The Tribunal

[Sockeye Salmon]

I wanted to have some debate on the tribunal system.

I think the current points sytem is fine in theory but the implication is woeful.

Under the current system, football tragics like us should be able to see an incident on the field and say "high contact, in play, low impact, intentional - 5 points" and be right within a point. But we can't, because the MRP pulls decisions out of their arse more often than not.

I also hate the all-encompassing "Rough conduct" (also known as the 'tribunal-can-do-whatever-it-feels-like' rule) that Maxwell was sighted for. Again, I'm OK with the concept to pick up things like throwing an opponent into the fence or other serious incidents that aren't covered specifically, but I don't think it should apply to things within the game like a bump.

What exactly did Maxwell do wrong (or Robert Murphy last year)?

Bumps are allowed.
He was within 5 metres of the ball.
His opponent was (or should have been) reasonably expecting contact.
Front on contact to a player with his head over the ball? Not applicable here.

He made high contact? That's a free, not a report and happens 15 times a game.
He ran past the ball? No rule says you have to go for the ball, if there was Eagleton would have missed 100 games to suspension over the years.
He left the ground? Josh Hill leaves the ground 10 times a game. No rule says you can't jump.

What does that leave? Rough contact.

We're reporting blokes for acting too rough? FFS! What has the AFL become.


I still love my Dogs, but between the rules committee and the tribunal I'm bored to death by the AFL.

[LostDoggy]

I totally confused how a bloke can get 4 weeks then get 0 for the same offence where nothing has changed?
4 weeks indicates to me is very guilty while 0 is innocent. How did they get it so wrong?

[mjp]

They got it wrong because the injury influenced the original decision. If it had been Kerr or some other big name injured instead of a rookie he would have been given 12.

He got him in the head, so I understand why it was referred to the tribunal, but to me it was:

"High contact, in play, High impact' - it is the other category that is so open to interpretation. It certainly wasn't intentional, it wasn't reckless. You cant really say it was accidental though - he had one intention (remove McGinnity from the contest) - so does that mean it was intentional?

To be honest, this is typical of what happens every pre-season where there is a complete over-reaction at the tribunal. A couple of years back Michael Johnson got weeks for a bump that would have been no penalty in the home and away season, Byron Pickott copped the same thing the year before, one of the Burgoynes (Peter?) was done as well...

[Sockeye Salmon]

They got it wrong because the injury influenced the original decision. If it had been Kerr or some other big name injured instead of a rookie he would have been given 12.

He got him in the head, so I understand why it was referred to the tribunal, but to me it was:

"High contact, in play, High impact' - it is the other category that is so open to interpretation. It certainly wasn't intentional, it wasn't reckless. You cant really say it was accidental though - he had one intention (remove McGinnity from the contest) - so does that mean it was intentional?

To be honest, this is typical of what happens every pre-season where there is a complete over-reaction at the tribunal. A couple of years back Michael Johnson got weeks for a bump that would have been no penalty in the home and away season, Byron Pickott copped the same thing the year before, one of the Burgoynes (Peter?) was done as well...

Why? Do you agree with the 'if it looks a bit rough we'll rub him out' rule?*

(*Only applies if someone gets hurt or blood is visible on TV)


Contact to the head is a free kick, not a report, unless the contact is "front on to a player with their head over the ball".

If I try to tackle and my tackle slips up around the head, I give away a free.

If I try to bump and my bump slips up around the head, why am I reported? Bumping is just as legal as tackling.

If they want the bump to be a report, put it in the rules. The way it is now the bump is allowed.

[mjp]

Why? Do you agree with the 'if it looks a bit rough we'll rub him out' rule?*

Contact to the head is a free kick, not a report, unless the contact is "front on to a player with their head over the ball".


It is simplistic to say that high contact is 'just a free kick' SS. You know that isn't always the case and there are countless examples of that throughout history...high contact in marking contests, high tackles etc. The rules also state that it is incumbent on the person laying the bump NOT to make high contact...so if it 'slips' high that is not an excuse. I dont like it, but that is the way it is structured now.

