Why did we not clallenge....
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2011 7:27pm
- Location: Sandringham
What are the odds of this being another case of a St Kilda player getting a ridiculous suspension (i.e. all suspensions Fraser Gehrig received) only for the tribunal to turn around admit that "we probably got it wrong" in order for someone from Carlton of Collingwood to get off
Joel Corey tackle was far worse - in rugby he would've received a six match ban - but the AFL punish the impact rather than intent/action... it's a physical game and these things will happen from time to time - but you can't start with impact and work backwards because then all you are doing is punishing those unfortunate enough to have their otherwise legitimate tackles cause some collateral damage
Punish the dodgy tackles... not the legitimate ones... that's what I say!
Joel Corey tackle was far worse - in rugby he would've received a six match ban - but the AFL punish the impact rather than intent/action... it's a physical game and these things will happen from time to time - but you can't start with impact and work backwards because then all you are doing is punishing those unfortunate enough to have their otherwise legitimate tackles cause some collateral damage
Punish the dodgy tackles... not the legitimate ones... that's what I say!
I still can't believe the ball bounced over Jamie Shanahan's head into Darren Jarman's lap 4 times in one half of footy... kills me...
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 121 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
True Believer wrote:Perhaps you would be so kind as to post an extract from the current rules of the games, in particular, the part that explains what it is that Kosi did wrong, detailing specifically which rule he broke.saintspremiers wrote:no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.bergsone wrote:Bottom line,its a BS decision
Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***
I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.
Sad really.
I guess he was reported on the basis that he was driven into the ground with excessive force.Dangerous Tackles
Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous
tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following
wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle:
The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which
is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the
application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without
limitation, regard may be had to:
■■ whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless
of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
■■ whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as
a spear tackle;
■■ whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with
excessive force
And for those complaining about the contact being "high"
Any other questions?Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's
head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as
the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending
player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player
around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's
head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact
in these circumstances would be classified as high, even though the
tackle was to the body.
http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2010.pdf
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
Re: Why did we not clallenge....
Many of them challenge (eg Thomas) because they had nothing to lose. Not out of respect for players.BigMart wrote:
Geelong, melbourne, collingwood, hawthorn have all recently did this....with far more blatent cases....lost....but showed their supporters that they would not bow down and take it in the arse by these embarrasing cowboys trying to run a flawed system...
What did they win....the player in questions respect, and their supporters...
You do realise that Geelong and Sydney both had similar cases up this week and both took the penalty. Have Geelong suddenly lost the respect for their players?
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5090
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???kosifantutti23 wrote:True Believer wrote:Perhaps you would be so kind as to post an extract from the current rules of the games, in particular, the part that explains what it is that Kosi did wrong, detailing specifically which rule he broke.saintspremiers wrote:no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.bergsone wrote:Bottom line,its a BS decision
Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***
I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.
Sad really.I guess he was reported on the basis that he was driven into the ground with excessive force.Dangerous Tackles
Introduce a new guideline under Rough Conduct for dangerous
tackles, given their potential to cause serious injury. The following
wording is to be added in determining a dangerous tackle:
The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which
is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the
application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without
limitation, regard may be had to:
■■ whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless
of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
■■ whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as
a spear tackle;
■■ whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with
excessive force
And for those complaining about the contact being "high"
Any other questions?Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's
head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as
the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending
player. By way of example, should a player tackle another player
around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled player's
head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact
in these circumstances would be classified as high, even though the
tackle was to the body.
http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2010.pdf
You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
The laws of the game is mostly about the payment of free kicks. The tribunal booklet deals specifically with the MRP and tribunal. I can't say for sure if there were any of these tackles penalised last year but there's certainly been a lot this year including three this week so I don't see why people are getting upset.True Believer wrote:The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???
You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Because the rules as they stand require a tackler caught in the split second heat of the moment cauldron of elite level footy to acquire the foresight of a freakin' medium, the forensic skills of a QC to analyse risk and consequence of actions, and the ability to deny themselves of an ingrained instinct drummed in since they were five years old.kosifantutti23 wrote:The laws of the game is mostly about the payment of free kicks. The tribunal booklet deals specifically with the MRP and tribunal. I can't say for sure if there were any of these tackles penalised last year but there's certainly been a lot this year including three this week so I don't see why people are getting upset.True Believer wrote:The only problem there is that it is not the rules of the game. It is a tribunal document. And it is from 2010, so why was no-one rubbed out last year under these rule "interpretations". And I have posted in a link in the other Kosi thread to the 2011 Rules of the Game, and thes interpretations are still not listed, so what, the AFL just creates spurious extra documents whenever it feels like it and they override the rules of the game???
