2024 MRO & Tribunal

[Demonland 72,193]

 

[Demonland 72,193]

 

[640MD 3,376]

It was a football action :  AFL. = treat us like sheet lightning.  Barstards

[BW511 2,669]

2 minutes ago, 640MD said:

It was a football action :  AFL. = treat us like sheet lightning.  Barstards

Not so sure this type of incident has been a ‘football action’ for many years

[Redleg 40,925]

15 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Gee, what a coincidence. Will probably be a sellout now. 

[The Jackson FIX 3,114]

reducing the penalty by 1 week (from the AFL’s requested 8) is the most arbitrary thing I’ve seen for a while. 

[picket fence 17,169]

10 hours ago, binman said:

It might sound hypocritical by me given my stance on banning the bump, but I'm against giving Webster a massive penalty.

From my perspective it is unfair on Webster and against the principles of natural justice.

Why?

Because retrospective penalties, particularly for incidents that are not novel (eg like judds chick wing tackle), indeed are in fact super common, are antihical to the principle of natural justice. 

As analogy, you cop a speeding fine. There are set penalties, but a magistrate decides they want to make a statement because of a recent spike in road deaths. And triples the fine and takes your licence.

There is a regime of penalties for bumps to the head.

Webster's hit was a bog standard example.

The penalty set in the regime is what he should get, perhaps at the upper range.

Why should Webster be 'made an example of'?

How fair is that to webster?

If the AFL feel that is the way to stamp out bumps to the head, why didn't SPP get 8 weeks?

If using webster as the example implies it will stamp it out, then has simpkin got a legal argument that the AFL didn't take the opportunity to make an example of SPP (because that may have meant him not getting knocked out)?

The time for setting penalties is in the calm of the off season. 

If the argument is increased penalties will be an effective deterrent then bloody introduce them BEFORE the season starts.

If the AFL wanted to make a statement about head trauma they could have announced, to much fanfare, BEFORE the first intra club simulation that penalties for bumps to the head had been dramatically increased.

Knock a player out, minimum 5 weeks. 

Knock a player out when choosing to bump if tackling is an option, minimum 7 weeks.

Run past the ball and bump a player and hit the head, minimum 8 weeks.

Leave the ground and knock a player out, minimum 10 weeks.

Additional weeks for particularly spiteful acts.

Weeks double for repeat offenders.

Put every player on notice and make it clear that this season these penalties WILL apply.

It's so typical of the AFL's approach to this, and other issues, to do nothing, or not enough, and then react to specific events.

And then dodge responsibility and putting it at the feet of the players.

It's a point Gus made powerfully in his retirement letter - to protect the head, the AFL has to be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE.

I've made this point a number of times over the last few seasons, I find it increasingly hard to believe that the AFL addiction to media saturation doesn't drive its decision making. 

All the whoo ha filling up the airwaves about the bump is great content for the media, who pay big bucks to the AFL for access.

Yeah but a certain mongrel STILL STILL GOT OF! TOTALLY CENSORED! 

[Demonland 72,193]

6 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

reducing the penalty by 1 week (from the AFL’s requested 8) is the most arbitrary thing I’ve seen for a while. 

Not arbitrary at all ...

[monoccular 17,429]

21 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

“Jeff Gleeson saying “this is a classic case of avoidable head-high contact. The contact was violent.”

He could / should have said exactly the same thing last September.  However , finals, Collingwood - say no more. 

[picket fence 17,169]

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

“Jeff Gleeson saying “this is a classic case of avoidable head-high contact. The contact was violent.”

He could / should have said exactly the same thing last September.  However , finals, Collingwood - say no more. 

Absolutely correct DEESGRACCCCE

[The Jackson FIX 3,114]

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Not arbitrary at all ...

