8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yeah, just like poor old byron

Yes, Byron is doing it tough these days: all that bloody rain...

So who is on the panel again?

Suprise, Surprise, Surprise!  Not!  St Kilda are using the English bump on Blakey example (see my posts on previous page) in their defence of Ryder. 

AFL is saying that evidence shouldn't be permitted...and isn't a comparable incidents and that he wasn't charged.  Maybe they worry using it as evidence will show up their inconsistencies.

I can't see how a reasonable person doesn't let Ryder play when comparing the two incidents.

The AFL have backed themselves into a corner by again going easy on an incident early in the season then try and wriggle their way out of the next and later incidents

I agree with @titan_uranus's post above that if you elect to bump, any head high contact is a suspension of at least a week then more based on severity of impact/damage.

Edit:  Tribunal Chairman has allowed the English incident as evidence.

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

3 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

In the spirit of the game, he should get off. From the perspective of what the AFL wants, he should get suspended. Looking at previous performances of the tribunal, who the bl00dy hell knows.

I reckon if you're defending yourself, in a more or less passive act, then if heads clash, so be it. Split happens. Like the Robinson one a couple of weeks ago. He wasn't trying to do anything but protect himself.  But it you take positive action, an aggressive act, even if it's a football act, to bump a player, either to unsettle him, dispossess him, or sit him on his backside, then the onus is on you.

The AFL have (as usual) not been clear on this. That the head is sacrosanct only applies in situations that no one can clearly define, including the AFL.

Nonetheless, Ryder was not in the "passive" category. He could have tackled or shoved. The other guy didn't help his cause by changing direction. But in the new "head is sacrosanct" world, a suspension is not unreasonable and Ryder can only rue that it's a fair cop. (He can further rue that others should have gone too.)

 

 

19 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

AFL is saying that evidence shouldn't be permitted...and isn't a comparable incidents and that he wasn't charged.  Maybe they worry using it as evidence will show up their inconsistencies.

I can't see how a reasonable person doesn't let Ryder play when comparing the two incidents.

Business as usual for the AFL. Precedent means nothing to them. The MRO should be sponsored by whoever makes floats for fishing. Just bobbing around in the current this way and that, with no clear direction.

They make it up as they go and have done so for 10 years or more.

23 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Business as usual for the AFL. Precedent means nothing to them. The MRO should be sponsored by whoever makes floats for fishing. Just bobbing around in the current this way and that, with no clear direction.

They make it up as they go and have done so for 10 years or more.

The Saints are giving the Tribunal a lesson in Precendence.

Firstly, the English incident above.

Three more examples:

The first: Sam Reid's bump on Nat Fyfe (2021), which resulted in a two-week ban to Reid. Saints say force much greater, direct impact to the head and well off the ball.

The second: Jordan De Goey's bump on Clayton Oliver (2021), which resulted in a one-match ban.  Saints say player off a long run up hits head with shoulder, no attempt to stop and that is assessed as 'medium' impact. It's the very opposite, Saints say, to Ryder.

The third: Levi Casboult's bump on Alex Pearce (2021), which .was judged 'low' impact.  Says the incident bodes "quite favourably" for Ryder given Ryder's conduct compared to Casboult's.

MRO:  Take note!

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

Well, more power to the Saints. I think more clubs should appeal, and serve up all manner of previous inconsistencies (of which there is no shortage), if for no other reason than to embarrass the AFL. If they have any shame at all -- long bow, I admit -- maybe that would force them into some kind of consistency.

Ban stands. 

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Ban stands. 

 

What total, utter crap.

I can't see the functional difference between Ryder and English. English should have received two weeks.

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any bump that causes a head knock.

No one wants to see dangerous tackles or contacts. No one wants to see head injuries or concussion.

But footy features strong blokes competing at speed so injuries will be an inevitable consequence.

Given the vagaries of the Match Review set up are we getting to a point where players will be instructed to avoid physical contact?

Is the physical aspect of our game in danger of disappearing to the extent that footy will just not be the same game?

8 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

No one wants to see dangerous tackles or contacts. No one wants to see head injuries or concussion.

But footy features strong blokes competing at speed so injuries will be an inevitable consequence.

Given the vagaries of the Match Review set up are we getting to a point where players will be instructed to avoid physical contact?

Is the physical aspect of our game in danger of disappearing to the extent that footy will just not be the same game?

Precisely: Ryder should have jumped out of Day's way, see...

Then he would have been reported for 'Diving'.....

Edited April 13, 20223 yr by dieter

46 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I can't see the functional difference between Ryder and English. English should have received two weeks.

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any  bump that causes a head knock.

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any  intentional bump that causes a head knock.  

Every week there are accidental clashes.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, if they are serious they will penalise those who intentionally or recklessly drive their head blindly into opponents legs and torsos, or deliberately draw head high contact, instead of rewarding them.

