2024 MRO & Tribunal

[Bitter but optimistic 22,017]

I don't know why anyone is surprised with what comes out of the MRO/Tribunal .

They have dished up the same illogical and inconsistent [censored] for years.

[old dee 23,420]

Spot on Bbo, last year barely 10 months ago. The initial response to Gus getting knocked out cold was no case to answer. The AFL then started a case after the public back lash. They never wanted the pies player suspended in a final series. Under this week's rulings he would have been suspended for the entire 2024 season. 

Edited July 16 by old dee

[WalkingCivilWar 39,244]

“The AFL has lost the plot”

Methinks (and hopes) there’s a groundswell developing.

[Whispering_Jack 28,851]

Charlie Cameron has won his appeal against the 3 week suspension imposed by the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night. He’s free to play against the Swans on Sunday.

[Fat Tony 5,041]

1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Charlie Cameron has won his appeal against the 3 week suspension imposed by the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night. He’s free to play against the Swans on Sunday.

What a joke the AFL are. There is about 50 lawyers working at AFL house and they repeatedly make errors of law at the tribunal. 

[picket fence 16,590]

2 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Charlie Cameron has won his appeal against the 3 week suspension imposed by the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night. He’s free to play against the Swans on Sunday.

OUTRAGEOUS this bloke will win Tattslotto this Sat, this was far worse than Bedfords perfect tackle. This Laura whatshername NEEDS TO GO! She is outa her league! Motorbike VERRY LUCKY but still a garbage Decision 

[Whispering_Jack 28,851]

9 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

What a joke the AFL are. There is about 50 lawyers working at AFL house and they repeatedly make errors of law at the tribunal. 

True, but Charlie’s a nice bloke so …

[Jaded No More 66,965]

Is Bedford appealing? I hope so!

Cameron deserved at least a week. But of course he’s a nice bloke so 0 weeks. 

The AFL is a circus. 

[roy11 3,614]

Cameron woweee - Banned for 4 (1+3) and both suspensions overturned. Should use the match fees from those games and put it down on the roulette table - Man has great luck

 

[Dee Zephyr 19,124]

Watching it live I thought there was no need for Cameron to tackle Duggan down to the ground like that. I thought he deserved at least a week or two.

[Deesprate 1,323]

There was no consideration of the tackle he got off on a technicality. AFL disaster. Cameron plays an aggressive brand just like Maynard he knew what he was doing. 3 weeks was overtop but definitely a week

[DubDee 24,106]

Farcical from the AFL as usual

Hopefully Bedford gets off too

2 of the most ridiculous 3 game bans I've ever seen

[picket fence 16,590]

And Isaac Heeney deprived of a Brownlow Medal because Laura whatsername and AFL has No Idea!🤮

[Magnus 45]

I am getting a bit confused about what the AFL deem safe vs unsafe (as probably many of us are). 

I fear underlying this issue this week is the AFL’s desire for confusion, outrage and “clicks”. There are many rules that could simply be tidied up - yet they decide they wont. The 2 reports this week were in headlines the whole time (note the amount of comments here).

The tackling one is worrying though as it can involve head injuries (like this weekend) thus long term consequences to players, team composition and also future junior players being encouraged to other sports by concerned parents. 

This is not soccer or basketball - there is a degree of physical contact needed.

FWIW, my view is if you cause a concussion you are not playing next week, the duration is dependent on the grading of intent. However even simple clarity like this is absent. I also think there should be a reduction in interchanges allowed (I would love some data to see if there is a correlation between aggressive/damaging tackles vs time coming off the bench).

I fear the AFL’s vagueness is breaching one of their main purposes - being to protect the game. 

[Fat Tony 5,041]

Bedford got off on another error of law. 

What an embarrassment. The whole kangaroo court needs to be sacked. 

[Jaded No More 66,965]

This is what happens when you put a Collingwood fan boy in charge of anything. 
 

[monoccular 17,253]

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

True, but Charlie’s a nice bloke so …

.... and he has never been suspended 🙄

Cameron drove his opponent into the turf: Bedford did not.  3 weeks for Bedford, nothing (once again) for Cameron.

Who knows - clearly the AFL, and their lackey (of very limited intelligence) MC does not.  

I am over the AFL - will watch my beloved MFC but won't watch anything else of their rubbish.

[beelzebub 23,125]

The lesson....

Melb needs better lawyers

There is no level field, no common sense,no adherence to proper procedures..  it's all ad hoc make it up as you go [censored].

Carlton do it regularly... now Lions have found a way... 

That is the lesson.

The game is at a precipice...