Going to be a mouth-watering contest for the 500 in the crowd 

[chookrat 4,250]

With the SPP and Jimmy Webster incidents I think it has become clear that they AFL has made a huge mistake in not banning the action of bumping a player who is in possession of, disposing of or has just disposed of the ball. The player with the ball is just too vulnerable to contact and too often this action results in head trauma.

I've listened to what Andy said on the podcast here, what Simon Goodwin has said for at least two season re instructing our players not to bump, and Gus's comments re the need for the AFL being proactive rather than reactive.  While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules, I do wonder whether a shift in attitude towards contact when a player is disposing of the ball may have changed Maynard's action.

The players react to split decisions and if the option to bump is removed then logically it should reduce these sort of brain fart incidents which make no sense in the context of a practice match.

[Gunna’s 2,104]

Same penalty as Hall got for his round house punch knocking Staker out cold.  
Times have changed….for the better. 
Very lucky Kozzie didn’t get more last year for his rd1 hit on Smith. And as picket and monoccular said above - [censored] me dead how they got it so wrong in September last year. 

[monoccular 17,429]

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

With the SPP and Jimmy Webster incidents I think it has become clear that they AFL has made a huge mistake in not banning the action of bumping a player who is in possession of, disposing of or has just disposed of the ball. The player with the ball is just too vulnerable to contact and too often this action results in head trauma.

I've listened to what Andy said on the podcast here, what Simon Goodwin has said for at least two season re instructing our players not to bump, and Gus's comments re the need for the AFL being proactive rather than reactive.  While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules, I do wonder whether a shift in attitude towards contact when a player is disposing of the ball may have changed Maynard's action.

The players react to split decisions and if the option to bump is removed then logically it should reduce these sort of brain fart incidents which make no sense in the context of a practice match.

“..While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules..”

There have been players suspended in the past for electing to leave the ground and KOing opponents so this was absolutely an option in September 2023.  The obscene (some may even suggest corrupt) manner in which the case was prosecuted, none the least having a Magpie member as prosecutor, was a grotesque failure of process and will remain a dark blot on Gil’s legacy. 
 

[chookrat 4,250]

17 minutes ago, monoccular said:

“..While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules..”

There have been players suspended in the past for electing to leave the ground and KOing opponents so this was absolutely an option in September 2023.  The obscene (some may even suggest corrupt) manner in which the case was prosecuted, none the least having a Magpie member as prosecutor, was a grotesque failure of process and will remain a dark blot on Gil’s legacy. 
 

Monoccular, the Rough Conduct provisions specifically cover bumps but there is no provision for football actions such as smothers or spoils. Even if the Tribunal had suspended Maynard it would have been overturned on appeal.  The JVR spoil case earlier in the season made it clear that the AFL Tribunal could not impose an additional duty of care on players outside of the existing rules and while a key difference in the JVR case the ball was in dispute this isn't relevant in the way the rules are currently written.

I think the AFL have missed the opportunity to protect the ball carrier, by both making any bump a reportable offence regardless of whether there is high contact due to its potential for high contact, while imposing a duty of care for any high contact that results in injury on the ball carrier.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,826]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

“Jeff Gleeson saying “this is a classic case of avoidable head-high contact. The contact was violent.”

He could / should have said exactly the same thing last September.  However , finals, Collingwood - say no more. 

Full credit to Webster and St Kilda in the they handled the aftermath:

The Saints pleaded guilty with Webster saying: “I’m really sorry about what happened on Sunday. It’s something I’m not proud of - I’ve left a lot of people down.

“My main concern is for Jy to get back to playing footy and I really hope he’s OK. I understand how bad concussions are and how much we want to see them stamped out of the game.”

Asked why he jumped off the ground he replied: “I haven’t got an excuse.”

 

If only we'd seen this kind of humility from Maynard, Collingwood and that F### (Justice has been served) McGuire, no one would need disect the rules and be splitting hairs over the legalities rather than focus on the intent.

