49 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

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)

It feels as if there should be a third category. Intentionality is subjective so difficult to apply, and it works backwards from outcome. In this sense, there are few blatantly intentional acts. Ryan intentionally bumped leading with his elbow and with no eyes for the ball, but I suppose the tribunal concluded that he didn't intentionally mean to hit Bowey in the head. So it gets assessed as careless, the same category as Chandler, although the two acts are patently different. Chandler was performing a football-related act, but was perhaps clumsy in execution. I just don't see how there can be equitable outcomes under this grading system. 

9 hours ago, deanox said:

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.

 

And to rub salt into the wound  look at that thug Lynch backhand his elbow in  play and it's judged as reasonable under the circumstances. 

1. AFL and MRO are not serious about stray elbows in or after play until one will injure the player in the cheekbone or the eye and two/three weeks results in the outcome. It is far too selective in not adding the potential for damage clause when only relatively minor injury or concussion occurs. 

2. Ryan and Lynch are not novices at all with their errant elbows snd it seems that the younger more inexperienced players are fair game the first time they transgress 
3. And further to have Hardwick say that it was a normal action in play shows how he regards the head of his opponents especially with Lynch in the area. Seems obsessed that  Lynch's size and height are used as a reason for everyone to singles him out. 
4. Would Dees have Any chance of reducing Kades 2 match down  to  one under the action ( ie tackle) being normal in and not unreasonable in general play?

In other words just a very strong tackle with the result as part of the inconsistency.

5. The duty of care or lack thereof  is in all cases IMO usable but MRO is so selective  again but should be emphasised in appeals more I believe.

Lets face it elbows thrown randomly shows no care at all but an enthusiastic strong tackle like Kades along with his attempt at care in completing it once he has realised any danger is a different case again. 

For all those who DONT think having a big name matters at the AFL.  Question: which player in 2021 concussed 3 opposition players that year and didnt get suspended? But wait theres more he also broke an opponents eye socket for the hell of it.

Not only didnt he get reported or suspended for it he didnt even have a free kick awarded against him.

Yes you guess it our old mate TOM, by the way May says I hope I didnt damage your elbow with my eye socket.

 

Chandler's tackle was a complete and total accident and he got two weeks, Ryan's bump had malice and got one week. The system is broken and almost purely dependent on the outcome and how hurt the opposing player was. It's a joke, I don't care if pinning the arms is covered in the dangerous tackle rule. It is stupid, players can't be expected to do all this split second thinking at full pace.

The rule is stupid, plain and simple. 

Im still seething that a deliberate bump to the head by Ryan that had the potential for serious damage just gets 1 week. AFL pretending to be serious about head contact. Weak!

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by picket fence

6 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Im still seething that a deliberate bump to the head by Ryan that had the potential for serious damage just gets 1 week. AFL weak!

Something about the p..s in front of the week comes to mind also. 

I'm pretty sure there was another run down tackle that happened last year resulting in concussion that was overturned.

Pretty sure it was Mitch Duncan who was tackled, but can't remember who the tackler was.

Hope we go to the tribunal.

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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). 

Thanks titan for your clarification of how the system 'works'.

What it came down to was Ryan's bump being assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact, High Contact, whereas Chandler's tackle was graded as Careless Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. So the outcome drove the penalty. I'd be surprised if West Coast or Melbourne will appeal these decisions because under the MRO guidelines the decisions were correct. Further, West Coast should be thinking that in the court of public opinion Ryan would have got 3 weeks, so better to let this die quietly.

What is particularly damning is players like Lynch (especially) and Hawkins throw their elbows around indiscriminately and dangerously and yet the AFL refuses to take action, whereas under the MRO rules accidental in-play incidents and deliberate dangerous acts both get graded as careless. 

 

10 hours ago, Docs Demons said:

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.

This is true and is arguably a problem with the legal system as well as with the MRO.  However the legal system will allow more discretion in sentencing than the crude formula the MRO uses.  (Leaving aside the occasional mandatory sentences that have been introduced for political purposes in some countries).  

43 minutes ago, layzie said:

I don't care if pinning the arms is covered in the dangerous tackle rule. It is stupid, players can't be expected to do all this split second thinking at full pace.

The rule is stupid, plain and simple. 

How else are you meant to tackle? The whole point of tackling is to restrain the player with the ball and prevent him from disposing of the ball in accordance with the rules. To me, pinning the arms is the perfect tackle.

The player with the ball was neither slung nor pushed and fell forward from his own momentum, not from Kade's tackle.

The rule and its interpretation are farcical. Sack the MRO and the rules committee. Replace them with real footy people who love and respect our great game.

2 minutes ago, tiers said:

How else are you meant to tackle? The whole point of tackling is to restrain the player with the ball and prevent him from disposing of the ball in accordance with the rules. To me, pinning the arms is the perfect tackle.

The player with the ball was neither slung nor pushed and fell forward from his own momentum, not from Kade's tackle.

The rule and its interpretation are farcical. Sack the MRO and the rules committee. Replace them with real footy people who love and respect our great game.

Accidents happen in this game. They can say all they like how they want to get a certain look out of the game but it is a contact sport and there are going to be freak accidents. 