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any  intentional bump that causes a head knock.  

Every week there are accidental clashes.

As I may have mentioned elsewhere, if they are serious they will penalise those who intentionally or recklessly drive their head blindly into opponents legs and torsos, or deliberately draw head high contact, instead of rewarding them.

The AFL missed the boat on this a couple of years ago when they decided to call "play on" should a player deliberately duck and cause high contact to himself, rather than paying a free kick for high contact as was previously the case.

What they should have done was made that a free kick against the player who ducked. In that way, there's a penalty against the team

Players would soon have that action coached out of them. And if they don't, they don't get a game

5 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I can't see the functional difference between Ryder and English. English should have received two weeks.

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any bump that causes a head knock.

A small difference is that the Ryder bump caused a concussion, forcing the player out of the game and missing probably this week at least, while Blakey got up from the English bump and played on.

The notion that the finding and the penalty is dependent on the extent of concussion to the player is totally unsatisfactory. The magic of our great game has, until quite recently, been that free kicks and penalties have been awarded from the contest, not from the outcome.

What happens when a fair and timely bump causes a concussion? And what happens if a bone shattering bump that is marginally on the edge of the rules causes no ill effects? Based on the outcomes, is the first one a two week penalty at the tribunal and the second one maybe, but not certainly, a free kick only at most.

What happens when a Ryder makes contact with a Daniels? It can only be head high but if the contact is within the rules what is the decision? Should Ryder withdraw? Or should Daniels withdraw to protect his own head?  Where is this discussion leading? It's nuts.

It might be time to reconsider the application of the rules. For example, should the rule be framed in such a way that any front on contact is penalised whereas any side contact is not? Could it be that the player who initiates the contact by driving his head into the body is penalised as suggested above?

How to define front on will be the next consideration. Ryder was definitely front on but perhaps Rioli was not. How to define making contact will also be difficult.

Here's a job for Gill in retirement. Rewrite the rules so that players, umpires, MRO, tribunal and spectators can clearly understand their intent and their application. When we were young in school we only need a few rules for a game - in the back, round the neck, trip, holding the ball and dropping the ball. I commend these simple rules and meanings as a starting point for Gill.

6 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Is the physical aspect of our game in danger of disappearing to the extent that footy will just not be the same game?

 

About as much chance of that happening as no physical contact between you and the maid at the manner i would think Uncle...

100% the correct decision on Ryder.

Edited April 13, 20223 yr by titan_uranus

23 hours ago, monoccular said:

If the AFL are serious about concussion and future costly liabilities, they'll suspend players for any  intentional bump that causes a head knock. 

Avoidability is a factor, not just intention.

Protected species

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Protected species

Unbelievable! Harry Mackay’s (deserved a fine) but was so much milder than that! Trent Cotchin has also gotten away with intentionally kicking Taylor Walker with the studs of his boots. Taylor Walker was on radio saying if he or Toby Greene did that it would be 4 weeks but for Trent ‘protected species’ Cotchin it’s only a fine. The MRP is a joke, a protectionist, uneven, totally unfair joke.

Hawkins should have been reported. Cotchin should have been reported.

The umpires have been neutered to the point where they will not lay reports, and why should they when the controlling body  undermines them by doublespeaking these incidents away.

What a shambolic state for the game when the officials do not enforce the rules of the game. Why have these rules at all?

22.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES 
22.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(n) attempting to kick another person;
(u) engaging in an act of staging;

The Cotchin one is unbelievable. He deliberately kicked out with his studs in retaliation. Would be a red card and 3-4 week ban in soccer. 

such a cheap shot. Deserved 2 weeks imo. I’m glad Walker has the guts to speak up about it

the MRO is so much worse that last year and it was pathetic already. 

So the message has gone out. Staging is worth trying -- you might get away with it. Kicking is okay.

One week suspension for these characters nips the problem in the bud.

Now there will be more incidents of staging and kicking and the AFL will tie themselves in knots without fixing the problem.

10 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

So the message has gone out. Staging is worth trying -- you might get away with it. Kicking is okay.

One week suspension for these characters nips the problem in the bud.

Now there will be more incidents of staging and kicking and the AFL will tie themselves in knots without fixing the problem.

The inducement to stage is doubled by the thought that your getting a totally undeserved free will lead to an opponent lifting their arms (or rolling their eyes) and you'll get 50m as well.

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

So the message has gone out. Staging is worth trying -- you might get away with it. Kicking is okay.

One week suspension for these characters nips the problem in the bud.

Now there will be more incidents of staging and kicking and the AFL will tie themselves in knots without fixing the problem.

Exactly. After so much arm wringing about protecting umpires at lower leagues they will now have to deal with countless young footballers flopping around for frees or kicking each other with studs. If the AFL has such a direct impact on the lower leagues as the dissent rule is currently claiming then surely we need to stamp out violence and unsportsmanlike behaviour in the AFL also?