33 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Monoccular, the Rough Conduct provisions specifically cover bumps but there is no provision for football actions such as smothers or spoils. Even if the Tribunal had suspended Maynard it would have been overturned on appeal.  The JVR spoil case earlier in the season made it clear that the AFL Tribunal could not impose an additional duty of care on players outside of the existing rules and while a key difference in the JVR case the ball was in dispute this isn't relevant in the way the rules are currently written.

I think the AFL have missed the opportunity to protect the ball carrier, by both making any bump a reportable offence regardless of whether there is high contact due to its potential for high contact, while imposing a duty of care for any high contact that results in injury on the ball carrier.

 

Edited March 5 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

3 hours ago, 640MD said:

It was a football action :  AFL. = treat us like sheet lightning.  Barstards

Absolute BS

The hit was intentional and late. 
Webster had no right to by anywhere near Symkin

 

[640MD 3,376]

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Absolute BS

The hit was intentional and late. 
Webster had no right to by anywhere near Symkin

 

Was it not the same as last year. 
late, after he had got rid of the ball, high, deliberate, he left the ground, and got him in the head. 
therefore it was a football action 

AFL treat us like sheet

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

13 hours ago, binman said:

It might sound hypocritical by me given my stance on banning the bump, but I'm against giving Webster a massive penalty.

From my perspective it is unfair on Webster and against the principles of natural justice.

Why?

Because retrospective penalties, particularly for incidents that are not novel (eg like judds chick wing tackle), indeed are in fact super common, are antihical to the principle of natural justice. 

As analogy, you cop a speeding fine. There are set penalties, but a magistrate decides they want to make a statement because of a recent spike in road deaths. And triples the fine and takes your licence.

There is a regime of penalties for bumps to the head.

Webster's hit was a bog standard example.

The penalty set in the regime is what he should get, perhaps at the upper range.

Why should Webster be 'made an example of'?

How fair is that to webster?

If the AFL feel that is the way to stamp out bumps to the head, why didn't SPP get 8 weeks?

If using webster as the example implies it will stamp it out, then has simpkin got a legal argument that the AFL didn't take the opportunity to make an example of SPP (because that may have meant him not getting knocked out)?

The time for setting penalties is in the calm of the off season. 

If the argument is increased penalties will be an effective deterrent then bloody introduce them BEFORE the season starts.

If the AFL wanted to make a statement about head trauma they could have announced, to much fanfare, BEFORE the first intra club simulation that penalties for bumps to the head had been dramatically increased.

Knock a player out, minimum 5 weeks. 

Knock a player out when choosing to bump if tackling is an option, minimum 7 weeks.

Run past the ball and bump a player and hit the head, minimum 8 weeks.

Leave the ground and knock a player out, minimum 10 weeks.

Additional weeks for particularly spiteful acts.

Weeks double for repeat offenders.

Put every player on notice and make it clear that this season these penalties WILL apply.

It's so typical of the AFL's approach to this, and other issues, to do nothing, or not enough, and then react to specific events.

And then dodge responsibility and putting it at the feet of the players.

It's a point Gus made powerfully in his retirement letter - to protect the head, the AFL has to be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE.

I've made this point a number of times over the last few seasons, I find it increasingly hard to believe that the AFL addiction to media saturation doesn't drive its decision making. 

All the whoo ha filling up the airwaves about the bump is great content for the media, who pay big bucks to the AFL for access.

I am with you Binman. Webster deserves a penalty. But it seems 4-5 weeks is par for what he did. For me this stinks of the AFL going hard in the pre-season on minnow clubs. I'll know they are serious when they dish out the same penalty for a Carlton or Collingwood player in a final. By about round 5, they will have forgotten all about head bumps and concussion, unless another player unfortunately cops one. It seems likely that if the order of the Powell-Pepper and Webster bumps were reversed, then Webster would have got 4 and Powell-Pepper 7.

[rjay 24,928]

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

Monoccular, the Rough Conduct provisions specifically cover bumps but there is no provision for football actions such as smothers or spoils

...and was his intent to smother or to put pressure on the ball carrier.