You're being conned people, and it's about time that Joe Public called for the sacking of Dimwit and his pet lawyer while there is still a chance to undo the legalese. corporatized takeover and destruction of our game.
I don't care what jumper they're wearing. This particular rule is an abomination and I really wish the AFL had the ticker to admit it's a f*** up.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10192
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
What are these current rules you speak of? Please dont tell me the head is prorected at all times.saintspremiers wrote:no, it was the correct decision under the current rules.bergsone wrote:Bottom line,its a BS decision
Great game their turning this into,absolute bulls***
I feel sorry for all of those that don't understand that point.
Sad really.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10192
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
Re: Why did we not clallenge....
Melbourne and Geelong both did with Trengove and Selwood.ando051 wrote:BigMart wrote:To make a point of supporting a club player???
Regardless of outcome, make a stand, and a public statement about this ludicrous rubbish...cop the fine also....
Thats right, i forgot, we are as weak as piss and incompetant to boot.....we have cruelled steve bakers career, because of being inept.
Geelong, melbourne, collingwood, hawthorn have all recently did this....with far more blatent cases....lost....but showed their supporters that they would not bow down and take it in the arse by these embarrasing cowboys trying to run a flawed system...
What did they win....the player in questions respect, and their supporters...
The suspension was a joke.....next time he should do exactly the same in a tackle
Had a risk of getting another extra week if challenged. The other cases you mentioned had nothing to lose with the amount of points received. Don't forget Kosi tackle was only equal to a week and half it was his bad record that added the extra week
You fight the fights that are worth fighting. The outcome is sometimes not as important as the battle itself.
We all know that Kosi's tackle was not a sling that the AFL are desperately trying to crack down on. It was a legitimate tackle and, if Duncan had prior opportunity, would have been rewarded with a free kick.
It is a laughable situation where an incident is rewarded on the field but results in the player committing an offence that draws 225 demerit points. Only a lawyer could come up with that!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
The rule is flawed. I'll give you that. But wasting money on a pointless appeal does nothing but draw attention to the fact that the club wasted money on a useless appeal.
You may think Geelong showed admirable support of Selwood.
Personally I think they were made to look completely ridiculous for arguing the inarguable.
Same goes for Collingwood and Daisy whats-his-name.
The system is specifically designed to STOP people appealing.
Kosi slung a bloke to ground. Personally I think there may have been an argument that he softened the fall a bit by releasing his grip, but on the basis of the rule (quoted in a nother thread) it was always going to attract scrutiny.
I don't agree with the rule and how it's applied, but it's there.
That's how it is.
You may think Geelong showed admirable support of Selwood.
Personally I think they were made to look completely ridiculous for arguing the inarguable.
Same goes for Collingwood and Daisy whats-his-name.
The system is specifically designed to STOP people appealing.
Kosi slung a bloke to ground. Personally I think there may have been an argument that he softened the fall a bit by releasing his grip, but on the basis of the rule (quoted in a nother thread) it was always going to attract scrutiny.
I don't agree with the rule and how it's applied, but it's there.
That's how it is.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
I'm puzzled as to why they didn't contest it.
Same as I was with the Baker nonsense last year.
But, I can see there are only 4 reasons why we wouldn't contest such stuff...
1) Kosi needs 3 weeks to get over his niggles, so they're happy they had their hand forced.
2) Ross Lyon doesn't like distractions. Take it, and move on. Don't drag it out into the week if we don't have to.
3) They actually agree with the MRP rulings.
4) We are sucking up to the AFL and copping it.
I really hope it isn't 4.
Same as I was with the Baker nonsense last year.
But, I can see there are only 4 reasons why we wouldn't contest such stuff...
1) Kosi needs 3 weeks to get over his niggles, so they're happy they had their hand forced.
2) Ross Lyon doesn't like distractions. Take it, and move on. Don't drag it out into the week if we don't have to.
3) They actually agree with the MRP rulings.
4) We are sucking up to the AFL and copping it.
I really hope it isn't 4.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
IMHO, Only Collingwood looked ridiculous. Thomas took a cheap shot against a bloke that had the better of him...But they had nothing to lose. They were not arguing against the charge only the conduct aspect. Although their defence was foolish.Thinline wrote:The rule is flawed. I'll give you that. But wasting money on a pointless appeal does nothing but draw attention to the fact that the club wasted money on a useless appeal.
