MRO Thread

[bornadog]

Michael Christian to replace AFL match review panel under new judiciary system

The fate of AFL players will lie in the hands of one person in 2018, one of many changes that new footy boss Steve Hocking has introduced to the AFL's judiciary system, stamping his authority on one of the most polarising issues in the game.
Collingwood premiership player Michael Christian will be the lone ranger of the revamped MRP.

In his role as the single decision-maker, Christian will liaise directly with Hocking, who will tick off on each incident.
Under the new system, clubs will incur a cost of $10,000 for an unsuccessful challenge at tribunal level, instead of the previous system where players would risk missing an extra week

If the system had been in place for last year, Geelong would have almost certainly challenged the one-match ban handed to superstar Patrick Dangerfield for his tackle on Carlton's Matthew Kreuzer, which rendered him ineligible for the Brownlow Medal.

The $10,000 cost will come under the club's soft cap but will be returned by the AFL if the tribunal appeal is successful.
In another major win for fans and players alike, incidents that occur during Thursday and Friday night matches will be reviewed quickly and a decision will be handed down within 24 hours.

Hocking has confirmed that the AFL hopes to implement the 24 hour rule for all games in the coming years.
As per previous years, a player's conduct will still be categorised as intentional or careless, with both the impact and contact then to be taken into account.

While the table system of the match review panel is ultimately the same, the early-plea discount for number of weeks has been removed and fines for low-level offences have been doubled.


The base sanction for a first offence fine will be $3000, $5000 for a second offence and $8000 for a third and subsequent offences.
A player's "bad record" has also been removed, however, it may still be used at the discretion of the tribunal if Christian sends a incident directly to them.
Hocking, who admits the changes are bold, said there was never any consideration given to changing the system one step at a time.

"Nope. Rip the Band-Aid off," he said with a smile.

"My time in the role, I think it's really important to lead, so I think this is a statement of that. I'm OK with that.
"I know we won't have total agreeance right throughout, but that's my responsibility."

Clarity and consistency for fans was one of the biggest factors in the AFL's decision to alter the system, with the match review panel having been much maligned over the years.

The second major factor was players missing weeks for low-level offences.
"One of the big challenges for the fans is that there's been uncertainty when instances have been referred," Hocking said.

"And for the players, it's giving them the ability to play all the time, particularly with the low-level offences. We actually don't want players missing a game for really minor things.

"When one of their players is cited, can [clubs] start to read the outcomes of that? We want consistency.
"I think all of us would agree, you're never going to get it to 100 per cent but we're trying to shift it towards that with this model."

It's not the first time we've heard this line of thinking out of AFL House.

When Mark Evans took over from Adrian Anderson as football operations boss, he dissolved the points system on the basis that too many players were missing games for minor incidents.

That same system has now been revised again for the same reasons, which will be viewed as extremely favourable for the players.

But Hocking was adamant that his department would not be soft on violent incidents, which he described as a "blight" on the game.

"We want the players to change their behaviour," Hocking said.
"We need the players to get back to a greater understanding of sportsmanship."

The four former match review panel members – Nathan Burke, Jimmy Bartel, Michael Jamison and Jason Johnson – will all be given the opportunity to sit on the tribunal throughout season 2018.

More detail here (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/michael-christian-to-replace-afl-match-review-panel-under-new-judiciary-system-20171214-h04gp5.html) including table

[Axe Man]

Under the new system, clubs will incur a cost of $10,000 for an unsuccessful challenge at tribunal level, instead of the previous system where players would risk missing an extra week


Can we pay $10,000 and get a week knocked off Redpath's suspension?:rolleyes:

[Bulldog Joe]

I like the one man responsibility.

That should provide greater consistency, although nothing is guaranteed.

[hujsh]

I can't help but feel 3 people would help account for bias but let's see I guess

[Bulldog Joe]

I can't help but feel 3 people would help account for bias but let's see I guess

The most efficient committee has always been a committee of one.

[Flamethrower]

I like the one man responsibility.

That should provide greater consistency, although nothing is guaranteed.

I agree with the one man review "panel", but I would prefer someone with a little more Bulldog bias.

[Bulldog4life]

I agree with the one man review "panel", but I would prefer someone with a little more Bulldog bias.

That would be good. When Eddie had that pro Collingwood game on Foxtel a couple of seasons ago where they actually barracked for the filth. Eddie and Christian were the callers and Daicos was special comments man.

[Eastdog]

I agree with the one man review "panel", but I would prefer someone with a little more Bulldog bias.

That would be nice :)

[Topdog]

The most efficient committee has always been a committee of one.

The efficiency of the MRP was never in question though

[bornadog]

"Western Bulldogs star Katie Brennan was charged with rough conduct and can accept a reprimand, while an incident involving Bulldog Bonnie Toogood and Fremantle’s Ashlee Atkins was cleared because both players were contesting the ball."

KB has accepted the reprimand.

[jazzadogs]

"Western Bulldogs star Katie Brennan was charged with rough conduct and can accept a reprimand, while an incident involving Bulldog Bonnie Toogood and Fremantle’s Ashlee Atkins was cleared because both players were contesting the ball."

KB has accepted the reprimand.

What did Brennan do? I haven't seen any footage.

Re: the Sarah D'Arcy kicking report, interesting back story to that is that she has stitches in her thigh from Hosking accidentally studding her. Doesn't allow for a kick (or a push away with her foot, semantics) but explains why it was such a strong reaction...her leg had just been sliced open!

[bulldogtragic]

What did Brennan do? I haven't seen any footage.

Re: the Sarah D'Arcy kicking report, interesting back story to that is that she has stitches in her thigh from Hosking accidentally studding her. Doesn't allow for a kick (or a push away with her foot, semantics) but explains why it was such a strong reaction...her leg had just been sliced open!

Opens up the philosophical question about how long suspensions should be in the AFLW, which I'm sure news folks are or have discussed. The season is 1/3 that of the men's season, so should suspension times be lower as the punishments are in effect 3 times harsher for games lost?

[bornadog]

and so the BS continues:


Collingwood ruckman Brodie Grundy is free to take on Hawthorn in round one after avoiding suspension for his late bump to Western Bulldogs forward Tory Dickson in Moe on Saturday.Grundy has been offered a $2000 fine for making rough conduct to Dickson in the sides’ JLT Community series clash. Dickson was floored, but played out the game, helping Grundy's cause.
The impact was classified as "careless conduct with low impact to the head".

[ledge]

I love that the Essendon bloke got fined for staging.

[bornadog]

I love that the Essendon bloke got fined for staging.

Yeah, I thought the Oscars were last week.

[anfo27]

Season hasn't started yet & Christian needs to resign. All good in theory to have one person make the decisions but clearly he is wrong person. Varcoe wasn't even mentioned FFS & Grundy gets off!

[bornadog]

Season hasn't started yet & Christian needs to resign. All good in theory to have one person make the decisions but clearly he is wrong person. Varcoe wasn't even mentioned FFS & Grundy gets off!

There can only be two decisions in this case, either he hit him high or he didn't.

[Twodogs]

Season hasn't started yet & Christian needs to resign. All good in theory to have one person make the decisions but clearly he is wrong person. Varcoe wasn't even mentioned FFS & Grundy gets off!

Two Collingwood players and guess who Christian played for. He should never sit in Collingwood cases. There is a perception of shenanigans already. Perceptions are important, it doesn't matter whether or not he is corrupt because of the perception he is.

[Bulldog Joe]

I love that the Essendon bloke got fined for staging.

They also need to start fining clubs for rubbish medical reports.

Last year Wood was penalised because McGovern of Adelaide put on an act from a minor slap, but Adelaide medical claimed an injury and then GWS did the same with the Redpath incident on "Autumn Leaves" Davis.

[Bulldog Joe]

There can only be two decisions in this case, either he hit him high or he didn't.

I thought Grundy did not actually hit him in the head. I felt contact was to the chest area and just late. Dickson was fine and a head high would have caused damage.

[bornadog]

Katie Brennan suspended for a week. AFL is just a joke competition that is run by some of the stupidest people in this world.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Katie Brennan suspended for a week. AFL is just a joke competition that is run by some of the stupidest people in this world.

it was barely a free kick. Wasn't much sling in it at all. Just a strong tackle

[bornadog]

it was barely a free kick. Wasn't much sling in it at all. Just a strong tackle

If Redpath gets two weeks for a push, what do you expect from these people.

[Happy Days]

This is a ridiculous decision and I can't help but feel there's something patriarchal about it.

[bornadog]

Pretty sure we will appeal this.

[jeemak]

Just saw the footage, can't believe this is worth a one match ban - or any type of sanction.

[Happy Days]

I was pretty pissed off it drew a free kick and cost a goal live.

[Ozza]

Just saw the footage, can't believe this is worth a one match ban - or any type of sanction.

Not disagreeing - but to clarify the situation - Katie was given a reprimand, and had already received a reprimand in a previous match, which is the reason it resulted in a one match ban.

[Axe Man]

Western Bulldogs captain Katie Brennan set to miss the 2018 AFLW Grand Final (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/western-bulldogs-captain-katie-brennan-set-to-miss-the-2018-aflw-grand-final/news-story/4bb6515103859febd929e4135500d5ec)

THE Western Bulldogs are expected to challenge Katie Brennan’s ban at the tribunal on Tuesday night

Match review officer Michael Christian acknowledged what was at stake with a Grand Final berth on the line, but maintained he had merely implemented the rules.

“You’re aware, obviously, of the implications, but at the end of the day, you’re focused on trying to do the right thing and ... you’re charged with the responsibility of upholding the guidelines and that’s what I’ve tried to do,� he said.

He said that having special consideration for Grand Finals would give the impression that “you can do what you like� in preliminary finals and beforehand.

Cordner received a free kick after tackle but did not leave the ground and played out the rest of the game.

A medical report was considered by Christian, who said the low impact determination was a result of three determining factors after the tackle was deemed dangerous.

“The guidelines say if you’re swung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force then it’s graded as a dangerous tackle and therefore rough conduct,� Christian said.

“In my view, there was excessive force with the way that Harriet Cordner was driven into the ground.

“The three things I take into account with impact is the visual look of how severe that impact is, the player reaction and the medical report. Harriet Cordner was initially stunned and was on her hands and knees for a number of seconds.�

Christian said Brennan’s alternative would have been to avoid the driving motion in the tackle.

“That’s the critical element here in determining if it’s unreasonable in the circumstances,� he said.

“The driving motion particularly towards the end of the tackle, for me, didn’t need to happen.�

Christian said he was “fully aware� that the Bulldogs would likely challenge the ban.

“It’s a great opportunity for the Western Bulldogs to put their case forward and for the AFL to put their case forward and let the tribunal decide,� he said.

Brennan spoke before the decision was handed down and said that if it didn’t go her way, there was “nothing to lose� by challenging if the club had to.

Brennan’s teammate Ellie Blackburn told the Herald Sun she was confident that the team could win the premiership without their skipper if they were forced to.

“We’ve played three games that were really tough and hard winning games without Katie throughout the year,� she said.

“Whatever the match review panel puts through it puts through. We play with Katie or we don’t, but we trust our processes and whoever steps up will play well.�

Clubs have until 11am on Tuesday to determine whether they will challenge a ban, with the subsequent tribunal hearing usually held on Tuesday night at AFL House.

If the Bulldogs elect to challenge Brennan’s suspension tomorrow, they will be the first to do so in the two-year history of AFL Women’s.

[hujsh]

When's the last time someone in the men's game got suspended for a GF?

[ratsmac]

Why am I not surprised by this.

The Melbourne players hands are on the ground ffs. Yeah her head hit the ground but obviously not hard enough for a concussion because she kept playing. I like how the article says he considered the medical report, what he considered if he could be bothered to even check if there even is one. There is nothing mentioned if the girl is even injured. Decisions like these are ruining the game.

