Jump to content

2024 MRO & Tribunal

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

This is the right decision, and is what Maynard should have gotten.

If your action turns into a bump regardless of your intent, it's a bump - Maynard may have tried to smother but his ultimate action was a bump. Likewise with Wright - he initially wanted to contest the mark but instinctually moved to protect himself by adopting a bumping posture midair.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
     
    2 hours ago, Chook said:

    This is the right decision, and is what Maynard should have gotten.

    If your action turns into a bump regardless of your intent, it's a bump - Maynard may have tried to smother but his ultimate action was a bump. Likewise with Wright - he initially wanted to contest the mark but instinctually moved to protect himself by adopting a bumping posture midair.

    Spot on.

    No one wants to see players suspended for simply contesting possession, but the message from the tribunal is now clear.

    Anyone who leaves the ground at speed and then braces for shoulder-to-head contact is going to spend a few weeks on the sideline.

    Apart from boxing, where the specific object is to knock your opponent unconscious, every contact sport around the world is now aware of the threat of legal action if the head is not protected.
     

  • Quote
    •  

    What drives me nuts is how agreeable the media is with this decision and yet were nowhere to be seen with Maynard’s hit. Nobody was prepared to stick their neck out, which has to say something. 

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    • Thanks 2
    • Clap 2
    • Angry 1
    • Vomit 1

    Any word on whether we will challenge the Rivers charge?  Rozee clearly threw himself backwards (even Kane Cornes called it out) and there is no way Rivers should cop a fine for it. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    35 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

    Any word on whether we will challenge the Rivers charge?  Rozee clearly threw himself backwards (even Kane Cornes called it out) and there is no way Rivers should cop a fine for it. 

    The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

    "The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

    » The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

    » The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

    » The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

    » An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

    Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    Sort of related to us, I was watching the highlights of the Hawthorn/Geelong game and saw Tom Stewart laid out from a Mabior Chol knee to the back of the head. It got me thinking, after he cleaned up May as well, that he's got a bit of form. Can see the AFL making an example of him at some point for an excessive hit on an opponent. Would like to see this trained out of him a bit (leading with his knees).

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1

    I don’t know if it’s been raised here, or even if it’s worth raising, but shouldn’t Soldo’s (it was him, wasn’t it?) head-on with Max have been looked at by the panel (or was it?). No damage was done, but it was a late tackle and he did launch himself into the air before colliding with Max… so if they are serious about removing these kinds of tackles from the game, shouldn’t he at least have been fined for the action (like they did with Rivers)? It should not just be all about the outcome!!

    Edited by hardtack

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1

    1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

    The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

    "The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

    » The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

    » The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

    » The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

    » An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

    Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

    They have made this all so wordy that it takes a lawyer to even determine what it means. 
    Plenty of wriggle room for 💩#4Magpie, or any of his teammates to take before an appeals board once again selectively  lead by someone very clearly with zero interest in a conviction 

    55 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

    Sort of related to us, I was watching the highlights of the Hawthorn/Geelong game and saw Tom Stewart laid out from a Mabior Chol knee to the back of the head. It got me thinking, after he cleaned up May as well, that he's got a bit of form. Can see the AFL making an example of him at some point for an excessive hit on an opponent. Would like to see this trained out of him a bit (leading with his knees).

    They desperately need to clarify the use of the knee in a contest. Chol and 🕶️ are cheating exponents of this.  Should be at least a free very time, a 50 in case of a mark, and several week if head contact is bless clearly incidental. 

  • Quote
    • Thanks 2
    5 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

    The AFL have introduced more stringent analysis and findings around tackles this year. From the tribunal guidelines:

    "The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the  application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether  the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be  had to the following factors, whether:

    » The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether  the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

    » The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle  or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

    » The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;

    » An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force (for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the ground with excessive force)."

    Even if the club tried to argue that the tackle was not excessive, or the point of contact i.e. Careless -> Low Impact and Body contact rather than High contact (as graded for Trent), the outcome is still likely to be a fine. The club will take it out of the post season trip fund and move on.

    The "without limitation" here rankles a bit, given how many things they've mentioned explicitly. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    If Baker had his eyes on the ball as part of attempting a mark then Richmond would have a case for appeal.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • 2 weeks later...

    So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    Just now, Gawndy the Great said:

    So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

    More AFL consistent inconsistencies 🫣

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Angry 1

    I noted with usual dismay Corney Man telling his audience that Butters had no case to answer. Sure...he just incidentally knocked a player's head. I bet if the Buttman was playing in a Demon jumper, the Corney man's  perspective might waver not in the Buttman's favor. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Angry 3

    Joke corrupt system. Cornes sets the agenda with "no case to answer" immediately and thats how it plays out.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Angry 1
    • Vomit 1

    15 minutes ago, Six6Six said:

    Compare the pair

     

    Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 minutes ago, SPC said:

    Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

    I can’t seems to find the Butters’ one. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    7 hours ago, monoccular said:

    I can’t seems to find the Butters’ one. 

    It was on the AFL site. 

  • Quote
    •  
    11 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

    So Butters gets off? Right call or not? I think it introduces more confusion. I swear someone got suspended for a similar action last year. Was it Rankine? 

    Lachie Hunter on Rozee

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    9 hours ago, SPC said:

    Watched them both and couldn’t tell you the difference. If anything with today’s currency, Butters gets a week more than Hunter. 

    Neither deserves a suspension imo but the inconsistency is stark again 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road again and this may be the last roll of the dice to get their 2025 season back on track as they take on the Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium.

        • Like
      • 158 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Gold Coast

      The Gold Coast Suns find themselves outside of the top eight for the first time since Round 1 with pressure is mounting on the entire organisation. Their coach Damien Hardwick expressed his frustration at his team’s condition last week by making a middle-finger gesture on television that earned him a fine for his troubles. He showed his desperation by claiming that Fox should pick up the tab.  There’s little doubt the Suns have shown improvement in 2025, and their position on the ladder is influenced to some extent by having played fewer games than their rivals for a playoff role at the end of the season, courtesy of the disruption caused by Cyclone Alfred in March.  However, they are following the same trajectory that hindered the club in past years whenever they appeared to be nearing their potential. As a consequence, that Hardwick gesture should be considered as more than a mere behavioral lapse. It’s a distress signal that does not bode well for the Queenslanders. While the Suns are eager to remain in contention with the top eight, Melbourne faces its own crisis, which is similarly deep-seated but in a much different way. After recovering from a disappointing start to the season and nearing a return to respectability among its peer clubs, the Demons have experienced a decline in status, driven by the fact that while their form has been reasonable (see their performance against the ladder leader in the Kings Birthday match), their conversion in front of goal is poor enough to rank last in the competition. Furthermore, their opponents find them exceptionally easy to score against. As a result, they have effectively eliminated themselves from the finals race and are again positioned to finish in the bottom half of the ladder.

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 15

      As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

      • 287 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

      • 3 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Like
      • 372 replies
      Demonland
    View All