Herald-Sun article on Tibunal penalties

[kalsaint]

No bias shown here of course.

How lucky are some players. I just hope teh AFL really trip up on this in the future and cop a flogging in some court. I continually get angry every time I hear, see or think about Bakes injustice.

Article follows.

Rules and penalties take king-hit
Mark Robinson | April 16, 2008 12:00am

ON SUNDAY, Geelong ruckman Trent West collected St Kilda's Xavier Clarke, who was not looking, and Clarke was carried off the ground on a stretcher. West was not cited.

Late last year, St Kilda hard man Steven Baker collected Fremantle's Jeff Farmer, who was not looking, and Farmer walked off the ground assisted by trainers.

Baker received seven matches - four for the incident plus a loading of three - and won't be available until Round 6 this year.

In my opinion, it remains the greatest tribunal injustice of recent time.

In both cases, the ball was more than 5m from the incident and, in both cases, the contact was initiated by a player intent on blocking or shepherding.

The AFL rule regarding this is Rule 15.4.5 (e) and is explained as when "a player makes prohibitive contact with an opposition player, if he pushes, bumps, holds, or blocks an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play".

That Baker still awaits his 2008 debut angers him and the St Kilda Football Club.

Those close to the backman/tagger say he remains in disbelief, even bitter, about a clash that left Farmer with a broken nose, and himself with an "egg" on the back his head.

In essence, Baker was suspended for "blocking".

What helped West was TV footage of the incident. What helped hang Baker was that there was no TV footage of the incident.

We can guess what West would have said if he was reported and had to give evidence.

"I saw Clarke jogging after Josh Hunt, so I decided to run at Clarke and put on a block, because that's what 'Bomber' wants us to do.

Not just in the backline, but all over the ground when an opposition player is making a run to get the ball."

In his evidence, which reportedly didn't help Baker, Baker said he and Farmer were running together near the edge of the centre square.

"I stopped in my path and Jeffrey kept running and I blocked his path just to stop him getting into the forward 50," Baker said. "I felt contact on the back and the back of my head . . . I'm a backman, that's what I do."

Baker seven, West zip.

The match review panel and tribunal continue to mystify us. Geelong's Ryan Gamble punched Nick Dal Santo in the jaw. It was a softish king-hit.

He cops one week.

In 2003 Collingwood's Brodie Holland whacked Sydney's Paul Williams flush in the face after arguing provocation. He got two weeks.

And last night we had Barry Hall. He was suspended for his act of violence and also suspended because of society's conscience. But does Hall's seven weeks mean what he did was seven times worse than what Gamble did?

The same for West and Baker. Was Baker's hit on Farmer, even without TV, seven times worse than what West did?

It is bewildering to say the least.

[Little Dozer]

So it's not just us! Thank god someone has noticed and written about it! Gamble surely should have got 4 weeks reduced to 3 for early plea. It was a forceful clenched fist to the chin. The MRP is a joke!

[Eastern]

Darren Goldspink said on SEN last night that West should have been reported/cited !!

[cwrcyn]

It's been quite obvious for some time.

You wear a Saints jumper, you can be pole-axed and the offender walks away with little or no penalty.

e.g

Whelan on Ball - No penalty, worth at least 4 weeks
West on Clarke - No penalty, worth at least 2 weeks
Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks
Burgoyne on Hayes - No penalty, worth about 6 weeks
Gamble on Dal Santo _ One week, worth at least three weeks
Hall on Maguire - No penalty, worth at least one week

Conversely, a Saint offends and gets 7 weeks with no video evidence or you get at least one week for a timid tummy-tap

e.g

Baker on Alessio - Two weeks, should have been cleared
Baker on Farmer - No video evidence, conflicting 'witnesses', but got 7 weeks
Gehrig on Harris - Pathetic tummy tap, that wouldn't have hurt a toddler - one week penalty
Gehrig on Rocca - a little cheapshot. Given two week, but reduced to one on appeal!


Is the tribunal crooked? The evidence speaks for itself

[saintbrat]

there are lots of media and commentators astounded on the X and west incident
all the ' on the couch' panel
patrick smith
The Ox is /was going to ask Adrian anderson when he is on tonight
not just saints biased either


some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair

[rodgerfox]

some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair

This just baffles me.

It was more than 5m away, therefore was illegal. Full stop.


Whether or not we think it's a soft rule or not is completely irrelevant. It was against the rules.

[Buckets]

some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair

This just baffles me.

It was more than 5m away, therefore was illegal. Full stop.


Whether or not we think it's a soft rule or not is completely irrelevant. It was against the rules.

I don't think it is about the rule being to soft or not. It's more that alot of Saints supporters are just sick of it and couldn't be bothered arguing anymore because it just seems to be a waste of time! The main thing with the Baker incident is that there was footage of the aftermath with blood streaming from Farmer's face! Yes X was knocked out but one could claim that it was the ground that did the damage. And if i remember he did come back on for a bit?

Not saying that, that in itself is an excuse, but the uproar to the Farmer incident was large because of the unknown actions of those around him!

[Dan Warna]

some- pro saints commentators actually saw it as fair

This just baffles me.

It was more than 5m away, therefore was illegal. Full stop.