[Ozza]

When's the last time someone in the men's game got suspended for a GF?

The couple that come to mind are Jason Cloke and Anthony Rocca for 2002 and 2003. If there has been others more recent, then they've slipped my mind.

[bornadog]

Not disagreeing - but to clarify the situation - Katie was given a reprimand, and had already received a reprimand in a previous match, which is the reason it resulted in a one match ban.

Well the rules are ridiclous, ie too reprimands equal a one match ban. Each report should be dealt with individually. There is also a grey area in what is rough play, what is a sling tackle.

[Axe Man]

Yeah right Gil...

Gillon McLachlan backs ban for Katie Brennan, insists there was no special treatment for Trent Cotchin (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/gillon-mclachlan-backs-ban-for-katie-brennan-insists-there-was-no-special-treatment-for-trent-cotchin/news-story/a625b3a6aad05df209f660aa9650716b)

AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has backed match review officer Michael Christian’s call to suspend Western Bulldogs captain Katie Brennan, and insists there was no special treatment for Tiger skipper Trent Cotchin last year.

In a moment of déjÃ* vu between the men’s game and the women’s game, the two captains were both looked at closely for incidents on the eve of their respective grand finals.

Brennan had one reprimand from earlier in the AFLW season while Cotchin had two fines for offences from the men’s home and away season.

Cotchin’s bump on Dylan Shiel left the star Giant dazed and he was later ruled out of the preliminary final with concussion.

However, the inspirational Tiger was not booked by the MRP and went on to play in his club’s drought breaking premiership.

McLachlan backed both calls as being correct.

“They got to a different conclusion this time,� McLachlan said on AFL 360.

“They made that decision and they go one way or the other. Having the independent body that they had or (current match review officer) Michael Christian, you know who they are and their job is only to apply the rules as they see it.�

Brennan’s contact was assessed as rough conduct (careless with low impact to the head).

In the men’s game it would have attracted a $3000 fine given it was a second low-level offence.

Because AFL earnings dwarf those in the AFLW, fines are replaced by reprimands, with two in a season triggering a two-week ban that comes down to one with a guilty plea.


McLachlan said he expects Brennan to appeal the ban.

“I can see why she was (suspended). It is the second one from her,� he said.

“She is such a tremendous player. I think she will appeal and we will see what happens.�

The Western Bulldogs are widely expected to appeal the ban. The club must decide before 11am on Tuesday.

[Twodogs]

Just because Gil says it doesn't make it true. Like most stupid people Gil's default to being caught out is to lie.

Of course we believe you Gil. Most wouldn't but the exact same situation in the two comp's being judged differently must be correct.

You *!*!*!*!ing idiot, HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK WE ARE?

[Axe Man]

Do you think there is any chance the AFL are just wanting to be seen to be doing the 'right' thing? As in there will be no special treatment because it's a Grand Final, but in reality they really do want one of the games marquee players taking the field.

I'm hoping this is all for show and the appeal will just be a formality for Katie to get off. The AFL certainly have history in stage managing things.

[Twodogs]

Do you think there is any chance the AFL are just wanting to be seen to be doing the 'right' thing? As in there will be no special treatment because it's a Grand Final, but in reality they really do want one of the games marquee players taking the field.

I'm hoping this is all for show and the appeal will just be a formality for Katie to get off. The AFL certainly have history in stage managing things.

Maybe if we were Essendon or Collingwood but we are the Bulldogs and the only time the AFL reduce the pressure of their boot on our neck is to get a better purchase and press down even harder.

[soupman]

Disappointing outcome. I'm not actually opposed to the 2/3 reprimands equals a 1 match ban, a bit like the yellow card accumulation in soccer I think it offers a lighter punishment for offences that does deal with repeat offenders. I do however think that players should be exempt from serving those punishments in finals. Instead the week suspension should carry over to the next home and away match, so in Brennans case round 1 next year.

I think this has multiple benefits:
-The AFL can still be seen to be cracking down on incidental or careless actions
-No player misses a final due to an action that wasn't malicious or even necessarily deliberate
-The player still gets punished, just at a later date
-Incidents worthy of an actual outright suspension still cause players to miss finals

[bornadog]

“The guidelines say if you’re swung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force then it’s graded as a dangerous tackle and therefore rough conduct,” Christian said.

I think what the tribunal needs to consider the above and deem if the tackle was rough conduct. Looking at the tackle, yes it was forceful, but there is a fine line of tackling a player. KB didn't drive the player into the ground and smack her head against the turf. I don't believe it was excessive force, as the Melbourne player got the free kick and continued to play on. Christian has this one wrong.

[Axe Man]

As expected:

AFLW: Dog skipper to challenge Grand Final ban (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-20/aflw-dog-skipper-to-challenge-grand-final-ban)

WESTERN Bulldogs skipper Katie Brennan will head to the Tribunal in a bid to overturn the one-game ban that would rule her out of Saturday's NAB AFL Women's Grand Final.

The Tribunal will sit from 5.30pm on Tuesday night.

Brennan was offered a one-match ban for rough conduct against Melbourne's Harriet Cordner after applying a sling tackle on the defender, where her arms were pinned and her head hit the ground. Cordner was paid a free kick and was able to take it.

The tackle on Cordner was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head.

Brennan flagged the Tribunal fight when she spoke on Monday, before match review officer Michael Christian handed out the suspension.

"I guess we would potentially try to challenge it because we have nothing to lose, in a way, to try and get back out there," she said.

"It was an accident and I apologised to Harriet."

On what it would mean to miss the Grand Final, Brennan said: "It would be absolutely devastating. What's done is done. On review, it was a really heated contest and [there were] an enormous amount of tackles out there. It was our game plan to apply a lot of pressure and it's what we pride ourselves on as forwards.

"It's something I can't control so I just prepare and get around the girls and treat the rest of the day as normal."

[Bulldog Joe]

Disappointing outcome. I'm not actually opposed to the 2/3 reprimands equals a 1 match ban, a bit like the yellow card accumulation in soccer I think it offers a lighter punishment for offences that does deal with repeat offenders. I do however think that players should be exempt from serving those punishments in finals. Instead the week suspension should carry over to the next home and away match, so in Brennans case round 1 next year.

I think this has multiple benefits:
-The AFL can still be seen to be cracking down on incidental or careless actions
-No player misses a final due to an action that wasn't malicious or even necessarily deliberate
-The player still gets punished, just at a later date
-Incidents worthy of an actual outright suspension still cause players to miss finals

That post contains too much logical reasoning to have any chance of being considered by a bureaucracy.

[Happy Days]

This is another example of the farcical nature of the AFL's insistence on a "separation of powers" model for their allegedly independent tribunal.

How does having to defend yourself against the AFL, at an AFL endorsed body, with the HEAD OF THE AFL saying that you're guilty, make for any sense of impartiality?

[hujsh]

This is another example of the farcical nature of the AFL's insistence on a "separation of powers" model for their allegedly independent tribunal.

How does having to defend yourself against the AFL, at an AFL endorsed body, with the HEAD OF THE AFL saying that you're guilty, make for any sense of impartiality?
Comrade 'Happy Days', you seem unsatisfied with our leadership. It seems you need to cool down somewhere. Perhaps a state paid train ride to Siberia will help? No it's no trouble. We insist.

[Axe Man]

AFLW match review penalties are too harsh and if Katie Brennan were a man she’d be playing in Grand Final (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/aflw/aflw-match-review-penalties-are-too-harsh-and-if-katie-brennan-were-a-man-shed-be-playing-in-grand-final/news-story/9c04a8615f34102b88042965f422b7b4)

IF Katie Brennan were a bloke playing AFL, she’d be free to play in Saturday’s Grand Final.

The AFLW tribunal guidelines are manifestly unfair, but is that a good enough argument to get KB off when she appeals her one-match ban tonight?

Brennan was rubbed out after two rough conduct charges, both careless and low impact.

Under AFL rules, a bloke would be fined $2000 with an early plea for the first one and $3000 for the second, with an early plea again.

And he would have been allowed to commit the same offence again and still avoid a ban. He would have been fined $5000 (early plea). But no missing a game, let alone a Grand Final.

Both the men’s and women’s punishment systems are designed to change behaviour, according to the AFL.

But I would argue the punishment for the women is too harsh.

Fines weren’t considered for the AFLW’s seven-week home and away competition because the players simply don’t get paid enough. A player’s entire season wage could be gobbled up for a clumsy tackle.

Surely a level of fines commensurate with their wages would be a better option.

Say, first offence $200. The second, bump it up to $800 — even a grand.

But to be rubbed out of a Grand Final is far too heavy. Especially when a bloke would only feel it in the hip pocket.

[bornadog]

Some good points in that article, especially about penalties.

[Happy Days]

Reading the updates - I reckon we've stuffed this up

"It has been accepted that there was a classifiable offence to the head, and carelessness."

And even better;

"Brennan admitted to pinning Cordner at the elbow, which isn't the same as pinning down by the sides of the body but he says it's pinning nonetheless."

Really should have attacked the perspective that this warranted any sanction, rather than trying to be Cool Hand Luke and working within the system.

[Testekill]

Was always going to miss once Gil came out backing Christian's decision.

[Happy Days]

Megan Hustwaite saying that we didn't refer to the Dees medical report (which reflected no damage) in our evidence...

Where did we find this "advocate" exactly?

[Sedat]

We need to employ Kagiso Rabada's lawyer for future tribunal hearings.

[bornadog]

What an absolute farce the whole thing is. Basically we now have a situation where Brennan has been suspended for two weeks for a rough tackle. Under the mens rules she would have copped a fine.

[bornadog]

Megan Hustwaite saying that we didn't refer to the Dees medical report (which reflected no damage) in our evidence...

Where did we find this "advocate" exactly?


The advocate was pathetic, pleading to the tribunal to allow Katie to play beacuse we don't want a situation like Bob missing a GF.

From Twitter:


A/Prof Kate Seear (https://twitter.com/Kate_Seear)
‏ @Kate_Seear (https://twitter.com/Kate_Seear)FollowFollow
@Kate_Seear

A/Prof Kate Seear Retweeted AFL.com.au
As I understand it, Katie Brennan didn't have the option of paying a fine for the 2nd offence b/c fines aren't an available sanction in #AFLW (https://twitter.com/hashtag/AFLW?src=hash). If that is indeed correct, then the Bulldogs should have argued THAT as "compelling and exceptional circumstances to reduce her penalty.

and


A/Prof Kate Seear (https://twitter.com/Kate_Seear)
‏ @Kate_Seear (https://twitter.com/Kate_Seear) 4h4 hours ago (https://twitter.com/Kate_Seear/status/976005180763250688)

Also, if my understanding is right, then this is a prime eg of how gender differences in AFLW/AFLM have material impacts for women. Did Katie Brennan's advocate argue sex-based discrimination as a "compelling and exceptional circumstance" for reduced penalty? And if not, why not?

If we go to the appeals board, hope we follow the professors advice.

[SonofScray]

Whoever ran this on Katie's behalf is a dead set dud. What I am seeing in the reports is just farcical on our behalf, embarrassing. Our players deserve better.

[Rocket Science]

Jeezus, the 'Bob' angle's a real masterstroke.

[soupman]

Denis Denuto style stuff. What an absolute embarrassment.

We decide to challenge a ruling that put almost every category at the lowest grade, with almost the entire thing arguable as to whether there was sufficient force, intent or impact for it to be worth anything more than a freekick, and our gameplan is to validate that ruling by agreeing with it, then pulling out a farcical argument involving: Claiming that Brennan missing would be bad for the growth of the game (wtf?), then pulling out a completely irrelevant and frankly pathetic point that hadn't we suffered enough because the captain of a different side missed a premiership two years ago (despite that player probably being the player most associated with that premiership and only missing because he was injured, not rubbed out for some careless tackle).