With Maxwell, intentional or not he hit him in the head...the match review panel should look at these things from a 'cold light of day' perspective and make a determination. I didn't suggest for a second he should be rubbed out - but the tribunal should have looked at it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It is simplistic to say that high contact is 'just a free kick' SS. You know that isn't always the case and there are countless examples of that throughout history...high contact in marking contests, high tackles etc. The rules also state that it is incumbent on the person laying the bump NOT to make high contact...so if it 'slips' high that is not an excuse. I dont like it, but that is the way it is structured now.

With Maxwell, intentional or not he hit him in the head...the match review panel should look at these things from a 'cold light of day' perspective and make a determination. I didn't suggest for a second he should be rubbed out - but the tribunal should have looked at it.

In almost every case I can think of there was a striking action involved. The player was hit with a fist.

[bornadog]

I think the whole points sytem is a load of rubbish and I also don't like first offence gets a lighter sence. The sytem is too complicated and you never know what the tribunal is going to come up with.

I say, keep it simple, refer to previous cases for same or similar offences and penalty to be the same. Many cases that go up these days are basically free kicks on the field.

[mighty_west]

I totally confused how a bloke can get 4 weeks then get 0 for the same offence where nothing has changed?
4 weeks indicates to me is very guilty while 0 is innocent. How did they get it so wrong?

Thats what makes the tribunal system a complete joke, you can now be rubbed out for accidents, and thats crazy. even the fairest of players have been involved in accidents on the field of play.

I wonder if Fev will be sighted for breaking Pratts ribs? i actually think that was far worse than what Maxwell did, Maxwell bumped a player, but you could see he just wanted to bowl him over, Fev on the other hand jumped out to take a grab with his knee sticking right out which collected Pratt in the side, where is the duty of care in what Fev did?

[alwaysadog]

For all its faults the points system was designed to limit the capacity of the tribunal etc to be influenced by extraneous matters like press headlines or column inches or influential clubs screeching. To make the system appear more rational.

This was always going to be a tough ask, but it was a laudable aim.

There are two problems, firstly the AFL needed a concerted campaign to educate the public about exactly what they were trying to achieve and the criteria so that we don't get Gerrad Healy mouthing endlessly and meaninglessly "the head is sacrosanct", whatever that actually might be.

This of course implied that they were clear at other than a purely superficial level about the matters, and I'm not sure they were.

Secondly they needed to make sure that the rules were sufficiently robust to withstand legal scrutiny. The latter seems to be the current problem, which is a problem, as the Football Ops manager at the league is a lawyer.

MJP makes an interesting point about the tribunal trying to put the frighteners on during the preseason. Problem was they made an example of a player for the Wollypuds and not one of their perrenial scape goats.

I agree with SS the rules seem to be in almost total disarray and it will be interesting to see if the league allows this situation to remain or if it tries to reestablish the intent of the former in a new form of words.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The AFL are basically saying that the bump is gone. If you miss your target by an inch you'll get rubbed out.

How happy are we all going to be when a Bulldog pulls out of a contest because he thinks he might catch the other guy high and doesn't want to get suspended.

What a softcok game we'll have then.

No wonder the Sydney-siders call it Gay-FL.

[mjp]

The AFL are basically saying that the bump is gone. If you miss your target by an inch you'll get rubbed out.


Well, they are certainly saying that 'We will come down on you if you get it wrong'. I have both agreed and disagreed with various decisions relating to shirt-fronts over the past 5-10 years in equal measure, but there is no doubt that:

- They are becoming far less tolerant of any 'high' contact - accidental or otherwise.
- That the match review committee have more power than they should.
- That the impact of any incident is being considered in sentancing.

I don't know about Gay FL or whatever the Sydney-siders are calling it (none of them actually watch so what happens from week-to-week doesn't just their perception anyways) but that ever present 'danger' involved in stepping onto a football field is clearly less today than at any time in the past.

[alwaysadog]

The AFL are basically saying that the bump is gone. If you miss your target by an inch you'll get rubbed out.

How happy are we all going to be when a Bulldog pulls out of a contest because he thinks he might catch the other guy high and doesn't want to get suspended.

What a softcok game we'll have then.

No wonder the Sydney-siders call it Gay-FL.

It all depends on what you go on. The tribunal clearly said one thing, but on review we got the opposite opinion. Who is running the game?

[Sockeye Salmon]

It all depends on what you go on. The tribunal clearly said one thing, but on review we got the opposite opinion. Who is running the game?