[whatwhat say what 21,858]

so Bedford and Cameron BOTH got off due to legal technicalities...

the afl are muppets

law degree > uni blacks > consultancy firm > afl exec

oh to be one of the bois like gil, dil, and laura... some get all the luck

(although dil is a black sheep...old xavs)

[Dr. Gonzo 23,625]

What a joke these appeals are, the AFL is a three ring circus.

The AFL.com article states

"Whilst we accept that the Tribunal found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence: that is, whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.

"Absent that consideration ... we consider that the Tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision."

The conduct DID cause injury, so why are they arguing the tribunal didn't consider whether it was likely to cause injury? It stands to reason that there was a likelihood it would occur, because it did occur. These clowns just make it up as they go, can't wait til they get sued into oblivion by the players who have suffered long term health issues due to concussion.

Edited July 18 by Dr. Gonzo

[titan_uranus 24,480]

What's being missed in all the outrage tonight is that the Appeals Board is all about "getting off on a legal technicality".

It's almost impossible to win an appeal without showing that the Tribunal applied the rules/guidelines incorrectly. The only other option is to say that the Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to that decision, which is such a high bar.

There should be outrage at the entire system of course. The MRO box-ticking exercise has been unfit for purpose for years. The Tribunal is far too inconsistent and doesn't explain its reasoning in a way which anyone other than lawyers can properly understand. The rules have been patchwork developed year-on-year to have become bloated and unworkable, with convoluted definitions and concepts upon concepts which are not capable of easily being understood and therefore ripe for legal debate.

And the AFL, overseeing all of it, is too scared to admit what we all want it to admit - a certain amount of concussion is going to occur in this sport unless we fundamentally change it in a way that no one actually wants.

The AFL media make mountains out of molehills all the time, and I can't stand what is often confected outrage (e.g. May's play for a free). But I'm all for it here - this off-season, the AFL has to completely revamp the MRO/Tribunal process.

[titan_uranus 24,480]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What a joke these appeals are, the AFL is a three ring circus.

The AFL.com article states

"Whilst we accept that the Tribunal found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence: that is, whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.

"Absent that consideration ... we consider that the Tribunal did fall into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision."

The conduct DID cause injury, so why are they arguing the tribunal didn't consider whether it was likely to cause injury? It stands to reason that there was a likelihood it would occur, because it did occur. These clowns just make it up as they go, can't wait til they get sued into oblivion by the players who have suffered long term health issues due to concussion.

I don't think this is right.

Whether or not something is "likely to cause injury" is not the same as "will cause injury".

Bedford's tackle is the perfect example - it's not a type of tackle that is likely to cause injury because that type of tackle occurs 100s of times a Round without any injury occurring. 

Put legalisms to one side. Do you really think Bedford deserved suspension for his tackle?

[pitmaster 3,377]

2 hours ago, picket fence said:

And Isaac Heeney deprived of a Brownlow Medal because Laura whatsername and AFL has No Idea!🤮

Truly, who gives a rat's about Heeney?

Or the Brownlow? Rubbish award decided by some of the most incompetent clowns connected to the game.

[Ungarieboy 408]

Haven't had the chance to read this thread, but a simple fix (in principle)

* acidental (legitimate footy act I.e well executed spoil, tackle, smother, etc) results in concussion - suspension is the same time as the concussed, but emain eligible for brownlow.

* careless (mistimed footy act) - suspension is the time of the concussed plus one week 

* reckless (unrealistic attempt of a footy act) - suspension is the time of the concussed plus 2-3 weeks

* intentional (non footy act such as a punch, elbow, headbut, etc) - minimum 5 weeks, but grading should start at 8 and work up/down from that point

Note some may say it's unfair to lose a week for an accident, as it was legitimate footy act; but it is also unfair on the victim to lose a week - sometimes in footy you can just be unlucky (in this case both players). 

[demosaw 970]

20 minutes ago, Ungarieboy said:

Haven't had the chance to read this thread, but a simple fix (in principle)

* acidental (legitimate footy act I.e well executed spoil, tackle, smother, etc) results in concussion - suspension is the same time as the concussed, but emain eligible for brownlow.

* careless (mistimed footy act) - suspension is the time of the concussed plus one week 

* reckless (unrealistic attempt of a footy act) - suspension is the time of the concussed plus 2-3 weeks

* intentional (non footy act such as a punch, elbow, headbut, etc) - minimum 5 weeks, but grading should start at 8 and work up/down from that point

Note some may say it's unfair to lose a week for an accident, as it was legitimate footy act; but it is also unfair on the victim to lose a week - sometimes in footy you can just be unlucky (in this case both players). 

Seems like you’ve read bits of it.

If accidental/careless/reckless act doesn’t result in concussion then what?