Chandler Tackle

[picket fence 17,169]

1 minute ago, Skuit said:

The word reckless doesn't appear in the tribunal guidelines. It's either intentional or careless. 

So Liam Ryan intentional then

[Go the Biff 3,423]

Just now, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

West coast will challenge the Ryan one

I wish but they've dodged a bullet here and they should be smart enough to know it. Tribunal would likely increase the penalty

[Willmoy1947 4,089]

Unlike a lot of incidents this MFC player showed virtually instant remorse.Even a Court recognises remorse not at this bloody kangaroo court.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,775]

2 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The word reckless doesn't appear in the tribunal guidelines. It's either intentional or careless. 

Well I learnt something new today

Just looked up the matrix and that's right

I thought it was 3 grades and 3 impact levels, but it's 2 x 4

That being the case, should've been Careless and High Impact (as there is a severe option)

[deanox 9,922]

My take on Chandler:

Tackle is at absolute speed.

He tackles from behind, tries to turn the player so he doesn't land on his back, but due to the way Foley falls he turns back. I think you can really see the intent to turn Foley there, it just wasn't successful.

Chandler let's go of Foley's arms on the way down, not perfectly, but he does. They aren't pinned when he hits the ground.

Chandler also doesn't land on Foley's back. To me this is actually a pretty exceptional effort: he manages to get his body across Foley from left to right in the tackle and then lands on knees and his hands to avoid just riding him into the ground.

To me this shows care.

It was graded as careless. But I think it is more fairly considered an accident that occured when a player was performing a legal action (tackle) while trying to stay within the rules. 

And I don't think you should be suspended for accidents while trying to stay within the rules.

 

It certainly wasn't intentional. And this is also different than say throwing a random elbow out and "accidentally" getting someone high, in which a player would be careless.

[dl4e 5,851]

What an absolute disgrace. As far as I am concerned the MRO and AFL Tribunal can all kindly go and get stuffed.

[buck_nekkid 5,861]

Chandler result is not unreasonable.  Rode him into the ground with arms pinned and he was concussed.  

 

[JTR 2,846]

32 minutes ago, Jontee said:

I suppose Bowey got up and played on whereas Foley didn't.  Hence 1 game vs 2 games.

Feel sorry for kade as there was no malice in it.....

This.

Once again, a MRO decision is based on the outcome, rather than the action.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by these results.

AFL has been doing this type of inconsistency for decades. They will always throw the book at no names and protect the big names. it always has been and always will be about money, players ability to earn, prestige, ratings, opinions, selling papers and subscriptions and TV rights.

More the stars paly the more money the league makes, its pretty simple when you think about it. AFL has always ruled in its own best interest.

 

[bing181 9,238]

43 minutes ago, Skuit said:

The word reckless doesn't appear in the tribunal guidelines. It's either intentional or careless. 

Here's how they define the two:

Careless conduct
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players.
 

Intentional conduct
A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. 

 

[Flemo56 396]

A great tackle with an unfortunate outcome for Chandler, I’d respect one week because Foleys out for at least a week but two for a a good tackle.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Liam Ryan getting a week is just disgraceful 

Off The Ball Incident 

[Jaded No More 68,915]

A complete joke that Ryan with intent to hurt gets 1 and Chandler gets 2. The AFL is [censored]. 

[Salems Lot 2,535]

1 hour ago, Call Me What You Will said:

As soon as the commentators began the narrative it was clear our lad was going to be done over by the system. And of course, those of us who have been around for a while knew how it would stack up against the Ryan incident. Melbourne consistently gets shafted by the farcical and some would say corrupt MRO. (See multiple posts in the last 4 pages for details).

Having said that, this is the last frontier for the “new Melbourne” - we simply must take it as high as it will go. If Kade is to get 2 weeks, then Gary Pert, Kate Roffey and the whole club must make a stand and if he does go down, we all go down together.

I may have a job for your speech writer! Most excellently put sir!

[spirit of norm smith 16,459]

19 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

A complete joke that Ryan with intent to hurt gets 1 and Chandler gets 2. The AFL is [censored]. 

Agree. One bloke had intent to hit a player in the head with his full body.  The other was an accidental tackle that was at full pace. Chandler - 1 week. Ryan - 2 or 3 weeks is fairer outcome imv.  

[The heart beats true 18,123]

I don’t like it, but I saw it coming.