I don't know what I hate more, that a player got rubbed out for a bump or that his club got the decision overturned by bringing in a QC.

[alwaysadog]

I don't know what I hate more, that a player got rubbed out for a bump or that his club got the decision overturned by bringing in a QC.

Bobby did last year, though he only got a week. The only sense I can make of this SS is that the league believe that the greater majority of head hits are avoidable. My playing days are so long ago that I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption.

I think also that they are petrified of having another Neil Sasche case, not just for the compensation it might cost, but for the impact on the image of the game. At the moment they just look pretty silly, they don't want to have a life threatenning situation on their hands.

You get no points from me for bringing in a QC, a clasic case of the Wollypuds trying to get and getting special treatment. Next we'll need a High Court Judge on the Appeals panel.

If it weren't something as vitally important as football it would make me laugh.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Bobby did last year, though he only got a week. The only sense I can make of this SS is that the league believe that the greater majority of head hits are avoidable. My playing days are so long ago that I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption.

I think also that they are petrified of having another Neil Sasche case, not just for the compensation it might cost, but for the impact on the image of the game. At the moment they just look pretty silly, they don't want to have a life threatenning situation on their hands.

You get no points from me for bringing in a QC, a clasic case of the Wollypuds trying to get and getting special treatment. Next we'll need a High Court Judge on the Appeals panel.

If it weren't something as vitally important as football it would make me laugh.

The irony here is that the Sasche incident probably still wouldn't be reportable today, nor should it be. It was more Sasche's stumble than O'Keefe's bump that did it.

[Twodogs]

Bobby did last year, though he only got a week. The only sense I can make of this SS is that the league believe that the greater majority of head hits are avoidable. My playing days are so long ago that I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption.

I think also that they are petrified of having another Neil Sasche case, not just for the compensation it might cost, but for the impact on the image of the game. At the moment they just look pretty silly, they don't want to have a life threatenning situation on their hands.

You get no points from me for bringing in a QC, a clasic case of the Wollypuds trying to get and getting special treatment. Next we'll need a High Court Judge on the Appeals panel.

If it weren't something as vitally important as football it would make me laugh.



Collingwood had no choice other than to bring in a QC (Arent they SCs these days?) because of the highly legalistic nature of their appeal. I think the interesting thing about this case is the ex-footballers with no legal experience on the initial panel suspended him but the quasi-legal panel of two QCs and a retired judge took only 5 minutes to overturn.



I think the problem in this situation is Adrian Anderson. He clearly doesnt understand the legal process-and given he is a lawyer that's not a bad effort-but was still given responsibility for setting up the new tribunal system. At one stage last year he said that no precedent applied to tribunal decisions. This despite the fact that the new system was brought in to stop clubs/players appealing to the legal system. Sorry Adrian but you cant pick and choose what bits of due process applies-if you want your system to be bulletproof then it comes with all the bells and whistles.

[alwaysadog]

Collingwood had no choice other than to bring in a QC (Arent they SCs these days?) because of the highly legalistic nature of their appeal. I think the interesting thing about this case is the ex-footballers with no legal experience on the initial panel suspended him but the quasi-legal panel of two QCs and a retired judge took only 5 minutes to overturn.



I think the problem in this situation is Adrian Anderson. He clearly doesnt understand the legal process-and given he is a lawyer that's not a bad effort-but was still given responsibility for setting up the new tribunal system. At one stage last year he said that no precedent applied to tribunal decisions. This despite the fact that the new system was brought in to stop clubs/players appealing to the legal system. Sorry Adrian but you cant pick and choose what bits of due process applies-if you want your system to be bulletproof then it comes with all the bells and whistles.

What the football background group did was to understand the intent of the rule, what the legal mob did was to point out that the rule did not say that.

You are being far too kind to the Wollypuds, I'm concerned... have you had a check up lately?

They didn't even think, they don't ever think in such situations, they begin as programmed, with a loud squawk response, while they work out which of the various outrageous grounds they are going to seek dispensation on. And then they practise in front of the mirror looking sincere and stoney faced.

That they had a case was probably a bigger surprise to mr media than to the rest of the football public. The squawk has been replaced with a lot of carolling, it's even reached the depths of Eltham.