That tribunal would have been itching to let her off:
-seriously she is a poster girl of the competition; good looking, a star and super polished in the media)
-the tackle was a little careless but hardly malicious, and honestly not much worse than about 10 other tackles from the same game
-missing a GF for a reprimand is bullshit

We had so many easy ways to play this case in our favour and instead we presented an argument that boiled down to "the good bloke defence". She never stood a chance with that argument.

What a joke.

[SonofScray]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

[bornadog]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

I am with you SOS. Soon we will be watching touch football. The AFL has basically lost the plot.

Have a look at this for the past 3 Bulldogs suspended:

1. Easton Wood - Love tap as he walked past McGovern - ends up 1 week

2. Redpath - Pushed Davis close to his throat, but it was in the chest - Davis falls like a bag of shit - end result after appeal 2 weeks

3. Katie Brennan - Tackles a player, appeals, 2 weeks when a male footballer would have been fined.

Fair to say we have copped our fair share of unfair penalties.

[Axe Man]

The jury of Jason Johnson, Richard Loveridge and Sharelle McMahon disagreed, however, upholding the charge set by match review officer Michael Christian and adding an extra week because of Brennan's unsuccessful appeal.

Nothing against Sharelle McMahon but why is an ex-netballer sitting on a football tribunal? Would a footballer adjudicate netball matters? I know they need a woman on there, how about a woman from a football background?

[Happy Days]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

That was my biggest issue with the defence - we so readily ceded that it was a dangerous offence, which was probably the biggest point of contention.

Now that I've slept on it, bringing up Bob Murphy as our trump card argument is probably the most embarrassing thing I've ever heard us do.

[Happy Days]

I've long suspected that barristers kind of take the piss out of footy-related briefs and view it as an easy payday - they get paid their usual rate to navigate through a pretty simplistic set of rules as compared to what they usually deal with, and dish up an effort to reflect that.

This pretty much confirms it.

[bornadog]

I've long suspected that barristers kind of take the piss out of footy-related briefs and view it as an easy payday - they get paid their usual rate to navigate through a pretty simplistic set of rules as compared to what they usually deal with, and dish up an effort to reflect that.

This pretty much confirms it.

WE needed some of these law experts to represent us:

Liam Elphick‏ @LiamElphick_ (https://twitter.com/LiamElphick_)
@LiamElphick_

The legal reality under AFL Tribunal rules is that if Katie Brennan was a male player, she would have been given a $5,000 fine for this offence and be cleared to play in the Grand Final. This isn’t right, and it isn’t fair #AFLW (https://twitter.com/hashtag/AFLW?src=hash) #sportslaw (https://twitter.com/hashtag/sportslaw?src=hash)

[Mantis]

We have appealed the decision to suspend KB, hearing to be held tomorrow.

[bornadog]

We have appealed the decision to suspend KB, hearing to be held tomorrow.

Let's hope we don't stuff up this time.

[Axe Man]

Hopefully with Peter Gordon, his son and Rob Stary around the club we can mount a better case this time.

Dogs to appeal Tribunal's Brennan decision (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-21/dogs-to-appeal-tribunals-brennan-decision)

WESTERN Bulldogs captain Katie Brennan is exhausting all options to play in Saturday’s NAB AFL Women's Grand Final, taking her two-match suspension to the AFL Appeals Board.

It is believed the Bulldogs will argue that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.

The bid to clear the star forward will be held on Thursday afternoon, to avoid a clash with the AFL season opener between Richmond and Carlton.

Under AFL regulations, it will cost the Western Bulldogs $5000, with $2500 refundable in the event of a successful appeal.

The initial one-match ban was upgraded to two matches following the failed tribunal appearance on Tuesday night and Brennan stands to also miss round one 2019 if she is unsuccessful.

Brennan's second offence came in Saturday night's win over Melbourne where she was found to have carelessly driven Demon Harriet Cordner's head into the ground with a dangerous tackle.

She was reprimanded for a dangerous tackle on Fremantle's Stephanie Cain in round one.

Lawyers worked into the early hours of Wednesday morning determining the challenge after Tuesday night's appeal to the AFL Tribunal was thrown out.

[Bulldog Joe]

We had better start using some advocates with a touch more competence.

What we have served up for both Redpath and Brennan is just disgraceful.

[Ozza]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

[bornadog]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

sex-based discrimination is against the law

[Happy Days]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

I agree that challenging the tackle is a preferable course of action, but I totally disagree with the argument that the different rules somehow generate an equitable outcome; she's being victimised by an allegedly neutral body because she has the misfortune of being paid less for the same work.

The different set of rules create for a ridiculous disparity in punishment and it should (and can be easily) remedied.

[FrediKanoute]

Who was the last male player to be suspended from playing in a Grand Final as a result of a transgression in a prelim?

[Sedat]

sex-based discrimination is against the law
This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

[bornadog]

This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

Another of the many rules the AFL make up without any foresight or thinking ahead.

The women don't get paid enough to fine them so let's reprimand them, however two repreminds = 1 match suspension. However, they didn't think about the consequences of missing a GF, plus the penalty is too harsh for the crime. Now we have the total farsical situation that a strong tackle has resulted in 2 match suspension.

[Twodogs]

Who was the last male player to be suspended from playing in a Grand Final as a result of a transgression in a prelim?

It was Anthony Rocca and to be fair it was only 15 years ago.


This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

Other rules apply to the AFl like OH&S so it's not right to say all of society's laws don't apply to football. the restraint of trade issue has always been there but outside of getting a run by a club or individual that is unhappy with a recruiting outcome it's never really been an issue. All the parties realise that the system we have helps provide the most money for everyone.

An Equal Opportunities defense might apply. After all if they can then proving it wasn't followed shouldn't be hard when Cotchin played in the Grand Final. And they have to prove the finding was wrong in law before the appeal can be successful, maybe this is a way they can do that.

[LostDoggy]

As BAD said the situation is a farce, are basketball players on the tribunal? The appeal should be based on the physics of the tackle itself, there was no malice or intent, just a spur of the moment tackle in which the Melbourne player could of protected her fall more. THis is footy everyday of the week, don’t make a mockery of AFLW. Case closed, go and win the GF, sorry for being jerks Katie.

The pay equality argument is worthy too but which clown went the ‘but she’s a star’ argument? That just puts people offside.

Redpath and Wood suspensions last year should really have prepared me for this. What will Ratface Greene get away with this week?
Farcical.

[Twodogs]

I can't believe we went the "let her off, she's a star. Oh look, here's Bob Murphy!"

WTF was Murph supposed to say? "Hey, I'm here twice a day-try the *!*!*!*!ing fish? For Gods sake!

[Axe Man]

Some updates of the proceedings currently underway, some pretty compelling arguments in my view:

KATIE Brennan's AFL Appeals Board hearing has begun at Etihad Stadium without the forward in attendance.
The star Bulldog was not required to attend today's hearing, where a team of seven - including Dogs president Peter Gordon - is attempting to have her rough conduct charge overturned.
Brennan will miss the Grand Final if they fail.

The Bulldogs are arguing that the suspension was "manifestly excessive or inadequate", and say that differences between the AFL and AFLW are key in this case. A male player would be fined, while Brennan has been suspended.

"One of our primary submissions is that it’s close to extraordinary that a woman in the women’s league could have a penalty of suspension when an equivalent in the mens’ league does not amount to a suspension," Jack Rush QC has told the Appeals Board.

"Opportunities (for female players) to obtain and compete and get exposure…are more limited than male players. The women are played less and exposed to being suspended more for comparable transgressions to their male counterparts. "

The Dogs are appealing on all four elements: error of law, penalty manifestly excessive, classification of offence and failure of the tribunal to act reasonably in the circumstances.

RUSH: " Cordner had the time to be able to protect herself in that tackle had she chosen to do so. The circumstances were it was a close game … the free kick became a vital consideration for her. There is increased momentum from Cordner … she pivoted away from the goals in the tackle and her decision to handball are fundamental elements (to what should be considered)."

He says Brennan has met the test of "reasonable".

He's now referencing a High Court decision as precedent. In the case, the judge references that it "required a more elaborate enquiry .. .looking forward to see what a reasonable person would have done, not looking back ... what would a reasonable person have done?"

Rush says the benefit of hindsight must not be employed. He says what Brennan did was "exactly what one might have expected" from a prudent player.

"She laid a tackle in accordance with her training and that Cordner .. .would land to protect herself. Over the course of a split second, players cannot be expected to allow for every contingency arising from their opponent's decisions." (That's the error of law argument) He says there is nothing in the tackle that was careless. "There was nothing inherently unreasonable in her tackle."

Bulldogs are using precedent of a Jack Redden decision - careless, low impact, high. It's playing now.

It was Redden's tackle on Josh Kelly from last year. He was fined. Dogs' legal team says the duration of the tackle meted out by Redden is considerably longer than Brennan's. Say it's clear that Kelly was completely deprived of any opportunity to dispose of the ball, and that one arm was entirely restricted and pinned - the arm on the side of the pivot, and that the pivot was driven by Redden.

Dogs have shown another example from the men's comp featuring former Bomber Ben Howlett.Rush now says the AFL Tribunal did not have to apply the two-week sanction. Said there was nothing to restrict mitigating or exceptional and compelling circumstances being applied on Tuesday night. Says there definitely are those circumstances in this case. "It's not appropriate just to say 'the rules are the rules'." Also says the tribunal was not properly told how to apply the situation."For a male player, a fine of $2000 for an early guilty plea...second, $3000 for an early guilty plea. A third chance ... $5000 for an early guilty plea. Those are dealt with in completely different ways. The woman is suspended for 1/7th of the season. The male player is fined."He says the two-match ban is proportionate to a six-match ban in the men's, and that this is the ultimate example of exceptional and compelling circumstances and that the tribunal did not take these matters properly into account.

The Dogs say the ban is "unfair and discriminatory."

Rush says there will also be commercial consequences for Brennan by not playing. "The problem with any one size fits all solution, there are inevitably going to be situations where one size does not fit all."

Says there has been injustice.

Dogs say the circumstances "cry out" for another penalty to be applied in place of the two-match ban. We're now moving onto the errors of law the Dogs claim happened on Tuesday night. "Discrimination on the basis of a person's gender .. .which involves direct discrimination under the Sexual Discrimination Act."

The AFL treats male and female footballers differently on the basis of their gender, Rush says. "It is a fundamental breach in relation to the sexual discrimination act."

They're now citing the Respect and Responsibility Policy that the AFL introduced in August 2017.

Rush says that the discrinination is "manifestly obvious" and he can't believe it wasn't raised on Tuesday night. Says the recognition "couldn't be clearer" of what is now being considered. "This sort of discrimination - through the powers of this board - is (eradicated) by the imposition of another penalty".

Dogs say it's unlawful for a qualifying body to discriminate ... against female players on the basis of their gender. Says there is discrimination in employment which is prohibited by the Act, that players have been discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment.

Also referencing the Equal Opportunity Act, and says discrimination is the very basis of the way Brennan has been dealt with. Says it is a direct "outcome which is less favourable than that handed to a male player in equivalent circumstances".

[bornadog]

Western Bulldogs are arguing there has been a breach of federal sexual discrimination laws with Katie Brennan's appeal.

[bornadog]

Dogs citing and show vision of Jack Redden's tackle on Josh Kelly last year, classified same as Brennan incident, drew a fine

see here: https://t.co/VlIQErKB48

Result was $1000 fine

[Ozza]

Western Bulldogs are arguing there has been a breach of federal sexual discrimination laws with Katie Brennan's appeal.

That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.

I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.

[bornadog]

That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.

I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.

I think it is the correct path. The consequences of having STUPID laws where the men get a fine, but the women miss a GF from two reprimands is just ludicrous. . How would you like if that happened to one of our mens players. Clear discrimination.

