MRP / Trib. Charlie Cameron gets a week for dumping tackle on Lever - Tribunal = down to a fine.
- Thread starter TY24
- Start date
- Tagged users None
delta_magpie
Debutant
- Jul 1, 2014
- 52
- 114
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Cant wait for Dangerfield to be denied "good boy" exemption at the tribunal even though hes literally the president of the AFLPA... lol
thistimeforsure
Team Captain
- Mar 12, 2024
- 397
- 560
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
When he missed from 20m out dead in front in the last Q vs Freo Rd 1
Superb
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 107,975
- 149,893
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Tried telling the couple of trolling Lions nuffies that decisions that go against what the AFL wants to do will see rule changes.
24 hours and the AFL media know this was a BS judgment.
Rule change in the summer would be the safe bet.
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 97,233
- 109,272
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Cool! But as said by Dillon, the Tribunal’s decision was valid within the discretionary framework as it currently stands.
Play on.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
He still hasn't been "suspended", remember? He just gets found guilty every other year in particularly "exceptional and compelling" ways
The farce continues with Dillon saying the ruling was wrong but because the tribunal "has the power" to make it, they won't appeal it. The League has "the power" to appeal it, just like they did with Houli in 2017.
Cool! But as said by Dillon, the Tribunal’s decision was valid within the discretionary framework as it currently stands.
Play on.
Discretionary yes. But highly wrong. Especially after they went through his actual previous tribunal record which is not at all that of a "Good Bloke". The Tribunal were either hoodwinked, or are just plain stupid.
After watching his previous indiscretions at two clubs all replayed on video, he has to be just about the luckiest AFL player going around to not have been suspended.
So if he does the same thing next week, could he then say he's now played 208 games without suspension?
Yeah but this time he's been found guilty of rough conduct 4 times and fined 6 times only. So that might put him over the edge from exemplary character to not a great bloke after all
I'll preface this by saying I'm a Brisbane supporter.
I pay barely any attention to the footy media on TV and I had a glance this week and I reckon this is a good example of why. It's just outrage bait for clicks.
Other parts of the decision from the AFL article everyone has suddenly forgotten
Yes the character thing was definitely a part of the decision, but it was a PART of it. It's been presented as if he king hit a bloke and because an he's a good bloke he gets a free pass.
GOOD BLOKE TAX as a term is intentional twisting of it as well, in court it's a pretty well established concept that at sentencing if you have a good record you'll get a lower sentence from the judge. It's not a crazy concept.
One thing I don't get is that the Tribunal graded it as Medium because of the "potential to cause injury", didn't downgrade it to Low but then cited him not being injured in their decision notes? It makes it a bit confusing as to whether they are taking into account actual or potential injuries in their decision, it feels to me like they want it both ways.
I pay barely any attention to the footy media on TV and I had a glance this week and I reckon this is a good example of why. It's just outrage bait for clicks.
Other parts of the decision from the AFL article everyone has suddenly forgotten
Yes the character thing was definitely a part of the decision, but it was a PART of it. It's been presented as if he king hit a bloke and because an he's a good bloke he gets a free pass.
GOOD BLOKE TAX as a term is intentional twisting of it as well, in court it's a pretty well established concept that at sentencing if you have a good record you'll get a lower sentence from the judge. It's not a crazy concept.
One thing I don't get is that the Tribunal graded it as Medium because of the "potential to cause injury", didn't downgrade it to Low but then cited him not being injured in their decision notes? It makes it a bit confusing as to whether they are taking into account actual or potential injuries in their decision, it feels to me like they want it both ways.
Gut feel is that they knew it wasn’t suspension worthy but didn’t want to downgrade it to low for some reason, so took the other stuff into account which they hardly ever do
It had previously been a thing for a long time where an incident was graded to a certain number of points, and they'd get a discount if they have no previous record of suspension. Often that discount would take it from a suspension to a fine. This would all happen before a hearing took place. GOOD BLOKE TAX!?! It's not an unprecedented situation.
For me it's the inconsistency that frustrates me, not the lack of a suspension. Ryan Burton laid a tackle on Jamie Elliot last year that looked almost the same, Elliott got up took the free kick and played out the game.
Yet Burton was suspended for 2 games. The MRO/Tribunal system are a complete lottery, it's infuriating when every week we are all left scratching our heads at nearly every decision the AFL make.
Burton tackle on Elliott
Yet Burton was suspended for 2 games. The MRO/Tribunal system are a complete lottery, it's infuriating when every week we are all left scratching our heads at nearly every decision the AFL make.
Burton tackle on Elliott
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Art, old boy. I take it you didn't sleep too well last night. Terrible nightmares filled with country roads and motorbike fumes. It'll all be over in a few days, don't worry.
Amusing but not wholly suprising for the Amateur Football League. I'm sure other players have received suspensions with exemplary records and proof of community work, what's different about this one compared to those? Dare I say?
FWIW, it should've been graded low, so the result imo is correct. But to announce that he's still guilt but receives a lesser penalty for 'good boy points' is a piss take, esp after the AFL waved that off regarding the Toby tax.
FWIW, it should've been graded low, so the result imo is correct. But to announce that he's still guilt but receives a lesser penalty for 'good boy points' is a piss take, esp after the AFL waved that off regarding the Toby tax.
- Moderator
- #245
This is exactly the problem I have with it as well. Just adds to the inconsistency of decision making from the MRO, the tribunal and by extension the AFL which is frustrating for observers.
They also used the fact he plead guilty to low impact as one of the reasons for his exceptional circumstances.
Problem with that being almost all players that go to the tribunal also plead guilty to a lesser charge instead of an overall not guilty plea and do not get the same consideration when they lose.
get yourself to the gabbatoir we've got some country roads to sing can't wait for the first goal
"do no evil"
The reality he is treated more favourably than others
If only he received the sort of generous umpiring Hawkins gets. The reality is Hawkins gets away with a lot.
Similar threads