Yes, SC has replaced QC but there are still QCs around they don't get converted it's just no new QCs are being created. I have no idea if we are really talking about QCs, SCs or both. I don't think I care.

It says very negative things about their external legal advisors that their work was so quickly consigned to the trash can. The one thing we can be certain of is that no one will be sending AA a please explain about why we are a laughing stock and don't seem to understand our own rules. Perhaps mr media owes them a favour and will help out. Please watch the sunset for signs of flying pigs.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I understand that Motlop and Young both got off.

I didn't see the Motlop one but I'm buggered if I can understand how Young got off. Charging at the body while his opponents in the air? Isn't that the exact reason the charging rule was there?

I just don't get it.

Ever.

[always right]

I only have one part of this head high issue I need clarified.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that you can be reported for head high contact even if you bump the player legitimately but the impact results in a clash of heads (think Gia v Kosi) through the whiplash effect. This seems so ludicrous it may just be right....please feel free to set me straight.

In the Maxwell case I'm still unsure whether he was originally outed for contact to the other player's head with his shoulder or the resultant head clash. Anyone care to explain?

[alwaysadog]

I understand that Motlop and Young both got off.

I didn't see the Motlop one but I'm buggered if I can understand how Young got off. Charging at the body while his opponents in the air? Isn't that the exact reason the charging rule was there?

I just don't get it.

Ever.

SS you are correct it doesn't make sense, unless they have legal advice that the rules about head high contact are unenforceable as currently written.

On the other hand it could be a typical AFL flip flop when under pressure.

[LostDoggy]

I only have one part of this head high issue I need clarified.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that you can be reported for head high contact even if you bump the player legitimately but the impact results in a clash of heads (think Gia v Kosi) through the whiplash effect. This seems so ludicrous it may just be right....please feel free to set me straight.

In the Maxwell case I'm still unsure whether he was originally outed for contact to the other player's head with his shoulder or the resultant head clash. Anyone care to explain?

The wording of the rough conduct rule is

"A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to the opponent's head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conducted shall (my emphasis) be deemed to be negligent."

It’s poorly worded but the intent seems to be that if you make forceful contact to the neck/head when bumping, then the conduct is at least negligent, n such thing as accidental, another way of saying, if you strike the head, you’re gone.

The MRP and the Tribunal penalised him because they deemed his forceful striking of the head to be negligent.

The Appeals Board focused on the words “which in the circumstances is unreasonable” and found that Maxwell’s actions were reasonable because he had no option but to go through with it. They seemed to be saying that because the rules allow bumping within 5 metres of the ball, then to bump is reasonable. They said

"1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.

2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell's shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances."

Having found the conduct reasonable, they didn’t have to decide anything further.

The head protection issue is a result of warnings given by medical officers about the increase in head injuries. Once warned, if a serious injury occurs and the AFL hasn’t done something about it, it has little or no defence to a damages claim. It’s clear what the AFL want. The Appeals Board interpretation has thrown a spanner in the works. If the AFL is consistent, and on this issue I believe it will be, then the rule will be reworded to reduce or eliminate discretionary words like “reasonable in the circumstances”.

[alwaysadog]

I have always had a problem with the attempted faux legalise that AFL and before them VFL rules are/were couched in.

In fact I have in the past unsuccessfully sought a grant to translate them into common speak, admittedly they hadn't called for tenders when I made the approach.

If it's been good enough for Victorian laws for a fairly long time, why should the AFL hide behind obscure, baffling and outdated language. I'm all for traditions as long as they don't get in the way of advacing the code.

The only reason I can come up with is that it gives them room to manoeuvre.

But have a look at the rules of the world wide game, no such difficulties.

At times when the Doggies aren't playing I've asked why is it so?

[alwaysadog]

The wording of the rough conduct rule is

The Appeals Board focused on the words “which in the circumstances is unreasonable” and found that Maxwell’s actions were reasonable because he had no option but to go through with it. They seemed to be saying that because the rules allow bumping within 5 metres of the ball, then to bump is reasonable.

What they are saying is that what you think the words mean and what they mean at law are very different.

Sloppy work by whoever framed the rule.

Why do I have so little faith in those who earn a fortune but produce so little that is productive?

Is it because the AFL administration is one of the few areas of human endeavour where ego is bigger and more important than performance?