Imagine the outrage if it was Dusty last year.

[Rocco Jones]

I think it is the correct path. The consequences of having STUPID laws where the men get a fine, but the women miss a GF from two reprimands is just ludicrous. . How would you like if that happened to one of our mens players. Clear discrimination.

Imagine the outrage if it was Dusty last year.

I totally agree BAD.

Basically....men get fined but because women don't earn enough to be fined, the ever so benevolent AFL suspended them instead.

That is clearly sexist.

[Jeanette54]

That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.

I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.

IF Katie does get off under that circumstance, then the pressure on her for the grand Final will be immense. I would not like to be in her boots come game time. (No scratch that, I would kill to be in her boots come game time) :-)

[Ozza]

I think it is the correct path. The consequences of having STUPID laws where the men get a fine, but the women miss a GF from two reprimands is just ludicrous. . How would you like if that happened to one of our mens players. Clear discrimination.

Imagine the outrage if it was Dusty last year.

I don’t disagree that the rules should change in future - but everyone knew the rules for this season.
I’m uncomfortable with football clubs turning proceedings into a real court room - when everyone knew the rules coming in.
For mine - we completely botched the first hearing, where we could have defended the tackle itself - and now because we botched it so badly, Peter and his mates are looking to strongarm the league.

[Rocco Jones]

I don’t disagree that the rules should change in future - but everyone knew the rules for this season.
I’m uncomfortable with football clubs turning proceedings into a real court room - when everyone knew the rules coming in.
For mine - we completely botched the first hearing, where we could have defended the tackle itself - and now because we botched it so badly, Peter and his mates are looking to strongarm the league.

Strong arm the league using their blatant sexism? I get your angle, I hate using the court room in footy, however this is different to pushing the boundary to get away with what you can. The AFL is being unethical/sexist. They deserve what they get. You'd have to be the rightest of alt right to not see this as sexist.

[Ozza]

Strong arm the league using their blatant sexism? I get your angle, I hate using the court room in footy, however this is different to pushing the boundary to get away with what you can. The AFL is being unethical/sexist. They deserve what they get. You'd have to be the rightest of alt right to not see this as sexist.

I think I have been very clear that I think the rules should be changed in future.

But I also think that degrees of the ‘sexist’ angle is extreme. It’s not like for like Rocco. The circumstances of the two competitions are vastly different. They aren’t two competitions running side by side with the same rules, same amount of rounds, same pay, same amount of players on the field etc etc.

[Axe Man]

That’s a disgraceful route to pursue. It’s taking the piss.

I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example - but trying to turn this into case of real world law, rather than sport - is pretty ordinary.

If you have a look at the details I have posted on the previous page they are having a crack at every angle they can think of, not just discrimination.

[Ozza]

If you have a look at the details I have posted on the previous page they are having a crack at every angle they can think of, not just discrimination.

Yes. And as you quoted me on, I’m all for them defending the tackle itself, and using the football related example’.

[bornadog]

Dogs' arguments can roughly be summarised as such:


1. Incident graded incorrectly compared with similar incidents in men's comp last year
2. Two match ban is disproportionate
3. The inconsistency between the men's and women's players is sex discrimination

[hujsh]

So devil's advocate: The AFL get rid of suspensions like this they don't have any real deterrent in place for persistent rough conduct. Are they condoning rougher behaviour in the womans game at that point? Or alternatively what rule changes are made so that there is an equivalent deterrent/punishment to what the men's game has?

It's easy to say it's sexist or discriminatory and that may be correct but I've not seen many suggestions on how to fix it aside from letting Katie off (which just so happens to suit our desires as Bulldog supporters funnily enough)

[Rocco Jones]

So devil's advocate: The AFL get rid of suspensions like this they don't have any real deterrent in place for persistent rough conduct. Are they condoning rougher behaviour in the womans game at that point? Or alternatively what rule changes are made so that there is an equivalent deterrent/punishment to what the men's game has?

It's easy to say it's sexist or discriminatory and that may be correct but I've not seen many suggestions on how to fix it aside from letting Katie off (which just so happens to suit our desires as Bulldog supporters funnily enough)

Why not have a fine that factors in the lesser pay of AFLW players? Seems like AFLW players are paid about 35 times less. So a $150-200 fine would actually be more than equal!

[bornadog]

So devil's advocate: The AFL get rid of suspensions like this they don't have any real deterrent in place for persistent rough conduct. Are they condoning rougher behaviour in the woman's game at that point? Or alternatively what rule changes are made so that there is an equivalent deterrent/punishment to what the men's game has?

It's easy to say it's sexist or discriminatory and that may be correct but I've not seen many suggestions on how to fix it aside from letting Katie off (which just so happens to suit our desires as Bulldog supporters funnily enough)

I guess the AFL have stuffed this up and there is a reprimand again and no penalty, because it doesn't exist.

For the future, they will have to have the same penalties as the men's game, ie a fine.

[bornadog]

Panel now deliberating after an hour and half.

[Happy Days]

The AFL actually just said something akin to "Men across the country are subjected to the same treatment". So either;

A. The highest level of women's football is akin to men's park competitions; or
B. "No it's actually you WOMENS who are the sexist ones"

If I didn't know better I'd think the AFL have gotten the week of media coverage they wanted out of this, and are now taking a dive at the final hurdle to see the right outcome occur.

[bornadog]

Appeal Dismissed - what do you expect from these douche bags at AFL HQ

[Twodogs]

So what's our plan now? Take an injunction out to stop the AFLW Grand Final being played on Saturday while we seek leave to appeal to the High Court?

[The Adelaide Connection]

Appeal Dismissed - what do you expect from these douche bags at AFL HQ

Just read that on Fox Sports and the article mentioned she is out unless they take it to court. I wonder if they muscle up and do just that.

[bornadog]

Just read that on Fox Sports and the article mentioned she is out unless they take it to court. I wonder if they muscle up and do just that.


I am glad we took this to the appeals board and didn't just lie back and take it like we have in the past.

I don't think it is worth going to court over, the AFL would *!*!*!*! us over even more in coming years.

[jeemak]

I think that should be it.

A strongly worded statement is required, but the AFL will be lining up punishments for our actions to date as it stands so anything more would be counter productive.

[Ozza]

Hope they let it lie now, and leave the rest of the players to push on without the further distraction.

[bornadog]

I think that should be it.

A strongly worded statement is required, but the AFL will be lining up punishments for our actions to date as it stands so anything more would be counter productive.

THE Western Bulldogs say they will consider their legal options after AFLW captain Katie Brennan’s appeal to overturn a two-match suspension failed on Thursday evening.
The Bulldogs’ case was dismissed on all four counts as the club put forward a case underlined by sexual discrimination. But the original two-match ban was upheld by the Appeals Board.

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon then told reporters the club will consider its legal options. Previously AFL clubs have gone to the Supreme Court in trying to free their players for Grand Finals.

The Sydney Swans did so for Andrew Dunkley in 1996, successfully delaying a tribunal hearing on a striking charge until after the Grand Final. Dunkley was later suspended for two games for striking James Hird.

[Sedat]

The horse bolted after our utterly inept defence at the first tribunal hearing.

Agree with our approach tonight, and the rules as they stand are clearly discriminatory. But then what do you expect from an organisation as inept as the AFL.

[Remi Moses]

Blimey that defence was Lionel Hutz like :confused:

[Greystache]

What a sorry fiasco the handling of this case was. I am at a loss to understand the logic of how we approach some things at times.

Whether it be public relations, managing media narratives, or in this case a tribunal defense effectively consisting "carn, let her off", I'm at a loss to think how we could have people in important positions at the club that get together and think the approaches we've taken of late seem like a good idea. Scary stuff!

[Go_Dogs]

What a sorry fiasco the handling of this case was. I am at a loss to understand the logic of how we approach some things at times.

Whether it be public relations, managing media narratives, or in this case a tribunal defense effectively consisting "carn, let her off", I'm at a loss to think how we could have people in important positions at the club that get together and think the approaches we've taken of late seem like a good idea. Scary stuff!

Time for a career change.

[Sedat]

What a sorry fiasco the handling of this case was. I am at a loss to understand the logic of how we approach some things at times.

Whether it be public relations, managing media narratives, or in this case a tribunal defense effectively consisting "carn, let her off", I'm at a loss to think how we could have people in important positions at the club that get together and think the approaches we've taken of late seem like a good idea. Scary stuff!
Yep, our senior management from the top down has had a piss poor pre-season. They all need to lift their game.

[bornadog]

Despite what posters may think, we did not go to the tribunal with a defence of Please let her play - that was a last minute plea.

We argued the tackle, we went through the whole action etc etc. and tried to argue it wasn't a sling tackle, the player was not hurt and played on and one arm was free to brace herself.

Do you think we are that dumb - get a grip people.

[Axe Man]

Good decision I think. Let the team get on with winning the Grand Final but keep having a crack at the injustice perpetrated by the AFL.

Club statement: Katie Brennan (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2018-03-23/club-statement-katie-brennan)

Three principles have been of paramount importance to Katie Brennan and the Western Bulldogs following the suspension of Katie by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night:

to fight the injustice and inequality to women which afflicts the AFL rules;
• to give the team the best possible chance of winning Saturday’s Grand final;
• to do her best to make herself available to assist on field with pursuing that success.
After the rejection of her appeal by the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday, Katie spent several hours with Club senior management discussing her options.

The AFL yesterday submitted to the Appeals Board that if Katie challenged the discriminatory nature of the AFLW rules, Katie should take that claim to an external court.

In preparation for this, Katie’s legal team served draft documents on the AFL for a Federal Court challenge to her suspension, and a separate challenge against the AFL to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

After lengthy consideration, Katie has decided that in the best interests of the team on Saturday it is best to resolve the matter by not seeking to pursue the Federal Court application.

She will not play in Saturday’s Grand Final but will instead strongly support the team tomorrow from the sidelines.

However, both she and the Club remain resolved to right the injustice and gender discrimination which is inherent to the current AFL Rules.

Accordingly, Katie has this morning filed proceedings with the Australian Human Rights Commission seeking to have her suspension overturned and for the AFL to amend the differences between the AFLW regulations and the AFL regulations to ensure that in future, other women players are not more likely to be suspended than men for identical conduct with identical disciplinary records.

To be clear, Katie is not seeking to play tomorrow. She wants her suspension overturned in time in the interests of justice, and the rules changed to make sure what happened to her does not happen to anyone else.

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,� Katie said.

“It is even more troubling to know that if I was a man playing in the AFL and was reported for the identical tackle, I would not have been suspended and I would be playing in a Grand final tomorrow.

“The fight for gender equality is as every bit as important to me as the Grand Final and the decisions I have made reflect both of those priorities.�

Club CEO Ameet Bains said: “We are immensely proud of Katie and stand by her. Our team will be doing its best to re-pay her faith in them tomorrow.

“We share Katie’s view that her suspension was wrong and we will fully support her challenging the AFL Rules on the basis of gender discrimination.�

[ReLoad]

Good decision I think. Let the team get on with winning the Grand Final but keep having a crack at the injustice perpetrated by the AFL.

Club statement: Katie Brennan (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2018-03-23/club-statement-katie-brennan)

Three principles have been of paramount importance to Katie Brennan and the Western Bulldogs following the suspension of Katie by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night:

to fight the injustice and inequality to women which afflicts the AFL rules;
• to give the team the best possible chance of winning Saturday’s Grand final;
• to do her best to make herself available to assist on field with pursuing that success.
After the rejection of her appeal by the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday, Katie spent several hours with Club senior management discussing her options.

The AFL yesterday submitted to the Appeals Board that if Katie challenged the discriminatory nature of the AFLW rules, Katie should take that claim to an external court.

In preparation for this, Katie’s legal team served draft documents on the AFL for a Federal Court challenge to her suspension, and a separate challenge against the AFL to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

After lengthy consideration, Katie has decided that in the best interests of the team on Saturday it is best to resolve the matter by not seeking to pursue the Federal Court application.

