1 minute ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Ha she might have to if they leave MC there.

The fact that one man has so much say and is an ex player of any of the clubs tells me everything i need to know about the sham & circus that is the AFL.

Alot easier to influence / coerce one person than it is to do so with a number of them on a panel.

Should be at least three or even five panel members and none of them should be ex players or people who have had career long appointments at a club.

Needs to be an odd number so they can reach a majority decision.

Ex umpires might be the go.

Definitely ex umpires.  And most would qualify as most are well educated, hold down excellent jobs and are above reproach

So the MRO needs neutral people and what better neutral people than the umpires?  Umpires like Rosebury, Stevic & Razer would be near perfect

43 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

This is 100% correct ... everything the AFL has done (until now) does not happen without the almighty $$ / ratings, ensuring the biggest crowds (etc) coming into play.

And the biggest clubs will certainly almost always be the beneficiaries.  The filth obviously the biggest of the lot.

We're about to find out how much clout Laura has OR does the old guard boys club still hold the upper hand?

I'm leaning towards the latter and they will massage this as they always do.

Two weeks today, reduced to one on Thursday's appeal.

Yes ..a bit more in play than many suppose me thinks.

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

Definitely ex umpires.  And most would qualify as most are well educated, hold down excellent jobs and are above reproach

So the MRO needs neutral people and what better neutral people than the umpires?  Umpires like Rosebury, Stevic & Razer would be near perfect

Exactly. 💯

11 hours ago, TRIGON said:

To allow just one individual to wield so much power reeks of bad governance in the first place. The AFL board needs to be held accountable for allowing this to happen.

Actually, the idea of giving one individual the power was intended to overcome the previous iteration called the Match Review Panel, or MRP, which had more than one person involved which resulted in massive inconsistency. The MRO, in theory, should eliminate much of that inconsistency, but I believe it's too much to expect one person to make these decisions every week for a full season.

I suspect there is no "perfect" model, but I do like the suggestions made earlier in this thread that the role being undertaken by the MRO would be better filled by former field umpires.

I'm not arguing for against the decisions Michael Christian has made during his time as the MRO, but I admire his willingness to accept the slings and arrows of misfortune that have come his way, week after week for doing a thankless task. For that, he deserves commendation.   

Christian must be laughing his [censored] off at how this has transpired. He has been completely vindicated and Laura Kane made to look a fool. Great optics. 

2 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Christian must be laughing his [censored] off at how this has transpired. He has been completely vindicated and Laura Kane made to look a fool. Great optics. 

Ah well, he gets to stay in a job and we can see the same old mediocrity get spun out time and time again. Bring it on!

Like others have said, it all reeks of a conspiracy, one great big puppet show.

10 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Christian must be laughing his [censored] off at how this has transpired. He has been completely vindicated and Laura Kane made to look a fool. Great optics. 

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that Laura Kane sent the matter to the tribunal as a test case to know whether the laws of the game satisfactorily addressed Maynard's action. Kane now knows they don't so can work to find a way to change the rules to make it clear that what Maynard did should be an offence which results in suspension. 

Hope you're right. It would be refreshing if Kane/the AFL came out and said as much in the media, signalling that the days of sanctioned thuggery are numbered.

Edited September 12, 20231 yr by leucopogon

5 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Hope you're right. It would be refreshing if Kane/the AFL came out and said as much in the media, signalling that the days of sanctioned thuggery are numbered.

Surely they have just come out and said  it is OK to KO an opponent if you are (a) from a big club and (b) favourites for the flag. 

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that Laura Kane sent the matter to the tribunal as a test case to know whether the laws of the game satisfactorily addressed Maynard's action. Kane now knows they don't so can work to find a way to change the rules to make it clear that what Maynard did should be an offence which results in suspension. 

The AFL only had to read the finding as released last night to find at least a dozen reason to appeal. They choose not to because they did not want to.

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by YearOfTheDees
fix

15 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The AFL only had to reading the finding as released last night to find at least a dozen reason to appeal. They choose not to because they did not want to.

Hard to escape that conclusion

Puzzling, isn’t it 

On 9/12/2023 at 12:17 PM, TRIGON said:

Many moons ago (far too many) when I was an undergraduate student I was told that when marketing to the masses you need to appreciate that 95% of people are incredibly stupid. At the time I thought that statement was excessively harsh. Now I'm not so sure.

Might be conservative.

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that Laura Kane sent the matter to the tribunal as a test case to know whether the laws of the game satisfactorily addressed Maynard's action. Kane now knows they don't so can work to find a way to change the rules to make it clear that what Maynard did should be an offence which results in suspension. 