[Sockeye Salmon]

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

Why are we bothering at all? Everyone in the world should just take up chess.

[LostDoggy]

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?
If the the ball player blind sided can be cannoned into and is only protected by a free or 50(not both) then the game is definetly stuffed. Did Young actually correct Davey's spine alignment? No wonder Hawthorn won the GF.
Last year a number of bumps where a player basically stands up straight braces and the ball player should expect a collision was given weeks.

I don't care about what the right rule is or what it isn't, just want some consistency.

[mjp]

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?
If the the ball player blind sided can be cannoned into and is only protected by a free or 50(not both) then the game is definetly stuffed. Did Young actually correct Davey's spine alignment? No wonder Hawthorn won the GF.
Last year a number of bumps where a player basically stands up straight braces and the ball player should expect a collision was given weeks.

I don't care about what the right rule is or what it isn't, just want some consistency.

Young should have been suspended. I cannot see how that incident has been let go by the AFL.

I think Hawthorn led the league in reports/suspensions last year though ES - not sure that this kind of decision helped them win the grand final.

[LostDoggy]

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?


He's offered a reprimand and loses his no claim bonus. If he doesn't accept that he gets 1 match and can chance his arm at the Tribunal. The MRP is consistent in Young's case. It's held its nerve following the Maxwell verdict. Sentencing is a different issue. Half the community think judges are too lenient.

Colliding into another player blindsided isn't forbidden by the rules. With no offside rule, a player has to expect contact from any angle. Bump, shepherd, shirt-front are words used to describe an attack by one player with eyes on the player on another with eyes on the ball. Those words sanitise what is an unfair action. It's not a feature of the game that I admire but the rules permit it.

[LostDoggy]

Young should have been suspended. I cannot see how that incident has been let go by the AFL.

I think Hawthorn led the league in reports/suspensions last year though ES - not sure that this kind of decision helped them win the grand final.

Thats how they played in the GF. Young has learnt quickly that this type of play wins premeirships cos there were no suspensions after the GF.

[LostDoggy]

He's offered a reprimand and loses his no claim bonus. If he doesn't accept that he gets 1 match and can chance his arm at the Tribunal. The MRP is consistent in Young's case. It's held its nerve following the Maxwell verdict. Sentencing is a different issue. Half the community think judges are too lenient.

Thats not true, the MRP is just as bad. Who had cases to answer after 2008 GF? I thought they were going hard on GF misdemeanours?
If sentencing is a lenient then how did Maxwell get 4 originally? They are all over the shop there too.



Colliding into another player blindsided isn't forbidden by the rules. With no offside rule, a player has to expect contact from any angle. Bump, shepherd, shirt-front are words used to describe an attack by one player with eyes on the player on another with eyes on the ball. Those words sanitise what is an unfair action. It's not a feature of the game that I admire but the rules permit it.
Satinise the game? Since when have you been able to cannon into someone back? Its almost always been forbidden by the push in the back rule. They was no realistic attempt to play the ball and a better attempt at trying to injury someone.
I'm not sure what incident you are talking about but if you only get a reprimand for the Young/Davey type incident then its time to recruit the 70s type snipers.

[alwaysadog]

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

Why are we bothering at all? Everyone in the world should just take up chess.

No SS you are going a bit far. It's not the possibility of any injury. I'm sure some has tweaked a muscle moving chess pieces.

They are concerned IMHO about the likely public reaction and subsequent costs if a player received a very serious head injury.

On the other hand I'm not sure they are any longer given the recent shenanigans.

[LostDoggy]

My question relates specifically to the Dogs.

If Maxwell got a QC in and got off, why did Bobby cop a suspension last season (and arguably derailed our season's momentum) for a much softer incident? Why don't the Dogs ever call in a QC? If the Collymob have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement I say every other club stand up and behave the same -- at least it levels the playing field.

We punch way below our weight sometimes.

[LostDoggy]

My question relates specifically to the Dogs.

If Maxwell got a QC in and got off, why did Bobby cop a suspension last season (and arguably derailed our season's momentum) for a much softer incident? Why don't the Dogs ever call in a QC? If the Collymob have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement I say every other club stand up and behave the same -- at least it levels the playing field.