She will not play in Saturday’s Grand Final but will instead strongly support the team tomorrow from the sidelines.

However, both she and the Club remain resolved to right the injustice and gender discrimination which is inherent to the current AFL Rules.

Accordingly, Katie has this morning filed proceedings with the Australian Human Rights Commission seeking to have her suspension overturned and for the AFL to amend the differences between the AFLW regulations and the AFL regulations to ensure that in future, other women players are not more likely to be suspended than men for identical conduct with identical disciplinary records.

To be clear, Katie is not seeking to play tomorrow. She wants her suspension overturned in time in the interests of justice, and the rules changed to make sure what happened to her does not happen to anyone else.

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.

“It is even more troubling to know that if I was a man playing in the AFL and was reported for the identical tackle, I would not have been suspended and I would be playing in a Grand final tomorrow.

“The fight for gender equality is as every bit as important to me as the Grand Final and the decisions I have made reflect both of those priorities.”

Club CEO Ameet Bains said: “We are immensely proud of Katie and stand by her. Our team will be doing its best to re-pay her faith in them tomorrow.

“We share Katie’s view that her suspension was wrong and we will fully support her challenging the AFL Rules on the basis of gender discrimination.”

Good on them, what a great statement. I am really loving the whole Us Vs The World thing from all angles in our club, The WAFL team, the AFL team, management etc. I love to see serious snarl in our club!!!

Stick it up em!

[The Adelaide Connection]

It seems Michael Christian has been no-nonsense in the first week. Most decisions seemed reasonable and, dare I say it, on the money for mine. The Crows are challenging the Douglas call, but I think they are dreaming.

Called out another stager. Didn't seem to give Collingwood a free pass (as some worried). Also fronted the AFL website media to talk through the decisions.

It seemed like a positive start. I still worry when one bloke is holding the keys to the kingdom, but maybe it's the change we needed.

The real test will come when a big name (a Brownlow favourite etc.) comes across his desk.

[Sedat]

Didn't seem to give Collingwood a free pass (as some worried).
Yep, he was brutal on the Pies with Mason Cox - only gave him 1 week when the Pies were hoping he got 4 :D

[bornadog]

Round 2

Jamie Cripps, West Coast, has been charged with misconduct against Mitch Honeychurch, Western Bulldogs, during the third quarter of the Round Two match between West Coast and the Western Bulldogs, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday April 1, 2018.

In summary, he can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Western Bulldogs Football Club, the incident was assessed misconduct under the Tribunal guidelines. A first offence for misconduct is a $2500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1500 sanction.

[The Adelaide Connection]

What about Rioli putting his elbow through JJ's face? :confused:

[Rocket Science]

FMD ... Sicily offered a single week for intentionally kneeing a prone opponent in the head.

Good thing his surname isn't Redpath.

[bornadog]

FMD ... Sicily offered a single week for intentionally kneeing a prone opponent in the head.

Good thing his surname isn't Redpath.

Total joke.

[AndrewP6]

Ah, the MRP. Fined Toby Greene for kicking someone in the face, Sicily gets a week for kneeing someone in the head....


Ahhh, the MRP.

[ratsmac]

FMD ... Sicily offered a single week for intentionally kneeing a prone opponent in the head.

Good thing his surname isn't Redpath.

If the AFL stepped in last year in the lenient Houli case, surely this one is just as bad. Lucky it was Selwood because his head is made of concrete. Because he wasn't hurt Sicily just gets a week. Pfft. He dropped his knee on his *!*!*!*!ing head ffs.

[bornadog]

If the AFL stepped in last year in the lenient Houli case, surely this one is just as bad. Lucky it was Selwood because his head is made of concrete. Because he wasn't hurt Sicily just gets a week. Pfft. He dropped his knee on his *!*!*!*!ing head ffs.

Dirty act from a gutless turd. How tough is that, the guy is lying on the ground and he does that.

[Axe Man]

What about Rioli putting his elbow through JJ's face? :confused:

Pretty sure it was his shoulder but still baffling. It didn't even warrant a mention in the MRP report. He chose to bump, got JJ high who was clearly affected, but luckily not concussed. Couldn't believe it wasn't a free at the time. It had to at least be careless low impact to the head. I thought if you chose to bump and hit someone high you would be in trouble?

[bornadog]

Zaine reported and can accept a one match ban for striking Hooker.

This is all we need

Conno McKenna off to tribunal for biting Tory Dickson

[Pickenitup]

I can't even remember the incident and how does Sandilands get off for his bump What a joke.

[Go_Dogs]

Zaine reported and can accept a one match ban for striking Hooker.

This is all we need

Conno McKenna off to tribunal for biting Tory Dickson

This happened in front of the interchange bench abt 10 metres from me.

Hooker threw about 6 punches which hit Cordy in the jaw and throat, I turned to my mate who went for Essendon and told him Hooker would be having a few weeks holiday for his efforts. Can’t believe he hasn’t been cited. Well, actually I can because the new tribunal is still totally inept and lacking transparency.

Hope the club issues a WTF.

[Happy Days]

Is there a bigger wanker in the AFL than Cale Hooker?

[bornadog]

Is there a bigger wanker in the AFL than Cale Hooker?


http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/4c73fe83fadb98b23e84909baad586e8

[Ghost Dog]

Ah well Zaine. Couldn't have whacked a better deserving bloke.


http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/4c73fe83fadb98b23e84909baad586e8

What the hell is that eyesore Bornadog?

[AndrewP6]

Ah well Zaine. Couldn't have whacked a better deserving bloke.



What the hell is that eyesore Bornadog?

That is Stringers chest tattoo in progress.

[Ghost Dog]

That is Stringers chest tattoo in progress.

Really?? Wouldn't have thought Jake was a fan of Victorian era century etched ornamentation. There you go!
Are you serious? Haha. That's so eye-wateringly bad.

[AndrewP6]

Really?? Wouldn't have thought Jake was a fan of Victorian era century etched ornamentation. There you go!
Are you serious? Haha. That's so eye-wateringly bad.

Yep, the lion over his stomach setting it all off nicely.

[divvydan]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-04-09/dog-banned-for-biffing-bomber

Can find the footage of the Cordy incident at that link. It's about a minute into the video.

[Bulldog Joe]

I would challenge the suspension, but with the defence we have mounted for Redpath last year and Katie Brennan as a guide, it would be just an embarrassment.

Cordy didn't even throw a punch. It was just an intended bump that Hooker created by running into the contact. He then went down looking for an undeserved free from a slight glancing blow with Zaine's upper arm.

[Rocket Science]

Both pissweak and stupid. That it was well off the ball probably inflates their interest in looking at it too. We all want to smash Hooker but just bloody pointless Zaine.

[G-Mo77]

Silly boy, take the week and move on.

[ratsmac]

Surely a fine is sufficient in the Cordy case, oh no hang on the fines are only for Collingwood players and suspensions are for everyone else. This bloke (Michael Christian) must be held to account by somebody.

[Bulldog Joe]

If you compare the incident of Rance on Bruest, where a fine has been offered, Zaine is harshly treated.

[divvydan]

Rance and Scott Thompson had basically the exact same situation this week and got a fine. The argument made by the MRP for being different to Cordy is that they were attempting to spoil and thus it's not an intentional act (hitting the player) whereas Cordy's act was off the ball and therefore intentional.

[bornadog]

If you slow it down, Cordy tries to bump him across the upper arm, and Hooker puts his head down, he barely gets hit and then acts as if his lights are punched out by falling down and then bobs up quick as a flash.

[FrediKanoute]

Dumb by Cordy, but fair decision. More concerned though as why Hooker isn't charged with his follow up punch on Cordy - looked way worse

[SonofScray]

Dumb by Cordy, but fair decision. More concerned though as why Hooker isn't charged with his follow up punch on Cordy - looked way worse

That stuff is what think should be dealt with more frequently in this manner. However, I don't believe he punched him? The moire should have paid a free kick down field. That's it.

If the act is is the realms of actions performed in of football, bumping, spoiling, marking, tackling etc it should rarely draw a suspension unless it is unreasonably or intentionally late, high or both. That pretty much means weeks for all the bullshit niggling and jumper punches etc. More emphasis should be placed on the field umpires to issue a report too. Video footage, out of context and slowed down feels unfair in some instances.

The alternative thing I would do is introduce a third man in rule, and lessen the penalty for retaliation. IE Hooker jumper punches me in a push and shove, he'll get one week. I punch his brains out through his ears, no penalty. Anyone one else runs in, 2 weeks. Nothing is as effective a deterrent as the threat of a punch in the face.

[Rocket Science]

Reads article ... rubs eyes ... reads article again.

Good to see our new judge, jury and executioner taking the new gig in his stride.

The game's in good hands.

----

Michael Christian Sorry For Amateur Umpire Approach
(http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-10/michael-christian-sorry-for-amateur-umpire-approach)
MATCH Review Officer Michael Christian has apologised for approaching an umpire during an amateur women's game in which his daughter was playing, to raise concerns about sling tackles.

Christian criticised umpire Adrian Fisher for failing to award free kicks against sling tackles during the half-time break at a match between Old Brighton and Old Scotch on Sunday.

Fisher told Fairfax radio on Tuesday his exchange with Christian was not heated, but he felt the League official's actions had been inappropriate.

Christian said he had tried to call Fisher to apologise and had informed AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking of the incident.

"I spoke to the AFL today, to Steve Hocking, to confirm this had occurred," Christian said.

"Steve clearly outlined the AFL's position to me, that this should not have happened by any person, particularly not someone in a senior official role in the game."

An AFL spokesman confirmed Hocking had directed Christian to apologise to Fisher and the women's league.

[bornadog]

Western Bulldogs have accepted Zaine Cordy’s one-game sanction for striking & will miss Saturday's clash

[jeemak]

Reads article ... rubs eyes ... reads article again.

Good to see our new judge, jury and executioner taking the new gig in his stride.

The game's in good hands.

----

Michael Christian Sorry For Amateur Umpire Approach
(http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-10/michael-christian-sorry-for-amateur-umpire-approach)
MATCH Review Officer Michael Christian has apologised for approaching an umpire during an amateur women's game in which his daughter was playing, to raise concerns about sling tackles.

Christian criticised umpire Adrian Fisher for failing to award free kicks against sling tackles during the half-time break at a match between Old Brighton and Old Scotch on Sunday.

Fisher told Fairfax radio on Tuesday his exchange with Christian was not heated, but he felt the League official's actions had been inappropriate.

Christian said he had tried to call Fisher to apologise and had informed AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking of the incident.

"I spoke to the AFL today, to Steve Hocking, to confirm this had occurred," Christian said.

"Steve clearly outlined the AFL's position to me, that this should not have happened by any person, particularly not someone in a senior official role in the game."

An AFL spokesman confirmed Hocking had directed Christian to apologise to Fisher and the women's league.


It's almost as if giving one person carte blanche decision making powers might result in their ego and sense of self importance being inflated.......

Fancy doing what this numpty has done!

[Rocket Science]

It's almost as if giving one person carte blanche decision making powers might result in their ego and sense of self importance being inflated.......

Fancy doing what this numpty has done!

Surprised Christo didn't pass on a few rucking tips while he was at it.

What breathtaking gall.

[Axe Man]

I can imagine the conversation: That girl that tackled my daughter should have been reported and suspended just like how I suspended Katie Brennan.

[Rocket Science]

Haha ... circa the HS.

--------

Fisher (the umpire) said the incident occurred at half time of the local footy match.

“First of all he said he was independent, which gets up my goat because his daughter was playing, he wasn’t independent,� Fisher told 3AW.

“He said I’m independent, you’re missing sling tackles.

“I said ‘well that’s your opinion’.

