2024 MRO & Tribunal

[Lucifers Hero 40,509]

If it wasn't for the automatic 'medium impact' classification or if there was an 'accidental' classification, all the chat about eyes on the ball, bracing for impact, self protection etc would not be relevant.  Toby, Kozzie and many others would just be fined.

[leave it to deever 17,591]

People arguing TG was unlucky.

Sheesh.

Either the Afl is going to protect players heads or not.

TG is an incredible player who can turn and elevate his body in a second to protect himself.

He can also do the same to take a player out.

He goes into contests knowing he has a way out. 

Quite frankly he was lucky to only get a week.

I cant believe Gws are contesting.

Make it two now.

Kozzie got a week for much less. 

 

[leave it to deever 17,591]

20 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not quite accurate. the ball that bounced off his shoulder was in fact deflected by boyd so wasn't on its original trajectory.

greene was entitled to contest the mark and leave the ground.

at the last split second it became obvious a collision was inevitable

so the question is was greene allowed to protect himself? he couldn't avoid the collision.

additionally was this accidental or careless in grading?

I hear what you are saying.

But one could argue the same about Maynard.

At the end of the day the only way to stop brains being damaged is to stop these bumps happening.

Yes it will change the game but it's the price necessary to give these young men some safety at work.

[binman 44,512]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

So at what point do we outlaw players running back with the flight of the ball?

Our is that 'brave'?

In terms of reducing the likelihood, and severity for that matter, of concussions I hadn't really considered this.

But, you're right it should be in the mix.

I'm not quite sure how they would enforce it. A free I guess.

It would a bit tricky, for example differentiating between running back with the flight to spoil or mark and coming in from an angle.

But the game is full of tricky decisions. 

With all team and zone defences and players swarming forward and back, there is hardly ever space to run into (except for overlap goals).

So contact is usually inevitable.

And if there is contact, what is actually achieved?

How many marks are taken running back with the flight? Particularly when running full tilt?

Think how few marks like the famous riewoldt and Brown marks there have been since.

And really a spoil is hard to pull off, unless the oppo player is standing still (and even then they almost always give away a free for front on contact).

The risk reward equation is out of whack.

Marks and spoils are both unlikely. And there's a good chance of giving away a free for front on contact.

There is a huge risk of injury, particularly concussion, but also things like broken ribs. And there is a high risk of severe concussion when two 90kg athletes are running towards each other.

All for what? A pat on the back from ex footballers in the commentary box for being 'brave' (or a pat on the shoulder from a teammate as they get carted off the ground).

Clarry's decision not to run into fogarty is the perfect example.

What would it have achieved if he had done so?

In all likelihood clarry gets hurt, possibly fogarty also.

And unless he managed to get a clean fist on the ball to spoil, no small feat, he would have almost certainly given a free away.

Edited April 22, 2024 by binman

[daisycutter 29,891]

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

It was graded as careless.  Accidental no longer exists.  If it did then Toby and many others would get off.

by "accidental" i meant the grade below careless ... whatever it is called now

yes, i know this case was graded careless ... just posing the question of whether it really was

[daisycutter 29,891]

19 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I hear what you are saying.

But one could argue the same about Maynard.

At the end of the day the only way to stop brains being damaged is to stop these bumps happening.

Yes it will change the game but it's the price necessary to give these young men some safety at work.

maynard was completely different. maynard hit well after gus had disposed of the ball. it was not during a football action 

as well as other considerations

[Lucifers Hero 40,509]

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

by "accidental" i meant the grade below careless ... whatever it is called now

yes, i know this case was graded careless ... just posing the question of whether it really was

There is no grade below careless (which like you I think is a problem).  An act is deemed to be either 'careless' or 'intentional'.

This is the structure the MRO works to (unless he uses his 'discretion' 🤨)

Source:  AFL

Edited April 22, 2024 by Lucifers Hero

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 5,556]

4 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There is no grade below careless (which like you I think is a problem).  An act is either 'careless' or 'intentional'.

This is the structure the MRO works to (unless he uses his 'discretion')

Source:  https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/13/bfe20552-9e6a-4464-88b6-509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Thanks for (re-?)posting this, Luci.

Well-tilled ground, I know, but...

Can someone please point out:

1. Where this table further subdivides into 'football action' and 'non football action'; and,

2. The asterisk* providing for MRO discretion?

You can guess which recent historical incident I'm contemplating...

[Lucifers Hero 40,509]

2 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Thanks for (re-?)posting this, Luci.

Well-tilled ground, I know, but...

Can someone please point out:

1. Where this table further subdivides into 'football action' and 'non football action'; and,

2. The asterisk* providing for MRO discretion?

You can guess which recent historical incident I'm contemplating...

Haha!!!