One reason is Collingwood complain about every tribunal decision even when its obvious they are in the wrong and have the money to do so. The media helped by hopping on the Maxwell bandwagon (its Feb and Collingwood sells paper even now) saying "was it the end of the bump" when is was an issue last year.

There is no doubt if Bobby's bump was worth 1 week then Maxwell's is worth at least 2.

[alwaysadog]

My question relates specifically to the Dogs.

If Maxwell got a QC in and got off, why did Bobby cop a suspension last season (and arguably derailed our season's momentum) for a much softer incident? Why don't the Dogs ever call in a QC? If the Collymob have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement I say every other club stand up and behave the same -- at least it levels the playing field.

We punch way below our weight sometimes.

Isn't Henry Jolson on our board? I'm pretty sure he's a QC/SC?

The decision we had to make is whether it's worth the trouble for one week with the possibility that he could get more if he didn't succeed.

As the events of the recent past highlight there is no way of being confident that one will get a sensible let alone a just result.

Given the situation, they made a wise decision, we might still be visiting him in some prison had they appealed the decision.

[always right]

The wording of the rough conduct rule is

"A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to the opponent's head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conducted shall (my emphasis) be deemed to be negligent."

It’s poorly worded but the intent seems to be that if you make forceful contact to the neck/head when bumping, then the conduct is at least negligent, n such thing as accidental, another way of saying, if you strike the head, you’re gone.

The MRP and the Tribunal penalised him because they deemed his forceful striking of the head to be negligent.

The Appeals Board focused on the words “which in the circumstances is unreasonable” and found that Maxwell’s actions were reasonable because he had no option but to go through with it. They seemed to be saying that because the rules allow bumping within 5 metres of the ball, then to bump is reasonable. They said

"1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.

2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell's shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances."

Having found the conduct reasonable, they didn’t have to decide anything further.

The head protection issue is a result of warnings given by medical officers about the increase in head injuries. Once warned, if a serious injury occurs and the AFL hasn’t done something about it, it has little or no defence to a damages claim. It’s clear what the AFL want. The Appeals Board interpretation has thrown a spanner in the works. If the AFL is consistent, and on this issue I believe it will be, then the rule will be reworded to reduce or eliminate discretionary words like “reasonable in the circumstances”.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation...just to clarify, are you saying that a clash of heads resulting from a body collision could fall into your description "The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact"?

Has it been established whether Maxwell struck the player's head with his shoulder or via a head clash that accidentally occurred due to the impact of the bump?

[LostDoggy]

Given the situation, they made a wise decision, we might still be visiting him in some prison had they appealed the decision.

:D Hilarious!

Although I suppose if there were votes for 'most likely to end up in prison' Bobby would be near the top (for political reasons), after Johnno (assassinations while grinning), Will (noise pollution), Mitch (bulldozing without a permit) and Morris (pickpocketing).

Wight might also get cited for incorrect rubbish disposal.

[bornadog]

My question relates specifically to the Dogs.

If Maxwell got a QC in and got off, why did Bobby cop a suspension last season (and arguably derailed our season's momentum) for a much softer incident? Why don't the Dogs ever call in a QC? If the Collymob have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement I say every other club stand up and behave the same -- at least it levels the playing field.

We punch way below our weight sometimes.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/svHAWTHORN.jpg

Thats why

[aker39]

I don't understand why Young wasn't reported for charging.

[alwaysadog]

:D Hilarious!

Although I suppose if there were votes for 'most likely to end up in prison' Bobby would be near the top (for political reasons), after Johnno (assassinations while grinning), Will (noise pollution), Mitch (bulldozing without a permit) and Morris (pickpocketing).

Wight might also get cited for incorrect rubbish disposal.

It's dangerous to give them too many ideas.

[Sockeye Salmon]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/svHAWTHORN.jpg

Thats why

That's clearly 'holding the man'

[Sockeye Salmon]

I finally saw the Motlop one and it's about as soft as you can get.

He was certainly late, but he twisted his body in mid-air and raised his arms above his head to avoid the collision. Contact was so slight it wouldn't have upset my 5yo. I think he would have been unlucky to get a free downfield.

Young got off lightly. I thought they brought in a rule to protect players going for marks? Young's really was dangerous.

[aker39]

I finally saw the Motlop one and it's about as soft as you can get.