“He said ‘you’re missing sling tackles and paying them as holding’.

“I said ‘that’s your opinion.’ Then he walked off and said ‘I’m right’.

--------

And the HS being the HS has appended the piece with this:


http://i63.tinypic.com/1r3tc6.png

[Jeanette54]

McKenna will plead guilty to serious misconduct charge

[bornadog]

McKenna will plead guilty to serious misconduct charge

Yes he has .

[Happy Days]

This isn't getting enough play for mine. This is SO unbelievably dirty and quite frankly pathetic from McKenna, as well as extremely dangerous - bites lead to open wounds, and open wounds around dirt and sweat can have horrible and even fatal consequences. Not to mention that throwing a tantrum because you aren't as quick as you think you are is also u/11 level petulance.

It ticks all the boxes of something the AFL should (incredibly dangerous) and does (bad for the #look and #feel of the #brand) want to eradicate, so I'm pretty surprised he's only getting three, possibly even two weeks.

[Rocket Science]

This isn't getting enough play for mine. This is SO unbelievably dirty and quite frankly pathetic from McKenna, as well as extremely dangerous - bites lead to open wounds, and open wounds around dirt and sweat can have horrible and even fatal consequences. Not to mention that throwing a tantrum because you aren't as quick as you think you are is also u/11 level petulance.

It ticks all the boxes of something the AFL should (incredibly dangerous) and does (bad for the #look and #feel of the #brand) want to eradicate, so I'm pretty surprised he's only getting three, possibly even two weeks.

As long as he gets less than that mongrel Redpath then justice will have been served.

[Scraggers]

Three weeks

[Remi Moses]

So Redpath gets the same punishment as a player who bit an opponent?
Staggering

[Rocket Science]

The price of helping yourself to the buffet?

Free weeks!

http://i65.tinypic.com/au9pnp.png

[divvydan]

Masten only got 2 weeks for his bite a few years ago that caused an open wound and Suban needing a course of antibiotics. On that occasion, Suban had put his forearm into Masten's face and was pressing on his mouth so there was some provocation but clearly the AFL have set the precedent that biting isn't a significantly worse offense than other offences with their penalty in that case and now again with McKenna.

[bornadog]

Western Bulldogs' Lachie Hunter can accept a one-game ban for rough conduct on Tom Papley.

[Ozza]

Argh.....Damn it.

Huge loss.

[G-Mo77]

You can kick a Bulldog, punch a Bulldog and KO a Bulldog but if a Bulldog pushes to the face area the hammer is coming down. Hunter you thug, you should have gotten more than Jack Redpath for his brutal push from 2017.

[Axe Man]

Silly stuff from Hunter but could we argue it was below the necessary force to constitute a report? After all it was an open handed push.


Lachlan Hunter, Western Bulldogs, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Tom Papley, Sydney Swans, during the third quarter of the Round Four match between the Western Bulldogs and the Sydney Swans, played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday April 14, 2018.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction. The player can accept a one-match sanction without appearing before the Tribunal.

[ledge]

Let's face it he deserved a week for stupidity.

[ratsmac]

You can kick a Bulldog, punch a Bulldog and KO a Bulldog but if a Bulldog pushes to the face area the hammer is coming down. Hunter you thug, you should have gotten more than Jack Redpath for his brutal push from 2017.

Standard for the Bulldogs. This is a appalling suspension. I've slapped on sun screen on my kids harder than that. It was unnecessary and a fine was all it deserves surely. Or was Paply concussed and the swans provided a damning medical report.
If this isn't a response for the Katie Brennan who ha I don't know what is.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Forget the conspiracy theories rubbish. Unfortunately bydefinition Hunter meets the criteria for a week holiday. Contact high, force low BUT intentional. The only way he could get it to a fine was to try and argue either impact was not high or was not intentional. Given he was not in play and decided to go over to a player on the ground and give him a shove that's gonna be hard to beat.

[bornadog]

Forget the conspiracy theories rubbish. Unfortunately by definition Hunter meets the criteria for a week holiday. Contact high, force low BUT intentional. The only way he could get it to a fine was to try and argue either impact was not high or was not intentional. Given he was not in play and decided to go over to a player on the ground and give him a shove that's gonna be hard to beat.

Vision found here (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-16/match-review-write-off-weekend-round-four)

Let's face it, again they are trying to make an example of out of this type of thing.

That was softer than Redpath's push on Phil Diver.

If that is worth a week then this is worth 3


Swan Dan Hannebery ($1500) for instigating a melee before the opening bounce of his team's clash with the Bulldogs;

[jeemak]

They certainly did the right thing in not awarding Suckling a free kick for too high.........Swans really went at us in the last 75 minutes of the game, the free kick count was slightly their way for the first 45 minutes or so. Interestingly, nuffies from Sydney believe that due to the lopsided free kick count we were favoured by the umpires. It's interesting that people think the number of free kicks outweighs the quality and position of free kicks.

Anyway, as for Hunter I liked that he was going after a guy who went after one of ours, but he shouldn't have done it in the fashion he did, a bit of attention once on his feet would have been better.

What I don't understand is how you can offer the same penalty for this as a knee clearly and intentionally dropped on a players head.

[Axe Man]

Forget the conspiracy theories rubbish. Unfortunately bydefinition Hunter meets the criteria for a week holiday. Contact high, force low BUT intentional. The only way he could get it to a fine was to try and argue either impact was not high or was not intentional. Given he was not in play and decided to go over to a player on the ground and give him a shove that's gonna be hard to beat.

Not true. One could argue the force was not sufficient to constitute a reportable offence. Otherwise a pat on the head would also be worthy of a week. I do concede that it is unlikely to be successful though.

[AndrewP6]

I've just spent 5 minutes watching and rewatching that footage... If that's worth a week, we'll soon see a no contact zone implemented, similar to netball.

Not too smart, sure, but that's not worth a week.

[Remi Moses]

A week is fair enough , but I can’t stand the impact element of a suspension .
How many times does a player get off because of minimal impact ?
The impact was minimal , but be certain there will be a player who gets off under “ minimal impact “

[The bulldog tragician]

That is hard to fathom. I watched it twice because I thought I’d missed an act of thuggery. Compare it with Toby Greene and Dahl. You instinctively flinch and feel it’s such a dangerous act, compared to this bit of silliness.

[SonofScray]

Again, the u pure was right there and chose not to report him, nor reverse the free kick. More responsibility needs to be placed on the umpire to make the report, rather than have someone scour video for opportunities to justify their existence.

That was poor discipline from Hunter. But 1 week is a harsh penalty when allowing for the scenario and stacking it up against other reportable incidents. Why does an elbow into the back/kidneys before the ball is bounced not generate the same penalty? JJ was assaulted for weeks, intentionally, off the ball and forcefully enough to put him on the ground, for no free kick, no penalty. Dahl was killed kicked in the face, and everyone did gymnastics to conceive it as anything but.....

"Rough conduct" strikes again. The deliberately vague charge with which the league can apply arbitrarily to make an example of some players, without really having to justify it. For when media pressure or the imaginary soccer mum hysteria makes the brand manager a little queasy. It's a shit charge and this is another example.

If that is the threshold for a suspension, then we may as well not have free kicks anymore.

[soupman]

Hunter deserved to be suspended for that, I can't see any argument for that. To forcefully put your hands on a defenseless players face unprovoked is a shit act, much like Rance's slap to Watts head a couple of years ago was as well.

The issue is obviously when you compare it to other suspensions and their lengths. 1 week for Hunter seems bad when someone else cops one week for something with greater potential to hurt. This is more down to the fact that it is so difficult to assign variety of suspension terms to players. When 90% of the suspension you hand out are between 1 and 2 weeks it means that a great variety of actions cop the same penalty.

[jeemak]

Hunter deserved to be suspended for that, I can't see any argument for that. To forcefully put your hands on a defenseless players face unprovoked is a shit act, much like Rance's slap to Watts head a couple of years ago was as well.

The issue is obviously when you compare it to other suspensions and their lengths. 1 week for Hunter seems bad when someone else cops one week for something with greater potential to hurt. This is more down to the fact that it is so difficult to assign variety of suspension terms to players. When 90% of the suspension you hand out are between 1 and 2 weeks it means that a great variety of actions cop the same penalty.

Suspension plus fine is the way to go.

[Axe Man]

Hunter has accepted 1 week, Jack Graham to challenge his suspension.

[bornadog]

Good decision I think. Let the team get on with winning the Grand Final but keep having a crack at the injustice perpetrated by the AFL.

Club statement: Katie Brennan (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2018-03-23/club-statement-katie-brennan)

Three principles have been of paramount importance to Katie Brennan and the Western Bulldogs following the suspension of Katie by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night:

to fight the injustice and inequality to women which afflicts the AFL rules;
• to give the team the best possible chance of winning Saturday’s Grand final;
• to do her best to make herself available to assist on field with pursuing that success.
After the rejection of her appeal by the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday, Katie spent several hours with Club senior management discussing her options.

The AFL yesterday submitted to the Appeals Board that if Katie challenged the discriminatory nature of the AFLW rules, Katie should take that claim to an external court.

In preparation for this, Katie’s legal team served draft documents on the AFL for a Federal Court challenge to her suspension, and a separate challenge against the AFL to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

After lengthy consideration, Katie has decided that in the best interests of the team on Saturday it is best to resolve the matter by not seeking to pursue the Federal Court application.

She will not play in Saturday’s Grand Final but will instead strongly support the team tomorrow from the sidelines.

However, both she and the Club remain resolved to right the injustice and gender discrimination which is inherent to the current AFL Rules.

Accordingly, Katie has this morning filed proceedings with the Australian Human Rights Commission seeking to have her suspension overturned and for the AFL to amend the differences between the AFLW regulations and the AFL regulations to ensure that in future, other women players are not more likely to be suspended than men for identical conduct with identical disciplinary records.

To be clear, Katie is not seeking to play tomorrow. She wants her suspension overturned in time in the interests of justice, and the rules changed to make sure what happened to her does not happen to anyone else.

“I believe my tackle on Harriet Cordner was reasonable and I strongly disagree with the guilty finding,” Katie said.

“It is even more troubling to know that if I was a man playing in the AFL and was reported for the identical tackle, I would not have been suspended and I would be playing in a Grand final tomorrow.

“The fight for gender equality is as every bit as important to me as the Grand Final and the decisions I have made reflect both of those priorities.”

Club CEO Ameet Bains said: “We are immensely proud of Katie and stand by her. Our team will be doing its best to re-pay her faith in them tomorrow.

“We share Katie’s view that her suspension was wrong and we will fully support her challenging the AFL Rules on the basis of gender discrimination.”

Western Bulldogs AFLW captain Katie Brennan free to play round one next season. League changing the rules to mean suspensions for women are same as for men. Human Rights Commission action has been dropped.

Thanks to WB and the actions of Katie, the AFL has now changed this stupid and unfair punishment to be more equitable with the men's game.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Let's face it he deserved a week for stupidity.

Was stupid, but Papleys acting was first rate - did Hunter even get him in the face? it looked like contact was to the chest and then Papley grabs his face

[Testekill]

If Hunter was going to hit Papley then I would have much preferred he hit him really hard. Papley is such a grub

[westdog54]

Was stupid, but Papleys acting was first rate - did Hunter even get him in the face? it looked like contact was to the chest and then Papley grabs his face

Hunter absolutely gets his face.

[bornadog]

I have said it a million times, MRP is a joke. How Burton gets away with knocking out Higgins is beyond me, accidental clash of heads or not, he chose to bump, and the consequences was Higgins knocked out

The other one is Mitchell getting away with elbowing Goldstein to the head. Cordy got a week for the same thing.

AFL really don't have any idea.

[bornadog]

Hunter absolutely gets his face.

