16 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Was on the AFL members wing and thus didn’t get a view of the incident but if Viney’s opponent’s head hit the turf then it’s an auto 1 week suspension.

Mind you the Carlton player got up like a  Jack rabbit to receive his free.

 

 

Harmes will go and that might get Viney off, or it’s 8 penalties in 4 weeks.

Viney did let go of the arm and that should save him.

If DeGoey is free to play on the Kings Birthday after that bump then that will just about do me

DeGoey getting 3-weeks was 3/4 of the way to rationale, as much as I wanted him to be banned for life - or longer!

Jordan Lewis summed up the MRO best when he said they’re making up the rules as they go. 

Apologies if there is a thread for this already, but is anyone else really concerned where the game is going after the 3 week suspensions dished out tonight for Sicily and Mansell?  I don’t like Mansell and am pretty ambivalent about Sicily, but I think both are incredibly stiff to get any punishment at all for those incidents.  Mansell made a self preservation action at the very last moment to protect himself, and there is no way Sicily should be held responsible for that tackle.  Accidents happen and the game seems to be getting itself lost trying to eliminate them.

How did De Goey get the same punishment. Just how. 
The game is cooked. 

That Sicily decision is honestly the absolute worst I've seen by a country mile, but the problem with these types of "stamp-outs" is they start out reasonable and then become more and more draconian through out the years until there's a new watershed moment and everything else is judged on that.

I can recall feeling similarly shocked 20 years ago for bumps, and look where we are now - players don't bump. I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think the AFL is doing any of this for the good of the game. It's all an attempt to avoid potential litigation in future.

If after every single tackle/bump injury they suspend the bloke who did it, they can always refer back in the inevitable class action and say "look, we suspended the player that caused the injury - what more do you want from us?"

A standout horrible decision in a year of very ordinary ones.  Sicily is about as unlucky as anyone could be and Mansell is certainly stiff to get the same penalty as De Goey.  I cannot believe that a tribunal acting reasonably could arrive at a three week penalty for Sicily.  I thought he should have been cleared.  Hawks must appeal this.

5 minutes ago, Chook said:

. I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think the AFL is doing any of this for the good of the game. It's all an attempt to avoid potential litigation in future.

Well, i guess avoiding litigation in the future is for the good of the game.

It could be litigated out of existence if they don't do something.

edit: of course the changes could legislate the game out as a spectacle and drop fans by the droves.

...at the moment there is no consistency in the approach. As much as I don't like it won't be long before you can't tackle a player to the ground. The risk of suspension is too great.

Edited June 13, 20232 yr by rjay

3 weeks for Mansell is a joke

the Sicily one is beyond a joke

AFL HQ has been so ignorant on these issues for so long, to the extent that they are entirely culpable, of course their rulings will be draconian to appear like they are being proactive. They are just trying to rid themselves of accountability as fast as possible.

The Sicily tackle is complicated by the other Hawthorn player falling over Sicily and McLuggage mid tackle. Looks to me it may have had an effect on how the tackle ended up.

Edited June 13, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

What enraged me most is that it is such an ineffective approach.

If players feel like they can get picked out for near-random occurrences, where is the inspiration to change? If the rule is wobbling all over the place, how to the train to meet the expectations?

I mean, it is just basic criminology.

Nobody in the $10m/year AFL executive bothered to google 'how to manage change to embed new standards?'

As bad as the reserve bank thinking you solve a supplier-side under-capitalisation led inflation problem by increasing the costs of business investments.

Do people's brains just switch off at about $700k+ a year?

Like most things the AFL does, this has been poorly executed, inconsistently managed and horribly flawed. 
Nobody knows what is and isn’t ok anymore. 
Just wait until we suspend players for accidentally concussing their own teammates. 

Both decisions are ridiculous. Both should appeal.

i can't see what sicily did wrong

he only tackled him around the waist

then the other dork came over the top of them accidentally mid tackle

what was sicily to do?

dorks have to appeal this ... just crazy logic at play here

Read the transcripts from the hearings. Absolute bs the way they talk as if anyone has time to consider ‘reasonable contact’. It’s a joke. 

The Sicily incident is very similar to JVR’s report against Gold Coast. It has nothing to do with what actually happened, and everything to do with how serious the incident appeared to be on TV.

AFL counsel Lisa Hannon said Mansell had "effectively ran through" Aish and his "turn-and-tuck" body motion meant he was no longer contesting the football, an assertion the Tribunal agreed with.

 

What horse****... so in trying to avoid concussions and future litigation, the AFL is punishing players for protecting themselves and would rather see them open their body up, in turn increasing their chance of serious injury. The hypocrisy is staggering.

So with the Dan Butler one, Does the tribunal result mean that the free kick for dangerous tackle was incorrect and it should have been holding the ball?

Shows how much of a lottery it is. Chandler get two weeks for a similar tackle to Butler - same intent - was only to tackle from behind.

As always, AFL said Mansell should have opted to tackle, not bump.. only problem was he didn’t have the ball and he braced, not bumped. But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of a squeaky clean image for the class action lawyers.

Surely there is some onus on Aish to protect himself too in that bump? The guy just took it knowing he would get a free kick.

Mooney was right, There is no onus on the player protecting themselves, Aish should have been aware of contact and also braced or turned his side more to the tigers player. Years ago you didn’t lead with your head into a contested situation or go in wide open cos if you did you got smashed. Now they do and yes the player gets suspended but the opponent still gets hurt. If Aish and that player Hunter hit both turned for the contact then neither get hit. 
Afl are causing more hits to the head by not putting onus on the players going to a contest protecting themselves.

Edited June 13, 20232 yr by Gorgoroth

I can accept the Mansell suspension noting that in this instance Mansell had no time to do anything other than turn his body away from Aish and the AFL is creating an environment where its more likely for two players to collide head first with each other.

Re the Sicily suspension it is the most ridiculous suspension I have ever seen. The fact that Sicily tackled around the waist, that his teammate made heavy contact through the action which impacted how fast McCluggage hit the ground, and that Sicily was upside down during the tackle and so had no ability to slow the force that McCluggage hit the ground should have been enough to avoid suspension. Have a look at Sicily's teammates body contact move McCluggage's torso in one direction  while the momentum from the tackle is moving him on the other.

Also re Butler I think a 1 week suspension would have been reasonable. Before Blakey was taken to ground it was already holding the ball and Butler didn't need to drive him forward all the way into the ground. In my uneducated view Butler had alot more control in the tackle to bring Blakey down safely than what Sicily did.