He was certainly late, but he twisted his body in mid-air and raised his arms above his head to avoid the collision. Contact was so slight it wouldn't have upset my 5yo. I think he would have been unlucky to get a free downfield.

Young got off lightly. I thought they brought in a rule to protect players going for marks? Young's really was dangerous.

Summed up perfectly

[LostDoggy]

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation...just to clarify, are you saying that a clash of heads resulting from a body collision could fall into your description "The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact"?

Has it been established whether Maxwell struck the player's head with his shoulder or via a head clash that accidentally occurred due to the impact of the bump?

Yes. The Appeal Board would say that a clash of heads resulting from a body collision was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. All I've seen of the Board's reasoning is the 2 propositions I've outlined. Other press artilces say that the head clash caused the injury, not the shoulder.

Ernie, I think we are cross purposes. By "consistent" I meant that the MRP didn't shut up shop because of the Maxwell verdict, it found a case to answer and delivered a penalty. Whether it's a sufficient penalty is a different debate.

[westdog54]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/svHAWTHORN.jpg

Thats why

This photo, and you can insert a photo of any player nowadays who leads into a contest with his head looking for a free, brings up what I believe to be a legitimate question.

There is a lot of talk nowadays about your 'duty of care' to the player you are bumping.

What I want to know is where is a player's duty of care to himself? At what point should we be saying to a bloke 'if you are going to unnecessarily and needlessly put yourself in danger, you should be responsible for the potential consequences.

In Horse Racing, if a jockey is riding in a manner which is dangerous to himself and his mount, he can be spoken to by stewards and even suspended. At what point do we say to players that its their responsibility to keep their feet and keep their head up. As far as I'm concerned Bobby could not have reasonably forseen that the bloke he bumped would have dropped so far that he'd hit him in the head.

[Sockeye Salmon]

This photo, and you can insert a photo of any player nowadays who leads into a contest with his head looking for a free, brings up what I believe to be a legitimate question.

There is a lot of talk nowadays about your 'duty of care' to the player you are bumping.

What I want to know is where is a player's duty of care to himself? At what point should we be saying to a bloke 'if you are going to unnecessarily and needlessly put yourself in danger, you should be responsible for the potential consequences.

In Horse Racing, if a jockey is riding in a manner which is dangerous to himself and his mount, he can be spoken to by stewards and even suspended. At what point do we say to players that its their responsibility to keep their feet and keep their head up. As far as I'm concerned Bobby could not have reasonably forseen that the bloke he bumped would have dropped so far that he'd hit him in the head.

It's becoming fairly common to see blokes leading with their head trying to get frees.

[Desipura]

It's becoming fairly common to see blokes leading with their head trying to get frees.
Shane Birss was a classic example.

[westdog54]

It's becoming fairly common to see blokes leading with their head trying to get frees.

But if the guy coming the other way makes contact with said head, he's screwed because the head is sacrosenct. The fact that the victim almost entirely contributed to the contact is irrelevant in the MRP/Tribunal's eyes and IMO that is a recipe for disaster.

[alwaysadog]

Here’s an attempt at rewriting the rule without most of the pseudo legalise to clarify it.

Rough conduct occurs if a player in bumping an opponent causes unreasonable forceful contact to the opponent's head or neck. Unless the act has been found to be intentional or reckless it shall be classified as negligent.

Writing it this way highlights that the key word is “unreasonable” as D Mitchell has been pointing out. Who with even the slightest touch of legal knowledge allowed that to be there at all let alone the determining factor?

At law “unreasonable” is complex and contested concept with all sorts of considerations relevant to our case.

Before you all hound me about it, yes, duty of care is one of them but it is balanced with the responsibility of the player to be alert to his situation and the risks in it, and a whole lot more.

I return to the point I made some time ago. I don’t think the review panel were trying to override the opinion of the initial findings that in football terms it was forceful and unreasonable. What they are saying is that what you think unreasonable means is not the meaning the law gives to it, and from that view point it is not unreasonable.

The sooner they rewrite it without the word “unreasonable” and do a clarification job on it the better.

[alwaysadog]

But if the guy coming the other way makes contact with said head, he's screwed because the head is sacrosenct. The fact that the victim almost entirely contributed to the contact is irrelevant in the MRP/Tribunal's eyes and IMO that is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure this is a correct interpretation of the rule, westdog54.