What is the difference between that one and Macrae lying on his back and a Freo player pressing his forearm into Jack's neck - that would have hurt - didn't even get sited. The Hunter one is just a fine not a week off. Papley is a spoilt brat acting out as if he was punched hard to the face - weak as piss.

[AndrewP6]

Christian must have money on Mitchell for the Brownlow.

[Bulldog Joe]

I have said it a million times, MRP is a joke. How Burton gets away with knocking out Higgins is beyond me, accidental clash of heads or not, he chose to bump, and the consequences was Higgins knocked out

The other one is Mitchell getting away with elbowing Goldstein to the head. Cordy got a week for the same thing.

AFL really don't have any idea.

Cordy did not raise an elbow. Hooker's jaw made some contact with his bicep. It was a much more innocent action than the one by Mitchell.

[Doc26]

I have said it a million times, MRP is a joke. How Burton gets away with knocking out Higgins is beyond me, accidental clash of heads or not, he chose to bump, and the consequences was Higgins knocked out

The other one is Mitchell getting away with elbowing Goldstein to the head. Cordy got a week for the same thing.

AFL really don't have any idea.

I can’t see any difference between Cordy getting 1 week for his strike on Hooker and Mitchell for his strike on Goldstein.
Mitchell’s somehow assessed with the softer misconduct whilst Christian deems Cordy’s as striking.
Striking inconsistency.

[Topdog]

Mitchell was very soft, I'm happy to see that not given weeks but when you compare it to Hunter getting a week it is laughable.

Burton getting off is incredible. Choose to bump and as a result Higgins was knocked out. He had the option of tackling but chose to bump, just staggering. It's like the last 5 years haven't existed.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-08/head-still-sacrosanct-mclachlan

[angelopetraglia]

If Joel Selwood gets off .... "I'll spew up".

[bornadog]

If Joel Selwood gets off .... "I'll spew up".

How was Slobbo on AFL360 saying he should get off and sucking up to Chris Scott. It was sickening, I switched over to another channel.

[Rocket Science]

A while back when we were musing about the most loathed players in the game I suggested there was daylight between Toby Greene and second place.

James Sicily's taught me I was wrong.

[SonofScray]

A while back when we were musing about the most loathed players in the game I suggested there was daylight between Toby Greene and second place.

James Sicily's taught me I was wrong.
Sicily is playing the role of a pantomime villain, thinking he is tough. Behaving disgracefully at the moment. The sort of stuff he is doing off the ball (trodding on downed opponent) should see him out for a few weeks. Not in play, not necessary, deliberate and unsportsmanlike.

[Twodogs]

Why won't the media point out the rubbish masquerading as the tribunal?

Probably because they have their noses in the trough as much as the players and admin. Betcha it's been years since Robbo paid for anything to do with football, free food at games, free entry. Why would he rock the boat?

[Axe Man]

If Joel Selwood gets off .... "I'll spew up".


How was Slobbo on AFL360 saying he should get off and sucking up to Chris Scott. It was sickening, I switched over to another channel.

There is nothing in Selwood's "strike". It's not dissimilar to Hunter's, more of a push than a strike. Hunter's should have been no more than a fine and neither should Selwood's. But just like Mitchell getting a fine and Cordy getting a week, if Selwood gets off the inconsistency will be glaring.

[angelopetraglia]

There is nothing in Selwood's "strike". It's not dissimilar to Hunter's, more of a push than a strike. Hunter's should have been no more than a fine and neither should Selwood's. But just like Mitchell getting a fine and Cordy getting a week, if Selwood gets off the inconsistency will be glaring.

Agree. But we have not had any luck with the MRP of late. Anything borderline and we have been punished. If Hunter went for his and Selwood gets off .... I'll spew up.

[jeemak]

Sicily is playing the role of a pantomime villain, thinking he is tough. Behaving disgracefully at the moment. The sort of stuff he is doing off the ball (trodding on downed opponent) should see him out for a few weeks. Not in play, not necessary, deliberate and unsportsmanlike.

I love how many people fall over themselves to make excuses for this dickhead, much like they do for Toby Greene.

Why can't we just admit these players are dickheads irrespective of how well they can play the game, and deride them because they are dickheads?

[angelopetraglia]

Selwood is a protected species :mad: .... “spewing up”

[SonofScray]

It never fails to plunge new, deeper depths of shoddiness. Just a joke.

[G-Mo77]

Selwood is a protected species :mad: .... “spewing up”

He should never have been cited for it. What a joke of a suspension. Someone deliberately stands on someone and gets a week. Yeah they fixed the MRP this season. Lol

[Remi Moses]

What a disgrace ! Hunter should have been cleared
So “ the look of the game” doesn’t matter this week ?
It did last week !! Chooklotto

[G-Mo77]

What a disgrace ! Hunter should have been cleared
So “ the look of the game” doesn’t matter this week ?
It did last week !! Chooklotto

We just took it on the chin though, we should have challenged. There was absolutely nothing in it at all.

[Hotdog60]

I think we should keep video evidence of all these players that get off and use it as our defence for simular or lesser infringements to get our players off.
If that fails leak it to the media.

[The bulldog tragician]

The decisions make no sense whatsoever unless you believe in a conspiracy of an inner circle of “good blokes”, clubs continually favoured by the tribunal and mythology about some guys as heroic and untouchable... hang on...

[angelopetraglia]

Imagine if Thomas had done the same thing to Selwood. Thomas would have got three weeks!!!!!!

[bornadog]

Bailey Williams cleared contact Z Fisher. A free kick was paid at time for dangerous tackle. Match Review said while tackle was careless and free correctly paid, it was his view there was not enough force in the tackle to constitute a charge being laid. No further action taken.

[bornadog]

Luke Parker cleared from last night, so no charge to answer to.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Fyfe involved in a few incidents. One where he elected to bump and caused a head clash, the other where he knocked Carlisle out.

The latter was interesting as Carlisle was on the ground (head over the ball and wrapped up in a tackle) when Fyfe ran in and collected him with his knee. Accidental, but still knocked him out. Should it be careless or negligent as he has run into a vulnerable (stationary) player and collected their head?

I suspect the Brownlow market will keep him safe.

[Topdog]

Yeo got cleared after seemingly doing exactly what Nic Nat did

[bornadog]

Ed Curnow has copped one week at the AFL appeals board, while Charlie Curnow is free to play

[westdog54]

Charlie's was borderline and part of a bigger melee. I'm not unhappy that he's been given the benefit of the doubt.

How Ed was cleared at the tribunal is mind boggling.

[bornadog]

MRP gets worse every week. Hunter needs to be given an explanation how he gets a week and Menegola gets off for a dog act.

You can see the incident here (https://twitter.com/joncatania6/status/1000320455473938432)

[Twodogs]

MRP gets worse every week. Hunter needs to be given an explanation how he gets a week and Menegola gets off for a dog act.

You can see the incident here (https://twitter.com/joncatania6/status/1000320455473938432)


Geekong at KP get everything from tge umpires and now the tribunal cheers them in.

I'm forgetting that Steve Hocking is in charge aren't I? You don't mind doing it hard, that's where the fun in achieving things is, as they say "if it was easy everybody would do it" but it's a discrace that this competition is now administered and umpired differently depending on which team you play for. That's not fair. And when teams like Geelong win its not fair on them because in reality they have acheived nothing-it's been handed to them on a plate.

[Ozza]

MRP gets worse every week. Hunter needs to be given an explanation how he gets a week and Menegola gets off for a dog act.

You can see the incident here (https://twitter.com/joncatania6/status/1000320455473938432)

You scared me BAD. I thought Hunter had been given a week (this week) and went searching on line for what the hell he did!!

[bornadog]

You scared me BAD. I thought Hunter had been given a week (this week) and went searching on line for what the hell he did!!

Whoops sorry :D

[KT31]

You scared me BAD. I thought Hunter had been given a week (this week) and went searching on line for what the hell he did!!

Me too !

[KT31]

MRP gets worse every week. Hunter needs to be given an explanation how he gets a week and Menegola gets off for a dog act.

You can see the incident here (https://twitter.com/joncatania6/status/1000320455473938432)

That is very ordinary, he should have least have gotten a week for such a dog act.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Fyfe "to come under scrutiny" for a late hit to Greenwood. I am not sure how they would assess it (I have stopped guessing) but I am more interested to see if they actually look at this one (they completely swept the last one under the rug).

Another Monday, another Fyfe "nothing to see here" is my guess.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-06-03/fyfes-high-hit-on-greenwood

[westdog54]

If Fyfe doesn't go for that Christian might as well start looking for a new gig for 2019.

[westdog54]

Double up

[comrade]

If Fyfe doesn't go for that Christian might as well start looking for a new gig for 2019.

I thought it was pretty minor but it gets worse the more you watch it.

[westdog54]

Its a forearm to the head of a player who's eyes are on the ball. I don't know who taught Nat Fyfe to spoil but that was ugly .

[Mantis]

Its a forearm to the head of a player who's eyes are on the ball. I don't know who taught Nat Fyfe to spoil but that was ugly .

It was clumsy, but I don't think it's worth a week.. But who the *!*!*!*! knows with Christian, but I'm thinking this will be his reasoning:

Fyfe = fine
Lesser player/ non- Brownlow fancy= 1 week

[Topdog]

It was clumsy, but I don't think it's worth a week.. But who the *!*!*!*! knows with Christian, but I'm thinking this will be his reasoning:

Fyfe = fine
Lesser player/ non- Brownlow fancy= 1 week

The thing is Fyfe seems to be "clumsy" 4 times a year. It's deliberate and definitely worthy of a week.

But yes on the hit Leigh Matthews thought it was important to note that it was "insufficient force" so Christian has his story already

[G-Mo77]

The thing is Fyfe seems to be "clumsy" 4 times a year. It's deliberate and definitely worthy of a week.

But yes on the hit Leigh Matthews thought it was important to note that it was "insufficient force" so Christian has his story already

It was a rare time I had the footy on and saw it when it happened. It was amazing how quick the commentary team hosed the fire down, although it was actually BT that said he could be in trouble. Like Mantis said a no name player will get a week, a big named player like Fyfe will get nothing.

[Ozza]

Got a week.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Got a week.

Taking it to the tribunal. "Brownlow immunity" will probably still come to pass.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Well I’ll be. Ban upheld. ��

[westdog54]

Cameron facing scrutiny for brutal KO - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-23/andrews-knocked-out-by-crude-hit

Fill in the blank: Jeremy Cameron will get ___________________ weeks.

I'll start by saying three.

[jeemak]

Jeremy Cameron will get five weeks.

[Axe Man]

Off with a reprimand because GWS. That nasty lions player was coming right at him

[Rocket Science]

That shit belongs in the eighties.

Based on intent and result if the AFEL are fair dinkum he'll get six weeks.

Because they're not he'll get half that.

[G-Mo77]

3 weeks, deserves 6. I still remember that prick taking out JJ and got off.

[Greystache]

With finals on the line for GWS/AFL... 2 weeks.

[Flamethrower]

That one action decided the result - Harris Andrews is the Lions' best player - GWS should be stripped of the 4 points, Cameron should have been sent off and be given an 8 week suspension - worst on field incident since Hall on Staker.

[Ozza]

I realise i’m In the minority - but I didn’t think Cameron’s was as bad as how its being reported. He’s come flying out from full forward, and was reckless and ultimately ended up half way between attacking the ball and closing up to protect himself with Andrews coming back into the contest - but its being spoken about like Lockett v Caven.

If its up to me, he gets two weeks. He didn’t line him up, he was reckless in a contest at very high speed.

[Ozza]

3 weeks, deserves 6. I still remember that prick taking out JJ and got off.

I think his hit on JJ had far more intent than today’s incident. I thought that was terrible, as he had plenty of opportunity to take a different course, whereas today was instinctual.

[josie]

What would Redpath receive it was him nor Cameron? Not that Red is that despicable. Cameron had his elbow out, I am not so sure it was instinctual. Smug campaigner, hope he receives a big sanction but being a plastic orange �� who knows?