No name player + concussion =
AFL scapegoat 

[ding 5,126]

"Head is sacrosanct" but even more sacrosanct if a no-name infringes.

AFL version of equality. 

[Dido 78]

I thought the emphasis on the rules were protect the head at all cost. Feel for Chandler. He walks his dog in the same park as me and he is an upstanding fella and could see how shock he was over the incident. But just because Bowey is 'rubber man' does not justify Ryan's 1 week suspension. That action, which the AFL is suppose to be stamping out, would have knocked most players in the league. 

 

[Willmoy1947 4,089]

18 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Agree. One bloke had intent to hit a player in the head with his full body.  The other was an accidental tackle that was at full pace. Chandler - 1 week. Ryan - 2 or 3 weeks is fairer outcome imv.  

Ryan has shown (the wrong) intent before.

Probably peed off he couldn't get  another speccie on Max's hip and back again. 

I would appeal ASAP.  

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Nuh

The last part of Chandler tackle where he drove forward was the bad bit, early in the tackle he was partly turning sideways and had that motion continued less or no damage would have occurred. Pinned arms and driven fwd was dangerous. Granted it was one motion, but the more times I watch the worse it looks.

Two weeks is harsh, would've preferred 2 down to 1

I can't understand the Ryan one??? 🤷‍♂️

Ryan went past the ball and chose to bump and only graded careless. Also the impact was flush and knocked bowey off his feet, but only medium impact

This is a clear case of penalising the result and not the action, and it was a sickening deliberate action

How can they possibly have graded the Ryan bump as accidental? Clearly it was intentional.

1 hour ago, JTR said:

This.

Once again, a MRO decision is based on the outcome, rather than the action.

90% of football people believe it should be the action, not the outcome. You can't control the outcome so why should you be punished for that component? In what way did Ryan bump in a way that meant Bowey wasn't going to get concussed or worse? Unfortunately the AFL aren't in a habit of changing their stance just because a reasonable view is different from theirs.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

And again, we see the MRO system is broken.

Chandler getting suspended is fine in isolation, given what we know about the AFL's position on dangerous tackles. I'll continue to argue it isn't sufficiently different to Hawkins' tackle in Round 23, but consistency is nowhere to be found in the MRO playbook.

Ryan getting one week is a disgrace, but provides the latest example of how flawed the box-ticking MRO exercise is. What he did was intentional, but since no player since Byron Pickett has has the level of intent required by the guidelines (i.e. intending to knock them out, pretty much), every bump is careless. Which means the only differentiating factor is the impact. Foley does worse than Bowey, so Chandler cops an extra week.

There is no justification for Ryan's action being less of a suspension than Chandler's, none at all. 

The AFL continues to over-penalise players who are playing the game but stuff it up (Chandler) whilst under-penalising players who do things the AFL time and again tells us have no place in the game (Ryan). 

[Docs Demons 1,791]

1 hour ago, JTR said:

This.

Once again, a MRO decision is based on the outcome, rather than the action.

Unfortunately JTR it is what it is. As in normal life you belt a person and he is Ok you may get a fine for it however he falls and hits his head on ground and suffers badly then you are up for allot more. AFL tribunal seems to follow same suit and it is the outcome that you as the instigator have to deal with. I do not think Chandler deserves 2 weeks but it will not change and outcome is the penalty not just the action.

[Tarax Club 3,914]

 Young fella busting to get a go, clumsily tackles a bloke (without an ounce of malice) who is unfortunately concussed. Is made an example of by the ‘process’.

Opponent chooses to lower his shoulder and connects with force to the AFL defined ‘sacrosanct’ head. With remission gets slap on wrist.  
 
Something 💩stinks! 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Tarax Club

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

So if the MRO is going to base these things on the outcome, and give Ryan a week, what happens if Bowey  develops delayed onset concussion later in the week? Do we revisit the charge? Obviously not, so outcomes that can change with time beyond the MRO window should not be in the assessment.

[deanox 9,922]

I think it should be pretty clear to all by now though that nothing about this is intended to make any sense except for the purpose of being able to provide a big stack of documented evidence to demonstrate that concussion related injuries aren't the AFLs fault.

Every time anyone got concussed it was against the rules and the person was punished. Look at the transcript from our advocates, they say the player should have stepped aside instead of made contact, etc. What more could we have done if players kept breaking the rules?