Byron Pickett, he would have got 6 weeks !

 

 

WT (DOUBLE)F....

I'm not surprised that they haven't appealed. The AFL have set up the MRO and Tribunal to be Outcome Based, not Intent Based. This was always bound to happen when the player that was hit didn't receive any "immediate" and evident damage. I say immediate because even though he wasn't concussed, the effect of minor knocks can build up under the surface. 

The AFL needs to completely overhaul the MRO and Tribunal to reduce the Outcome Based Factor and Increase the Intent Based Factor. After Rioli knew he would be second to the ball, he showed no intent to protect the oncoming player. Instead he only cared about his own safety. Rowell be damned!

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by AshleyH30

So they wont appeal coz they AFL dont think that their apoeal read again THE AFL WHO RUN THE GAME,...Dont think they will win

ABSOLUTE BASKET CASE IF THIS IS TRUE

AMATEUR HOUR AT PLAY

Not just the tail waggin the dog, the flea is waggimg the dogs tail!

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by picket fence

4 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

Draper should have got 1 week.

Rioli should have 2 weeks.

Mitch Robinson should have been cleared.

The Sloane one, I'm comfortable with a fine I think.

What a horrible way to start the year for the AFL and tribunal.

 

 

 

Totally agree. I can sort of see the Rioli counter argument (although I don't agree with it) but the Draper, Robinson and original Sloane decisions are staggering bad. 

Draper blatantly punched his opponent in the stomach.

Robinson couldn't possibly avoid contact.

Sloane was careless at worst.

How does the MRO see it so differently to 95% of fans and the media?