[AndrewP6]

I realise i’m In the minority - but I didn’t think Cameron’s was as bad as how its being reported. He’s come flying out from full forward, and was reckless and ultimately ended up half way between attacking the ball and closing up to protect himself with Andrews coming back into the contest - but its being spoken about like Lockett v Caven.

If its up to me, he gets two weeks. He didn’t line him up, he was reckless in a contest at very high speed.

Sort of agree, except on the penalty. 4 weeks for mine, but nowhere near some other infamous hits.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Surely Higgins will go for at least one of the three cheap shots he executed into our players faces (two were fists one was an elbow).

All three of our players were on their backs on the ground after the whistle had gone and play was dead too (actually one might have been wrapping him up in a tackle).

The broadcast kept showing the slow motion vision of each incident and JB (and the rest of the commentary team) refused to talk about them. Should get a week for each hit under the Hunter precedent.

[Twodogs]

Cameron facing scrutiny for brutal KO - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-23/andrews-knocked-out-by-crude-hit

Fill in the blank: Jeremy Cameron will get ___________________ weeks.

I'll start by saying three.

Will get no weeks because the AFL's nose is parked right up GWS's arse.

[Twodogs]

Surely Higgins will go for at least one of the three cheap shots he executed into our players faces (two were fists one was an elbow).

All three of our players were on their backs on the ground after the whistle had gone and play was dead too (actually one might have been wrapping him up in a tackle).

The broadcast kept showing the slow motion vision of each incident and JB (and the rest of the commentary team) refused to talk about them. Should get a week for each hit under the Hunter precedent.

I would have thought that heroically taking a player out from behind and breaking ribs like Ziebull did to Cloke last year would have attracted a sanction, but no, apparantly that sort of cowardice is to be admired.


But to quote my dear old nanna, North are Just a bunch of cow *!*!*!*!ers.

[KT31]

IMO his intent was the ball and then to protect himself, two weeks would be about right.

Love to see the flog Higgins get weeks ( he won't), first win for him against us and he carried on after the final siren like he'd won the 2016 flag.

[Twodogs]

I realise i’m In the minority - but I didn’t think Cameron’s was as bad as how its being reported. He’s come flying out from full forward, and was reckless and ultimately ended up half way between attacking the ball and closing up to protect himself with Andrews coming back into the contest - but its being spoken about like Lockett v Caven.

If its up to me, he gets two weeks. He didn’t line him up, he was reckless in a contest at very high speed.

Don't agree. What was his elbow doing up like that? It was not involved in the play.

I think it's as close to a life ban (and Cameron shouldn't play for the rest of the year and also be warned that if anything like that happens again then he can find a new sport to play) as I've ever seen. Cameron could have killed his opponent doing that. Someone said earlier that GWS should have their match points taken away, that should just be the start of the sanctions.

[Ozza]

Don't agree. What was his elbow doing up like that? It was not involved in the play.

I think it's as close to a life ban (and Cameron shouldn't play for the rest of the year and also be warned that if anything like that happens again then he can find a new sport to play) as I've ever seen. Cameron could have killed his opponent doing that. Someone said earlier that GWS should have their match points taken away, that should just be the start of the sanctions.

I’m sorry - but I think that is ridiculous and way off. Close to a life ban, and probably shouldn’t play again this year?
I just can’t fathom how you can arrive there from that incident.
The action was actually contributed to by Cameron being in two minds and half pulling out.

[Happy Days]

6 weeks.

What shits me the most is all and sundry coming out to say "he's a ball player", "he's not a dirty player", etc. He pretty clearly is a dirty player, because he did probably the doggest act possible in running though a guy showing actual courage. There's nothing tough or cool about running full force at someone with an elbow, its just low and soft, and he should be demonised accordingly for it. If he isn't a dirty player then no one in the history of the sport has been.

The media have an obsession with going soft on the players in the wake of violence or incident, on or off field, belying their job and insulting the intelligence of the fan. It's really annoying and I wish someone would just commentate in a manner fitting of the act, rather than trying to force this false narrative that everyone regardless of action is a good guy because they're good footballers.

[westdog54]

6 weeks.

What shits me the most is all and sundry coming out to say "he's a ball player", "he's not a dirty player", etc. He pretty clearly is a dirty player, because he did probably the doggest act possible in running though a guy showing actual courage. There's nothing tough or cool about running full force at someone with an elbow, its just low and soft, and he should be demonised accordingly for it. If he isn't a dirty player then no one in the history of the sport has been.

The media have an obsession with going soft on the players in the wake of violence or incident, on or off field, belying their job and insulting the intelligence of the fan. It's really annoying and I wish someone would just commentate in a manner fitting of the act, rather than trying to force this false narrative that everyone regardless of action is a good guy because they're good footballers.

This whole 'he was trying to protect himself' story is *!*!*!*!ing well sickening to listen to.

Harris Andrews had eyes for the ball. Nothing more. As soon as Cameron saw him coming, he completely changed his approach. At that point, whether or not he was trying to protect himself or trying to elbow him in the head becomes completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

He put his elbow out and knocked a player out while he was still in mid air. If the AFL's counsel at the tribunal don't push very hard for this to be marked deliberate I want to hear someone reputable in the media crying foul.

[westdog54]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-06-24/andrews-in-hospital-after-condition-worsens

Spent a fair chunk of today in hospital.

High impact doesn't do this one justice. I wish there was a way Michael Christian could circumvent the guidelines and grade it as severe impact because that's what it is.

Come to think of it, he probably wouldn't even if he could...

EDIT: Severe impact is the highest allowable. Disregard.

[EasternWest]

6 weeks.

What shits me the most is all and sundry coming out to say "he's a ball player", "he's not a dirty player", etc. He pretty clearly is a dirty player, because he did probably the doggest act possible in running though a guy showing actual courage. There's nothing tough or cool about running full force at someone with an elbow, its just low and soft, and he should be demonised accordingly for it. If he isn't a dirty player then no one in the history of the sport has been.

The media have an obsession with going soft on the players in the wake of violence or incident, on or off field, belying their job and insulting the intelligence of the fan. It's really annoying and I wish someone would just commentate in a manner fitting of the act, rather than trying to force this false narrative that everyone regardless of action is a good guy because they're good footballers.

You're totally right.

I get that he's running full pace and can't avoid some kind of contact, but geez just put your hands up or something.

How anyone is talking his wilful act of malice down baffles me.

[Grantysghost]

Didn't he clean up and knock out JJ in Canberra a few years back ? Not sure he was sanctioned for it. Different incident but he's not forceful contact averse.
Edit : Was 2013, dislocated JJs shoulder with a massive bump which was deemed legal at the time.
Edit 2 : Found video. Link (http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-07-06/cameron-in-trouble)
Edit 3 : Already mentioned earlier.

[Sedat]

If the dickhead bothered to try and get the ball instead of fight everyone in the 2016 PF they might have won the match.

[Happy Days]

If the dickhead bothered to try and get the ball instead of fight everyone in the 2016 PF they might have won the match.

He was playing?

[bornadog]

He was playing?

I think he had 3 disposals., hang on just checked 5 :D

[NoseBleed]

Should get none, but the media dog whistling will probably pay off.

He gets pushed as he enters the contest, has eyes for the ball as he enters the contest, is off balance due to the push, and would have connected with the ball had it not been punched away.

At which point is he allowed to protect himself from the guy coming the other way, post the push?

[EasternWest]

Should get none, but the media dog whistling will probably pay off.

He gets pushed as he enters the contest, has eyes for the ball as he enters the contest, is off balance due to the push, and would have connected with the ball had it not been punched away.

At which point is he allowed to protect himself from the guy coming the other way, post the push?

Wow.

[Rocket Science]

Should get none, but the media dog whistling will probably pay off.

He gets pushed as he enters the contest, has eyes for the ball as he enters the contest, is off balance due to the push, and would have connected with the ball had it not been punched away.

At which point is he allowed to protect himself from the guy coming the other way, post the push?

If you launch yourself into a pack at high speed while leading with a dangerously cocked elbow your safety probably isn't the priority any more.

If your eyes work the 'protecting yourself' narrative is patent bullshit here.

Fine, make your opponent 'earn it', but using a head-high elbow as your weapon of choice, combined with the ensuing damage should make this a pretty easy one for the MR duffers.

I say 'should' ...

[bornadog]

If you launch yourself into a pack at high speed while leading with a dangerously cocked elbow your safety probably isn't the priority any more.

If your eyes work the 'protecting yourself' narrative is patent bullshit here.

Fine, make your opponent 'earn it', but using a head-high elbow as your weapon of choice, combined with the ensuing damage should make this a pretty easy one for the MR duffers.

I say 'should' ...

Result is not only being knocked out but internal bleeding. So dangerous and not something we need in our game.

4 to 6 weeks.

[SonofScray]

Shit act by a shit bloke.

He flew into the contest, realised he was at risk so got in first with one of the most dangerous acts in footy. Elbowed the bloke in the head, knocked him out. He lacked the courage to go for the ball. Andrews showed truckloads of it.

Cameron is a dirty player. Deserves 4+ weeks.

[Grantysghost]

Bleeding on the brain is horrendous. Would think it's a 6 weeker. Elbow is a poor choice, should've turned and copped the hit and protected with shoulder. Still might've done damage, using the elbow ensured it.

[Mofra]

Brisbane recently had a player retire due to concussion at age 22 (kid also had a pilots licence which is now useless - he can't get a medical to fly anymore).

Cameron, left the ground and took his eyes off the ball before elbowing an unprotected opponents who was going for the ball.

Andrews may not play again this year and Cameron has a long list of reports that indicate he has form in this department. Needs to be made an example of and given he's been referred directly to the tribunal I hope they do.

[bornadog]

Brisbane recently had a player retire due to concussion at age 22 (kid also had a pilots licence which is now useless - he can't get a medical to fly anymore).

Cameron, left the ground and took his eyes off the ball before elbowing an unprotected opponents who was going for the ball.

Andrews may not play again this year and Cameron has a long list of reports that indicate he has form in this department. Needs to be made an example of and given he's been referred directly to the tribunal I hope they do.

I really believe the punishment should at minimum be the length of time the player hit is out. So if Cameron got say 4 weeks, but Andrews is out for 7, then the penalty should match and be 7. That will stop idiots like Cameron being reckless.

[bulldogtragic]

What did plugger get on Craven? Has to be at least that, and perhaps an extra one or two to make an example of this conduct. Big week suspensions 4+ weeks were getting less common, but in the last two years absolute *!*!*!*! acts are creeping back into the game. I don't like it, and neither will parents who will get their kids playing soccer with a stark contrast between the excitement of the World Cup and stuff that Cameron finds himself doing, this especially.

Edit: Lockett got 8 weeks.

[jeemak]

6 weeks.

What shits me the most is all and sundry coming out to say "he's a ball player", "he's not a dirty player", etc. He pretty clearly is a dirty player, because he did probably the doggest act possible in running though a guy showing actual courage. There's nothing tough or cool about running full force at someone with an elbow, its just low and soft, and he should be demonised accordingly for it. If he isn't a dirty player then no one in the history of the sport has been.

The media have an obsession with going soft on the players in the wake of violence or incident, on or off field, belying their job and insulting the intelligence of the fan. It's really annoying and I wish someone would just commentate in a manner fitting of the act, rather than trying to force this false narrative that everyone regardless of action is a good guy because they're good footballers.

Absolutely agree.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, what looks quick on camera isn't nearly as quick in the play for these players. He was in two minds, play the ball or play the man. He chose the latter and almost caved a players face in.

The thing I struggle with is he could have caused someone to have facial reconstruction surgery because of an intentional violent act. He could have caused a person to suffer a LBI.

He should be derided for the action, he has form.