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

    • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

      What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

        • Like
      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Clap
        • Haha
      • 137 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

        • Haha
      • 231 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Sad
      • 41 replies
      Demonland
    View All