I think the later.

The attempted smother was a smoke screen.

[chookrat 4,250]

19 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Was it not the same as last year. 
late, after he had got rid of the ball, high, deliberate, he left the ground, and got him in the head. 
therefore it was a football action 

AFL treat us like sheet

640MD, if you read the Tribunal Guidelines it is has specific provisions that spell out that any bump that results in high contact is reportable. There are no such provisions for spoils, smothers and other football actions.

I get that there is alot of angst re the brain trauma to Brayshaw as a result of Maynard's action, not to mention the way that the Collingwood supporters behaved on the ground and Eddie afterwards. This said I think the MRO and Tribunal have been consistent in how they grade incidents for st least the past few seasons.

Can I propose we stop complaining re the Tribunal and enjoy winning and giving it back to Collingwood supporters at the ground when we smash them. I think we are a genuine contender this year and complaining about the MRO is not befitting for a champion.

[chookrat 4,250]

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

...and was his intent to smother or to put pressure on the ball carrier.

I think the later.

The attempted smother was a smoke screen.

My take is he was definitely putting pressure on the ball carrier but hard to know whether this included deliberate body contact either before or after he left the ground.

This is why I think any high contact to the ball carrier when they are in possession of or have disposed of the ball should be reportable and treated as rough conduct.

[640MD 3,376]

16 minutes ago, chookrat said:

 I think we are a genuine contender this year and complaining about the MRO is not befitting for a champion.

Agree we are a contender. In my opinion we should have made far more of it last year,  The outcome of your action, football or accident error should determine the penalty.   If you do the crime etc.

but we get treated the way we do because we let them,   And we have been dominant for more than 3 years and will again this year 

[binman 42,972]

12 hours ago, rjay said:

...and was his intent to smother or to put pressure on the ball carrier.

I think the later.

The attempted smother was a smoke screen.

Indeed.

But the real issue is whether it was a smother or pressure is immaterial.

He should have got weeks because he chose to turn and bump - and flushed Gus with his shoulder.

Text book.

He had the option to put his hands out to protect himself and Gus.

Which as Brad Scott said, is EXACTLY what he he would have done if that incident happened at training and Pendlebury was the player he was running at to spoil.

Or as a poster noted here, a brilliant analogy i thought, if your 3 year old was on your bed and you fell towards them what would you do?

What would your instinctive reaction be to protect your child?

To protect your child, would you turn your body in mid air, brace and flush them with your shoulder?

Or would you remain chest on and put your hands out in front to do everything you could to protect them?

Hell, do the same thing with no child, just you but falling face first to the ground.

What's your natural instinct? 

What's the natural instinctive reaction to protect yourself?

Every time its putting both hands out to cushion your fall.

NOT turn your body and smash your shoulder into the ground.

It's why the AFL's prosecution was so pathetic. They completely allowed the pies movement expert to spout rubbish and not push back.

Or even ask the questions above - which i would have thought are the logical questions.

Or perhaps ask:

'Mr Maynard, you CHOSE to to turn your body and bump to protect yourself. That choice clearly protected you, but not your opponent. In hindsight, what other ways might you have CHOSEN to protect yourself AND show a duty of care to your opponent and minimise the risk of head trauma?

Was turning your body and choosing to bump your opponent in the head REALLY the only option you had to protect yourself and your opponent?'

 You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.

Or you might call YOUR OWN biomechanical expert as a witness to rebut theirs.

One that might for instance explain how many decisions can be made in a spilt second and how for example divers and gymnasts turn their body ALL THE TIME in a split second to minimise the impact of a mistimed dive or jump.

Pathetic.

The fix was so in

It infuriates me.

Edited March 6 by binman

[Gorgoroth 12,954]

I just hope the club talks to Kozzie and tells him not to ever bump again. We can’t lose him for 7 weeks