Has his suspension been announced yet? Should get 3 weeks

But of course he only got one. A joke.

21 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

But of course he only got one. A joke.

Outcome based system.

My mate and me have the following 2 nicnames for Swans:

1. The MC Hammers

2. AFLney

35 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Has his suspension been announced yet? Should get 3 weeks

A week is about right

not sure if anyone else noticed this but, one of the only disappointing things from yesterday was that no one went over to him after the hit and gave him some [censored] and a jumper punch maybe??

Don’t think Mills had any intent to hurt Spargs. he is a fair player

is Spargo confirmed concussed?

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

is Spargo confirmed concussed?

Confirmed not concussed AFAIK. Crook shoulder might be his main concern.

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Don’t think Mills had any intent to hurt Spargs. he is a fair player

is Spargo confirmed concussed?

Mills has a history of this stuff. He definitely meant to hurt IMV.

37 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

A week is about right

How so, because Spargo miraculously is so short that Mills missed his head and therefore he avoided a concussion?

Mills turned his body and left the ground to make contact. If that’s Kosi doing it, it’s 3 weeks even if his opponent gets straight back up.

There is absolutely no doubt that again this broken system took into account Spargo’s lack of concussion. If he does get concussed that is 3 weeks.

This stupid outcome based system needs a total overhaul.

Just now, Jaded No More said:

How so, because Spargo miraculously is so short that Mills missed his head and therefore he avoided a concussion?

Mills turned his body and left the ground to make contact. If that’s Kosi doing it, it’s 3 weeks even if his opponent gets straight back up.

There is absolutely no doubt that again this broken system took into account Spargo’s lack of concussion. If he does get concussed that is 3 weeks.

This stupid outcome based system needs a total overhaul.

yep. It’s shambolic isn’t it.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Outcome based system.

Kozzie got two for his legitimate bump on Baiey Smith, who continued to play the game.

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Kozzie got two for his legitimate bump on Baiey Smith, who continued to play the game.

Well generally it is except maybe where Kozzie is concerned.

Still can’t get over the 3 weeks for the Moore incident.

We win against Giants with him in.

I have heard a rumor that it was 3 weeks but reduced to one if he thought he was playing for Collingwood

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Kozzie got two for his legitimate bump on Baiey Smith, who continued to play the game.

That was utter rubbish...

30 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

How so, because Spargo miraculously is so short that Mills missed his head and therefore he avoided a concussion?

Mills turned his body and left the ground to make contact. If that’s Kosi doing it, it’s 3 weeks even if his opponent gets straight back up.

There is absolutely no doubt that again this broken system took into account Spargo’s lack of concussion. If he does get concussed that is 3 weeks.

This stupid outcome based system needs a total overhaul.

Agree entirely about the rubbish of outcome based suspension.

Mills had no chance to win/collect the ball, he just jumped to clean him up.

Pearce from Freo got three weeks for his impact on PAs Bryne-Jones, in a situation where he really couldn't do much. My thoughts watching that were that Pearce was leading out to take a mark looked down and realised he was late and going to collide and tried (unsuccessfully) to minimise impact by going past him not through him. But it is outcome based so he gets longer.

The latest example of the MRO system being the AFL's most embarrassing joke.

Why does the "potential to cause serious injury" thing get rolled out some times (e.g. Pickett on Smith in 2023) but not others?

Why not here? What Mills did was reckless and had clear potential to KO Spargo, even though it didn't.

Meanwhile Paul Curtis gets three weeks for a tackle that was almost done perfectly but still accidentally caused concussion, whilst Jackson Archer and now Alex Pearce get three weeks for largely unavoidable collisions.

Just a genuinely broken farce, the MRO.

I've got mixed feelings about the outcome based suspensions.

On the one hand if you are serious about looking after the player with the ball (avoiding concussion) then it would seem to me that incident based would be a better system.

On the other hand, and I will defer to the lawyers here...it appears the current system of outcome based suspensions follows our legal system. If you are convicted of attempted murder do you get the same sentence as for murder?

56 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The latest example of the MRO system being the AFL's most embarrassing joke.

Why does the "potential to cause serious injury" thing get rolled out some times (e.g. Pickett on Smith in 2023) but not others?

Why not here? What Mills did was reckless and had clear potential to KO Spargo, even though it didn't.

Meanwhile Paul Curtis gets three weeks for a tackle that was almost done perfectly but still accidentally caused concussion, whilst Jackson Archer and now Alex Pearce get three weeks for largely unavoidable collisions.

Just a genuinely broken farce, the MRO.

It's just ridiculous. There was more scope to wipe out a player in Mills's action than several of the instances that have seen Kozzy get multiple weeks for. How hard is it to apply penalties consistently?

The one outcome which shows me their current system is a failure is the Viney concussion.

Bo Allan got a week suspension because at the time Viney wasn't declared to be concussed. He then had delayed symptoms later in the week, however as the AFL have already handed down the punishment they couldn't change it.

Outcome based systems don't work and it needs to be action based. With that Mills should have got a 2 week minimum suspension.

And what happens if, like Viney, he gets delayed onset concussion? It stays as 1 for low impact? joke.

The MRO/Tribunal system is just one of many problems facing the AFL and I'm not sure there's sufficient talent at AFL House to fix all the problems. So, this is where Demonland can help. We could develop a better system and hand it over to the AFL. To get the ball rolling, I'd suggest that the system identify the difference between a football act and a non-football act. The Alex Pearce, Paul Curtis actions should be dealt with as football acts. The Liam Baker one (where he pushed his elbow into the neck of his opponent who is already lying prone on the ground) is a non-football act. Non-football acts should have much stiffer penalties than football acts.

13 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

This stupid outcome based system needs a total overhaul.

The general criminal law has its own version of outcome-based results. If you shove someone in the street and they stagger and recover their balance there will be different consequences for the pusher compared to if the pushed person falls over, hits their head and has a serious or fatal injury.

And I reckon that’s the way it should be, as outcomes do matter in terms of extent of penalty.

13 hours ago, Redleg said:

Still can’t get over the 3 weeks for the Moore incident.

Moore was concussed, iirc.

1 minute ago, Tim said:

The general criminal law has its own version of outcome-based results. If you shove someone in the street and they stagger and recover their balance there will be different consequences for the pusher compared to if the pushed person falls over, hits their head and has a serious or fatal injury.

And I reckon that’s the way it should be, as outcomes do matter in terms of extent of penalty.

Moore was concussed, iirc.

While it is true that the criminal law is to a large extent outcome based, there is no reason why the AFL has to follow that.

For a start almost every action on a footy field would land you in chokey if done in Swanson St. Furthermore, a criminal judge can find you guilty of manslaughter and still alter the penalty in light of the cirrcumstances (except in neolithic places which impose mandatory sentences).

Moore may well have been concussed, but if I bang my head with my tennis racquet trying to return a shot, I should not expect the person I'm playing against to be charged (to draw a weak analogy).

Edited May 26May 26 by sue

Outcome based sanctions makes a mockery of the purported mission to eliminate this sort of conduct.

Running a red light is a strict liability offence. You don't get a lesser penalty just because you somehow manage not to injure/kill anyone. However, you get a different, greater offence if you do. This should be the same.

If the AFL is actually serious about this (beyond just trying to look like they are/selective about who they penalise - i.e. Kozzie's being penalised THREE weeks for Moore diving into him), then they will be a. consistent and b. give a penalty irrespective of the outcome. That is the only way to address this conduct.