You may think Geelong showed admirable support of Selwood.
Personally I think they were made to look completely ridiculous for arguing the inarguable.
Same goes for Collingwood and Daisy whats-his-name.
The system is specifically designed to STOP people appealing.
Kosi slung a bloke to ground. Personally I think there may have been an argument that he softened the fall a bit by releasing his grip, but on the basis of the rule (quoted in a nother thread) it was always going to attract scrutiny.
I don't agree with the rule and how it's applied, but it's there.
That's how it is.
Geelong had a case on the Selwood charge. Given there was no footage of the incident they could, quite adequately, argue the conduct aspect of the charge. Selwood pleaded his case that his intent was not to strike Guerra. The tribunal didn't agree with him but that's how it goes.
Our case with Kosi was different again. His tackling action could easily been argued as he did not sling the player like Trengove, Mumford and Corey. The ball was still there and Kosi would have been able to feel that. It is perfectly legitimate to bring the player to the ground whilst he still has the ball.
Too often we bend over and take it from the AFL...I'd like to see us fight back once with a bit of passion.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
* Deleted duplicate *
Last edited by Life Long Saint on Wed 22 Jun 2011 1:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
* Deleted duplicate *
Last edited by Life Long Saint on Wed 22 Jun 2011 1:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
17 f****** stupid posts....St Nick wrote:I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks.Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.stinger wrote:17 f****** stupid posts....St Nick wrote:I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks.Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4914
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
What are you Rhys Stanley's girlfriend or something?St Nick wrote:I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks.Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Last edited by Moods on Wed 22 Jun 2011 3:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
i'm willing to bet that your mum didn't find you a blessing.......in disguise or otherwise, troll....St Nick wrote:Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.stinger wrote:17 f****** stupid posts....St Nick wrote:I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks.Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Mon 30 Oct 2006 5:04pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
The decision not to go to the tribunal really highlights an inherent problem with the system. It reminds me of the plea bargain system in US law, where defendants are encouraged to take a plea bargain and admit guilt where none exists, simply because the risk of going to court is too great.
The 25% plea reduction is a farce. It really equates to a 25% penalty for having your case heard and having a right of reply. This would not have been an appeal, it would have been an initial hearing. Instead, the player is forced into taking a two week penalty, even though he (most likely) and 90% of the football world think that he did nothing wrong.
It is too big of a risk to go to the tribunal, even if you believe you are innocent, because they are also restrained by the same points system that the MRP is.
Perhaps the MRP should dish out a penalty based on points, and if you think that this is unfair, you may take it to the tribunal who has the right to penalise you with the number of weeks that they think the incident deserves, regardless of the number of points, be it more or less than that offered by the MRP. The risk is then only if you got off lightly with the MRP, the tribunal could give you a higher penalty, rather than a 25% across the board.
The AFL think that a fixed percentage is unfair when it comes to players salaries, why should it be okay when their ability to play footy the next week is concerned.
The 25% plea reduction is a farce. It really equates to a 25% penalty for having your case heard and having a right of reply. This would not have been an appeal, it would have been an initial hearing. Instead, the player is forced into taking a two week penalty, even though he (most likely) and 90% of the football world think that he did nothing wrong.
It is too big of a risk to go to the tribunal, even if you believe you are innocent, because they are also restrained by the same points system that the MRP is.
Perhaps the MRP should dish out a penalty based on points, and if you think that this is unfair, you may take it to the tribunal who has the right to penalise you with the number of weeks that they think the incident deserves, regardless of the number of points, be it more or less than that offered by the MRP. The risk is then only if you got off lightly with the MRP, the tribunal could give you a higher penalty, rather than a 25% across the board.
The AFL think that a fixed percentage is unfair when it comes to players salaries, why should it be okay when their ability to play footy the next week is concerned.
If at first you don't succeed, sky diving is not for you.
I noticed that you are a Saintsational Legend yet you treat new people like garbage. What's the go??stinger wrote:i'm willing to bet that your mum didn't find you a blessing.......in disguise or otherwise, troll....St Nick wrote:Excuse me if my opinion differs to yours. I reckon it's a blessing in disguise. Hopefully Lyon plays Stanley and he stars for us.stinger wrote:17 f****** stupid posts....St Nick wrote:I'm glad we didn't challenge. We now have the luxury of a Kosi-less team for the next 2 weeks.Maybe now R. Stanley will get a run
![]()
![]()