The rule says that in laying the tackle the player must cause the head/neck contact.

I would think that where there was doubt on this issue it would be put to the tribunal.

Gerard Healy has done more damage than he knows with his "the head is sacrosanct" interpretation which is clearly not an acurate expression of the rule.

[The Pie Man]

That's clearly 'holding the man'

Nice

This brings to mind 2 things for me - one relevant, one not

- Murph changed direction to bump the player in that contest, wasn't surprised it was cited. I remember some discussion at the time about how silly it is to risk further punishment through an appeals process, I feel that argument would still stand

- Think back to the game in Tassie...how the fark did Hawthorn win the flag? They were horrible that day, we should have won by over 100 points.

[Sockeye Salmon]

- Murph changed direction to bump the player in that contest, wasn't surprised it was cited. I remember some discussion at the time about how silly it is to risk further punishment through an appeals process, I feel that argument would still stand
.

You're right, of course, but the thing I don't understand is why. A player is under no obligation to go for the ball, you are allowed to shephard, it's part of the team aspect that is central to the phyche of successful teams..

[alwaysadog]

You're right, of course, but the thing I don't understand is why. A player is under no obligation to go for the ball, you are allowed to shephard, it's part of the team aspect that is central to the phyche of successful teams..

I was never sure if Murph was penalised because he initiated unnecessary contact or if it was because the carrying out of the contact was not acceptable in a technical sense.

I don't think the photo can be taken for anything it doesn't tell us for example if at the point of contact his arm was tucked in as is required. Arms always move out and away from the body after contact, which is what I assume the photo shows.

[bornadog]

I was never sure if Murph was penalised because he initiated unnecessary contact or if it was because the carrying out of the contact was not acceptable in a technical sense.

I don't think the photo can be taken for anything it doesn't tell us for example if at the point of contact his arm was tucked in as is required. Arms always move out and away from the body after contact, which is what I assume the photo shows.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/rf_hawk_dog4_gallery__248x4000.jpg

It was basically high contact to the head (blood nose and knocked out, although was able to walk off).
Murph ran straight at him (great shirt front) but was unlucky to hit high.

[alwaysadog]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/rf_hawk_dog4_gallery__248x4000.jpg

It was basically high contact to the head (blood nose and knocked out, although was able to walk off).
Murph ran straight at him (great shirt front) but was unlucky to hit high.

So the complaint was about the technique he employed.

Now I wouldn't mind that if ... and given who we are dealing with... it's a big if... THEY WERE CONSISTENT. My apologies for shouting.

[ledge]

Tribunal in the AFL has lost the plot, you only need a tribunal if its a deliberate act to go outside the rules, 90% of the cases nowadays shouldnt be even looked at.

[bornadog]

So the complaint was about the technique he employed.

Now I wouldn't mind that if ... and given who we are dealing with... it's a big if... THEY WERE CONSISTENT. My apologies for shouting.

Agree, there is no consistency

[bornadog]

Tribunal in the AFL has lost the plot, you only need a tribunal if its a deliberate act to go outside the rules, 90% of the cases nowadays shouldnt be even looked at.

Also agree. I doubt these days that players go out to intentionally harm another player, not like the gutless wonder days in the past, when you didn't know who was going to whack you from behind.

These days its more about the duty of care, but as you say 90% of the time the reports are just a free kick.

[ledge]

All went pear shaped when the WCE decided to dob in at tribunal instead of saying they couldnt remember or it was an accident.

[LostDoggy]

So the complaint was about the technique he employed.

Now I wouldn't mind that if ... and given who we are dealing with... it's a big if... THEY WERE CONSISTENT. My apologies for shouting.

Spot on. If they deem Murphy like hits to worth a week then why are worse ones getting off?

[Scraggers]

Agree, there is no consistency

Pretty much the same as our legal system then ?

[The Pie Man]

For curioisty sake, I would have loved to have seen us challenge the Murphy suspension, but strictly from a curiosity viewpoint. It's stupid you can risk more weeks just by challenging a decision, and we were right not to bother at the time, but you wonder if we could've got him off as well.

I still love the game, and most weeks we're an entertaining team to watch, but yes some things that are creeping in are a bit strange.