The Tribunal

[westdog54]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

- 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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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.

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

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]

Re: The Tribunal

Agree, there is no consistency

Pretty much the same as our legal system then ?

[The Pie Man]

Re: The Tribunal

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.