Its all part of the AFL's 'special herbs and spices' they use whenever they want to make something up that the rules don't allow.

The confusion is in part because the AFL/MRO flip flops between assessing the action vs assessing/imputing the impact. 

[Axis of Bob 11,898]

18 hours ago, daisycutter said:

you keep saying greene wasn't contesting the ball. he certainly was, up and until it was deflected and a collision was immininent. this was in a SPLIT SECOND before contact.

it is disingenuous for you to insist he was a non-contestant

At the point of contact with the player (who is contesting the ball), Greene was not contesting the ball. 

Your words even say this, that he was "up and until it was deflected and a collision was imminent". As such, when the offence occurred, Greene was not contesting the ball and therefore committed a reportable offence. 

He has two options once he is jumping at the ball: 1) Contest the ball, or 2) stop contesting the ball and protect the player who is still contesting the ball. He chose to stop contesting the ball and made no effort to minimise the harm to the other player's head. That's a reportable offence. 

[Fromgotowoewodin 1,606]

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The problem is the rule:  ' head high contact is automatically 'medium impact' thus one week.

Then last week the Tribunal 'used its discretion' that the Cameron case was on the 'lower end of medium'.  A correct decision.   But it then added the 'good guy' BS.

Without the 'good guy' BS the MRO could have used 'lower end of medium' precedent to assess Toby.  

A can of worms has been created.

They can’t help but make a mess every time because they always allow special pleading. 

Step 1: any contact to the head is now medium impact and a week, no ifs no buts. 

Step 2: ok there are some ifs and buts, it kind of depends. If you’ve got a good record maybe it’s ok, and if you do good off field stuff. But otherwise no ifs no buts.

Step 3: no really we mean it, there’s no ifs no buts, we were very clear in step 1.

Step 4: we’ve just got to stop citing these, get them all talking about the dissent rule again or something for christs sake.  

[daisycutter 29,891]

39 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There is no grade below careless (which like you I think is a problem).  An act is deemed to be either 'careless' or 'intentional'.

This is the structure the MRO works to (unless he uses his 'discretion' 🤨)

Source:  AFL

so, ok, no official grade below careless (for a charge to be made)

however that is what maynard achieved. it being regarded as a "football action"

i guess the real grade below careless then, is a no-charge

so to reword my original, greene's defence could argue it wasn't careless and therefore no-charge at all. by deeming it accidental or a football act.

wonder if gleeson will allow a bio-mechanics expert to give evidence on greene's mid air split second choices?

 

[daisycutter 29,891]

26 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

At the point of contact with the player (who is contesting the ball), Greene was not contesting the ball. 

Your words even say this, that he was "up and until it was deflected and a collision was imminent". As such, when the offence occurred, Greene was not contesting the ball and therefore committed a reportable offence. 

He has two options once he is jumping at the ball: 1) Contest the ball, or 2) stop contesting the ball and protect the player who is still contesting the ball. He chose to stop contesting the ball and made no effort to minimise the harm to the other player's head. That's a reportable offence. 

in that last split second he was where he was purely because of a legitimate attempt to mark to mark the ball. to then claim he was a non contester is really getting over technical. there is also a duty of care on both players. greene himself was in a very vulnerable position being already legitimately air borne.

anyway, let's agree to disagree

[rjay 25,301]

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

So at what point do we outlaw players running back with the flight of the ball?

Our is that 'brave'?

I think you've got to do something but I'm not sure how you enforce it.

Edited April 23, 2024 by rjay

[rjay 25,301]

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think you've got to do something but I'm not sure how you enforce it.

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

In terms of reducing the likelihood, and severity for that matter, of concussions I hadn't really considered this.

But, you're right it should be in the mix.

I'm not quite sure how they would enforce it. A free I guess.

It would a bit tricky, for example differentiating between running back with the flight to spoil or mark and coming in from an angle.

But the game is full of tricky decisions. 

 

Maybe make an adjustment to the front on contact rule that already exists...

[loges 6,767]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

so, ok, no official grade below careless (for a charge to be made)

however that is what maynard achieved. it being regarded as a "football action"

i guess the real grade below careless then, is a no-charge

so to reword my original, greene's defence could argue it wasn't careless and therefore no-charge at all. by deeming it accidental or a football act.

wonder if gleeson will allow a bio-mechanics expert to give evidence on greene's mid air split second choices?

 

Depends on which outcome the AFL wants.

[daisycutter 29,891]

6 minutes ago, loges said:

Depends on which outcome the AFL wants.

quite probable ... and gleeson is the wild card  (in that he doesn't always follow the afl line)

[jnrmac 20,271]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I think you've got to do something but I'm not sure how you enforce it.

I was asking a rhetorical question but it seems that it is the way we are heading. 

Yes it would be ridiculous enforcing it (in particular with 4 umpires and different interpretations) but what's new with the AFL?

