Tribunal and MRP

[Bornadog]

Scrimshaw has to be joking right. it wasn’t malicious but he whacked him in the head and concussed him. If he gets off I’d be amazed.

I think they want the charge down graded, as it was graded the highest possible.

[SonofScray]

I completely agree with Bevo that the system should be weighed towards intent. But it's not. The AFL suspends people for tackles gone bad every week, I see this as no different.

They are too weak to ever use intent in the current system.

[Axe Man]

Archer's three-game ban STANDS
Callum Dick
North Melbourne defender Jackson Archer has failed to have his three-match suspension for rough conduct on Western Bulldogs’ Luke Cleary overturned.

He will miss the Kangaroos’ next three matches against Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney.

Archer fronted the AFL tribunal on Tuesday contesting the charge of rough conduct and the grading of careless.

Archer argued that his collision with Cleary, which left the Bulldog concussed, was not unreasonable conduct and that he did not expect his opponent to go to ground because players were trained to keep their feet in those circumstances.

In his ruling, AFL tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said Archer “approached the contest at excessive speed, giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary”.
The tribunal upheld the ruling of unreasonable and rough conduct that was both high and of severe impact.

[Bornadog]

Archer's three-game ban STANDS
Callum Dick
North Melbourne defender Jackson Archer has failed to have his three-match suspension for rough conduct on Western Bulldogs’ Luke Cleary overturned.

He will miss the Kangaroos’ next three matches against Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney.

Archer fronted the AFL tribunal on Tuesday contesting the charge of rough conduct and the grading of careless.

Archer argued that his collision with Cleary, which left the Bulldog concussed, was not unreasonable conduct and that he did not expect his opponent to go to ground because players were trained to keep their feet in those circumstances.

In his ruling, AFL tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said Archer “approached the contest at excessive speed, giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary”.
The tribunal upheld the ruling of unreasonable and rough conduct that was both high and of severe impact.

What Archer failed to do is see that his team mate was already tackling Cleary and he had no right to charge in like a bull. It was always going to end up badly.

[jazzadogs]

Archer's three-game ban STANDS
Callum Dick
North Melbourne defender Jackson Archer has failed to have his three-match suspension for rough conduct on Western Bulldogs’ Luke Cleary overturned.

He will miss the Kangaroos’ next three matches against Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney.

Archer fronted the AFL tribunal on Tuesday contesting the charge of rough conduct and the grading of careless.

Archer argued that his collision with Cleary, which left the Bulldog concussed, was not unreasonable conduct and that he did not expect his opponent to go to ground because players were trained to keep their feet in those circumstances.

In his ruling, AFL tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said Archer “approached the contest at excessive speed, giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary”.
The tribunal upheld the ruling of unreasonable and rough conduct that was both high and of severe impact.

I do think he was negligent/unreasonable because there was a point where it was clear he wasn't getting to the ball first, and he kept barreling in anyway. But it's split second stuff.

It's on par with some of the crap tackles they suspend guys for imo. Guy hasn't done much wrong, the player with the ball has contributed to the outcome, but they get weeks anyway.

It's the AFL world we're living in atm.

[SonofScray]

It’s absolutely the correct decision, a clear application of the rules and one that exists independent of any of the typical hysteria and inconsistencies that exist around dangerous tackles, sliding and concussions.

Consistent with what I’d have expected from around the time they started cleaning these efforts up in the mid 90s.

[jeemak]

I do think he was negligent/unreasonable because there was a point where it was clear he wasn't getting to the ball first, and he kept barreling in anyway. But it's split second stuff.

It's on par with some of the crap tackles they suspend guys for imo. Guy hasn't done much wrong, the player with the ball has contributed to the outcome, but they get weeks anyway.

It's the AFL world we're living in atm.

Imagine how ****ed in the face Cleary would have been if he managed to stay on his feet but go really low!

Nobody's talking about the pressure behind Cleary either........it's very weird on all fronts.

[Go_Dogs]

Glad they rubbed that thug out!


I kinda think it’s a line ball call but where there is an option to do something to minimise hurting an opponent that’s what you have to do in the modern game. He’s unlucky and it’s different to how footy used to be approached sure, but if there’s a risk of badly hurting an opponent and another option, you just have to take it, particularly when they have (or will) gather control of the ball before you.

[soupman]

Again I'm pretty happy that unless the concussed player was grossly negligent, then if you concuss someone through your actions, regardless of intent or whether they are a "football action", then your action was proven to be unsafe and worthy of a suspension.

Archer was a little unlucky, but he came in super hot and im not actually sure the outcome is good on any scenario there unless he wins the ball first (which he was never going to do).

[GVGjr]

Just a question on the Archer suspension. Had it been Bailey Dale of any other Doggies team mate who collected Cleary would it receive the same scrutiny?

[soupman]

I think fringe player at North is basically the lowest level of scrutiny you can get, so yes.

If it was an actual good player at a big club, well SEN would be onto their 5th day of wall to wall coverage.

[Grantysghost]

My thoughts on Lobb.

Be graded as Careless, Severe, High.

3 weeks.

If they grade the impact as high not severe it will be 2.

These are the two scenarios I see.

We might be able to argue the severe/high grading.

[GVGjr]

The benchmark was set last week. It's either two weeks if we are lucky or three if we aren't.

[Bornadog]

image.png

To me this is a pure accident as Lobb is trying to punch the ball. At worse it should be a fine for careless.

[JanLorMill]

Suspended? Lobb should rewarded by Collingwood for getting Cox off the ground. Unless we give the ball to him, he doesn’t do much. Lobb suspended only because he didn’t hit a good player like Sidebottom