The Tribunal

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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.

Thats why

[Missing Dog]

Re: The Tribunal

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

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

Thats why

That's clearly 'holding the man'

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: The Tribunal

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.

[Missing Dog]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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

Shane Birss was a classic example.