Perhaps consideration should be given to how 'hard' players attack the ball? It's been a foundation of our game but they seem to want to eliminate contact.

We were always taught to 'go in hard you won't get hurt' but maybe that has to change.

Its already become like basketball which I hate .....

[rjay 25,301]

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I was asking a rhetorical question but it seems that it is the way we are heading. 

Yes it would be ridiculous enforcing it (in particular with 4 umpires and different interpretations) but what's new with the AFL?

Perhaps consideration should be given to how 'hard' players attack the ball? It's been a foundation of our game but they seem to want to eliminate contact.

We were always taught to 'go in hard you won't get hurt' but maybe that has to change.

Its already become like basketball which I hate .....

I think there is going to be no choice and contact sports worldwide are in trouble here.

It will end up a no contact sport.

I can't see any other option.

[daisycutter 29,891]

46 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think there is going to be no choice and contact sports worldwide are in trouble here.

 

 

boxing and wrestling will be in big trouble then

anyone for non contact nrl?

[binman 44,512]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

I think there is going to be no choice and contact sports worldwide are in trouble here.

It will end up a no contact sport.

I can't see any other option.

I don't think so (that it will become a no contact sport).

But they will have to take steps to minimise head trauma.

And the logical thing is to take out elements of the game that increase the likelihood of head trauma without fundamentally changing the nature of the game.

They have started that process, for example players turning their body when two players ate congestion the pill.

The idea that players are supposed to 'put their head over the ball in such scenarios is already changing. And the game has not suffered or changed. Contact still happens and still hurts. 

The same will be true when they inevitably ban the bump. The bump serves zero purpose, it won't change the game and there will still be ferocious contact and injuries - just fewer to the head.

Jnr's point about it becoming like basketball used to be a common refrain. But it won't. Tacklesfoe instance will never be banned and tackles at AFL level are full on.

Besides, if you've ever played basketball or even watched elite basketball, you'd understand it is incredibly physical and tough. It is a complete myth that it is a non consct sport.

[Redleg 41,933]

5 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Haha!!!

Its all part of the AFL's 'special herbs and spices' they use whenever they want to make something up that the rules don't allow.

The confusion is in part because the AFL/MRO flip flops between assessing the action vs assessing/imputing the impact. 

What is the “ potential to cause injury” when you jump up after running at full pace and brace and hit a bloke coming the other way, who is looking at the ball, with your shoulder, flush on his face?

[rjay 25,301]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

boxing and wrestling will be in big trouble then

anyone for non contact nrl?

 

1 hour ago, binman said:

I don't think so (that it will become a no contact sport).

Boxing is in big trouble...

NRL along with AFL will end up non contact, it's just a matter of time.

10, 20, 100 years..

Will all go the way of the Coliseum & the Gladiators.

It really doesn't matter, we've had a good run with it, enjoyed the game & may or may not be around for the final demise.

[Brownie 6,066]

1 hour ago, binman said:

I don't think so (that it will become a no contact sport).

But they will have to take steps to minimise head trauma.

And the logical thing is to take out elements of the game that increase the likelihood of head trauma without fundamentally changing the nature of the game.

They have started that process, for example players turning their body when two players ate congestion the pill.

The idea that players are supposed to 'put their head over the ball in such scenarios is already changing. And the game has not suffered or changed. Contact still happens and still hurts. 

The same will be true when they inevitably ban the bump. The bump serves zero purpose, it won't change the game and there will still be ferocious contact and injuries - just fewer to the head.

Jnr's point about it becoming like basketball used to be a common refrain. But it won't. Tacklesfoe instance will never be banned and tackles at AFL level are full on.

Besides, if you've ever played basketball or even watched elite basketball, you'd understand it is incredibly physical and tough. It is a complete myth that it is a non consct sport.

I've always thought the game would morph towards an "international rules Aust v Ireland" type format.

Faster, more hard running less clashes but still physical.

Jack Viney is a perfect example of someone who has adjusted his game to still bring opponents down but in a way where there's no driving the head into the turf.

I dunno what they'll do about marking contests where players are leading with their knees. It's such a spectacle of the game to see those big pack marks. Someone usually comes away rubbing the back of their head.

[daisycutter 29,891]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

 

Boxing is in big trouble...

NRL along with AFL will end up non contact, it's just a matter of time.

10, 20, 100 years..

Will all go the way of the Coliseum & the Gladiators.

It really doesn't matter, we've had a good run with it, enjoyed the game & may or may not be around for the final demise.

but nrl is 90% contact. same with thugby ... no contact, no nrl, no thugby

nrl has banned the shoulder charge but still get multiple concussion checks per game

a bit off topic but what about striking the ball with your head in soccer. thousands of hits over some players careers