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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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.