I haven't felt this riled up since Viney's 'non-bump'

My question is, if the Chandler tackle results in say an AC join injury similar to the Jack Steele tackle, does Chandler get suspended? Or is concussion the only outcome based ruling in the AFL? 

Because I don't remember Hawkins getting suspended for the consequence of May having his jaw broken. 

 

I hope we challenge this one. We don't have much to lose, as Chandler coping an extra week is neither here nor there, but I am sick to death of big name players from big clubs getting off and our players getting reamed. 

Edited May 16, 20223 yr by Jaded No More

57 minutes ago, layzie said:

Chandler's tackle was a complete and total accident and he got two weeks, Ryan's bump had malice and got one week. The system is broken and almost purely dependent on the outcome and how hurt the opposing player was. It's a joke, I don't care if pinning the arms is covered in the dangerous tackle rule. It is stupid, players can't be expected to do all this split second thinking at full pace.

The rule is stupid, plain and simple. 

“…The rule is stupid, plain and simple. ” which is also a great description of the MRO. 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

My question is, if the Chandler tackle results in say an AC join injury similar to the Jack Steele tackle, does Chandler get suspended? Or is concussion the only consequence based ruling in the AFL? 

Because I don't remember Hawkins getting suspended for the consequence of May having his jaw broken. 

Two reasons for the difference between Hawkins'  "accident" and Chandler's.

1. Their names.

2. AFL wants to establish a history of doing all it can to prevent concussions to ward off expensive lawsuits in the coming decades.

On 5/16/2022 at 8:33 AM, Wrecker46 said:

DeGoey was worse

This post could be inserted in any thread about any topic and still be correct.

Tell ya what.
With the stupid new stand/dissent rules and lucky dip tribunal system, if the Demons were still dwelling in the cellar I'd be done with footy.
The AFL is forking up the game as fast as they can.
 

13 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Because I don't remember Hawkins getting suspended for the consequence of May having his jaw broken. 

Exactly my thinking. I did not attack Hawkins for that act as I really did think it was a freak accident by a physically strong player, this is a less physically strong player and tried to pull up.

This kid has finally got his chance in the side, let's not burn his confidence to smithereens. Hoping like hell the club steps in here. 

 

So I think most AFL fans would think that these two outcomes from the one game aren't commensurate, and that something needs to be done to finally fix the MRO. It's a bugbear that's being going on for years, but Gil has his eye on TV rights and $$$ rather than addressing things that frustrate the majority of fans. 

So my question is, how do we fix it? I know there's legalities involved, but I would go the pub test. Set up a five-person or even seven-person independent panel from various backgrounds, and let them just nominate a number of games that they think a player should be suspended. Take the median average, with carry-over points. 

How else can we fix this without relying on an inequitable formula? 

52 minutes ago, Action Jackson said:

I'm pretty sure there was another run down tackle that happened last year resulting in concussion that was overturned.

Pretty sure it was Mitch Duncan who was tackled, but can't remember who the tackler was.

Hope we go to the tribunal.

Think it was GC Holman.

My guess is that we will not challenge because its Chandler. 

The MRO is broken and we have seen several times this year some very contentious calls. Id go as far as saying that at least 1/2 of the MRO decisions have warranted some level of scrutiny by fans and the media.

That is not a very reassuring sign of a smoothly operating department.

chandler's suspension is generating very little comment in the media

obviously because he's not a big name player

imagine if it had been a top player, it would be being debated ferociously and most likely appealed

pretty obvious that sadly, it's not about the action but all about a player who just doesn't rate

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

So I think most AFL fans would think that these two outcomes from the one game aren't commensurate, and that something needs to be done to finally fix the MRO. It's a bugbear that's being going on for years, but Gil has his eye on TV rights and $$$ rather than addressing things that frustrate the majority of fans. 

So my question is, how do we fix it? I know there's legalities involved, but I would go the pub test. Set up a five-person or even seven-person independent panel from various backgrounds, and let them just nominate a number of games that they think a player should be suspended. Take the median average, with carry-over points. 

How else can we fix this without relying on an inequitable formula? 

It's somewhat ironic that the MRO position was created as a single person operation intended to remove the inconsistencies which occurred under the previous model when different people made decisions as to penalties. What I suspect the MRO process has shown is that the inconsistencies derive from the model, not from the decision makers. However, I doubt that there will ever be a model which does not produce inconsistent outcomes. It's a result of every situation being a unique set of circumstances. 

Maybe the MRC thinks it's a bigger penalty making Ryan play for West coast.

Ryan only getting a week for a deliberate bump that hit the head is absurd. Chandler getting two weeks for an unlucky tackle at pace comparatively is even more absurd.

Why does the MRO exist at this point?

Why are the AFL not held accountable for their lies?
Protect the head… ok, then penalty for Ryan’s action is 10 weeks. To ignore the game around you and just hip and shoulder someone’s head is a basically the worst thing you could do on a footy field outside pulling a Barry Hall punch instead.

I don’t mind Chandler getting a two week suspension for the unlucky tackle. I do mind the deliberate head bump having less of a penalty!

Edited May 17, 20223 yr by Lord Travis