I don't think she has been made to look foolish at all.

In my personal opinion, but as a lawyer with 40 years experience in high court, federal court, supreme Court etc.,the AFL presented it's case very poorly. Also did poor job pushing back on pies submissions. Also, in my opinion, Gleeson has got himself tied in knots and some of his analysis was plain wrong.

But, perhaps I am wrong.

But, what is clear, if it was a correct application of the Rules, the Rules need changing.

Until then, apparently the best way to take out an opposition player is head on just after he has disposed of the ball.

4 hours ago, Bystander said:

I don't think she has been made to look foolish at all.

In my personal opinion, but as a lawyer with 40 years experience in high court, federal court, supreme Court etc.,the AFL presented it's case very poorly. Also did poor job pushing back on pies submissions. Also, in my opinion, Gleeson has got himself tied in knots and some of his analysis was plain wrong.

But, perhaps I am wrong.

But, what is clear, if it was a correct application of the Rules, the Rules need changing.

Until then, apparently the best way to take out an opposition player is head on just after he has disposed of the ball.

The AFL presented its case .....perfectly 

Why the love for Laura Kane ? .The case was virtually ended when the AFL proceeded with her and Christian jointly .What did she do to help other than a few crocodile tears afterwards .?She was in on the joke.

4 hours ago, Bystander said:

I don't think she has been made to look foolish at all.

In my personal opinion, but as a lawyer with 40 years experience in high court, federal court, supreme Court etc.,the AFL presented it's case very poorly. Also did poor job pushing back on pies submissions. Also, in my opinion, Gleeson has got himself tied in knots and some of his analysis was plain wrong.

But, perhaps I am wrong.

But, what is clear, if it was a correct application of the Rules, the Rules need changing.

Until then, apparently the best way to take out an opposition player is head on just after he has disposed of the ball.

Yes, it has exposed a gap in the rules that I thought was already covered.

56 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

Why the love for Laura Kane ? .The case was virtually ended when the AFL proceeded with her and Christian jointly .What did she do to help other than a few crocodile tears afterwards .?She was in on the joke.

Yes, we were led to believe that Laura overuled Christian with the backing of Gil & Dillon and then sending the thug to the tribunal

But what we didn't know was that the fix was on.  It was all a ruse much like the thugs violent actions

But then no prosection of any substance, lame questioning of the perpetrator and token references to the plight of the concussed victim etc etc

The AFL hierarchy should have been horrified (Laura, Gil & Dillon)

So what did they do?  Nothing apart from a bs summary and no appeal.  At the very least, they had to be disatisfied with the tribunal's prosecution.  So why not get a 2nd opinion?

They let themselves down extremely badly in terms of addressing the most violent act we've seen on the field this season

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by Macca

Laura proving to be, thus far, just another one of the corrupt boys. Really bloody disappointing. I was hoping a woman could set this pathetically backwards boys club on the right path. 

28 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Laura proving to be, thus far, just another one of the corrupt boys. Really bloody disappointing. I was hoping a woman could set this pathetically backwards boys club on the right path. 

Unfortunately Jaded, in the culture of that organisation anyone with that intention to how they will disrupt the boys club and how they want to change and break certain factions, will never get far.
We’ve all been promoted at some stage and we all know there’s a certain amount of arselicking. 
 

Maybe it was a first attempt learning for her? Maybe it was an Academy award level performance in her first big issue and she nailed with aplomb and ticked off some kpis toward a massive bonus?

Who frikkin knows. 
 

I do know another Billy is in order. 

I am sick to death of the AFL bending both ways on things like this. We'll get swayed by the good bloke defence and let him play but we'll look at this closely and probably bring in a rule change around it, so effectively this will be the last time this happens.

Talk about sitting on the fence! They really needed to come down hard on this and enforce their own rules. If Maynard was going to get off it should have been at the appeal stage deep, deep into the week like Cripps not at Tribunal stage.

Everyone gets their cake and eats it too, total BS. 

On 9/13/2023 at 3:01 PM, YearOfTheDees said:

The AFL only had to read the finding as released last night to find at least a dozen reason to appeal. They choose not to because they did not want to.

 

23 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Hard to escape that conclusion

Puzzling, isn’t it 

Not puzzling in the slightest.

Gill's wet dream is a Collingwood Carlton GF as his farewell (which farewell cannot come soon enough).

Michelle Christian's job should still be massively under threat despite what has happened. The system has failed.