Whether or not we think it's a soft rule or not is completely irrelevant. It was against the rules.

all we want is consistency

if west got off so should have baker

if baker got suspended so should have west.

what we DONT want is one rule for one and another rule for another.

THAT is what is frustrating.

[spert]

I do think it is time (or has it already happened?) that management or executives of this club put the AFL on the spot about our treatment at the tribunal -the inconsistancy stinks big-time.

[bigred]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

[Eastern]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslaw ? !!

[The Peanut]

I had a bit a look at some of the rules of the game - one of things that surprised me was the sending off rules - I didn't know that we had red and yellow card rules - has anyone seen these used?

15.4.2 Shepherd

A Shepherd Is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:

(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs: and

(b) where such contact Is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.

15.4.3 Permitted Contact

Other than the Prohibited Contact Identified under Law 15.4.5, a

Player may make contact with another Player:

(a) by using his or her hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:

(b) by pushing the other Player with an open hand in the chest or side of the body provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player:

(c) by executing a Correct Tackle:

(d) by executing a Shepherd provided that the football Is no more than 5 metres away from the Player: or

(c) If such contact Is Incidental to a marking contest and the Player Is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.


15.4.4 Charge or Charging

(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary In the circumstances, Irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.

(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player: (1) who Is not within 5 metres of the football: (11) who, although within 5 metres of the football, Is not In the Immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact: (111) who Is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick; (1v) after that Player has disposed of the football; (v) who Is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team: or (V1) before the football Is brought Into play.


19.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES

19.2.1 Degree of Intent - Clarification

Where any of the Reportable Offences Identified In Law 19.2.2

specify that conduct may be Intentional, reckless or negligent:

(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was Intentional, reckless or negligent shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent: and

(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the report may find the report proven If It Is reasonably satisfied that the conduct was either Intentional, reckless or negligent.


20.5 ORDER OFF FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD

In addition to being reported on the first occasion for committing a Reportable Offence, other than those listed In Law 20.2, a Controlling Body may determine that a Player be ordered from the Playing Surface for such period as It In Its absolute discretion deems fit.

20.6 SIGNALLING AND PROCEDURE FOR ORDER OFF

20.6.1 Signal A field Umpire shall, In addition to Informing a Player that he or she Is to immediately leave the Playing Surface, signal that the Player has been ordered off the Playing Surface by pointing to the Interchange Area. He or she shall hold aloft a red card to signal that the Player has been ordered off for the remainder of the match or a yellow card to signalling that the Player has been ordered off for a period of the as specified by the Controlling Body.

20.6.2 Player to Leave Playing Surface (a) A Player shall immediately leave the Playing Surface when ordered to do so by an Umpire under the Law 20. (b) Where a Player refuses to or does not immediately leave the …


http://afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/20 ... E_GAME.pdf

There are probably some other rules that are relevant too ...

I don't really think that the umpires, match review committee or the tribunal need to turn into Nazi's but the consistency is black from white IMO

[joffaboy]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

Concur - absolute bull butter

[St.Kenny]

Baker incident should have gone to court ....end of story !! Was personally very irate at our previous admin for not showing some conscience on this matter.

The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised.
Was very surprised at the time that the most influential man in football outside of Jolimont (Eddy McGuire) did not start a riot given 2 key Collingwood players were ousted in the 2 prior grand finals (Cloke and Rocca).

[bigred]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslaw ? !!

That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.

6 weeks my backside.

Baker incident should have gone to court

Agree 100%

Its laughable.

The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised

This comp has been rigged for years. With the new clubs coming in, it will continue to be rigged based purely on finances.

It is a joke. It is crooked and it is run by half wits.

The tribunal system as it stands is pretty straight forward. Until, somehow, without any video evidence, a player can be rubbed out because some asshat runs into the BACK of his head because idiots, attempting to justify their employment, think it right to hammer a players career.

Sure I'm venting, but to be 100% honest with all of you, this game is in its worst state of health that I have ever seen it. The games are over umpired. The new rules or enforcement of the rules are absolutely changing the face of this game.

Not every team can win 100% of the time and if you have to sit through loss after loss, with players taking dives because the halfwit ump is going to give them an easy free, the AFL is kidding itself. Who in their right mind wants to see games being so heavily influenced by umpires?

Its rubbish. The AFL is turning the game into netball.

[plugger66]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslaw ? !!

That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.

6 weeks my backside.

Baker incident should have gone to court

Agree 100%

Its laughable.

The greatest injustice for mine of all time was Barry HAll being allowed to play in the Grand Final in 05. THis is when I realised the AFL was determined to see Sydney succeed even if competition equity was compromised

This comp has been rigged for years. With the new clubs coming in, it will continue to be rigged based purely on finances.

It is a joke. It is crooked and it is run by half wits.

The tribunal system as it stands is pretty straight forward. Until, somehow, without any video evidence, a player can be rubbed out because some asshat runs into the BACK of his head because idiots, attempting to justify their employment, think it right to hammer a players career.

Sure I'm venting, but to be 100% honest with all of you, this game is in its worst state of health that I have ever seen it. The games are over umpired. The new rules or enforcement of the rules are absolutely changing the face of this game.

Not every team can win 100% of the time and if you have to sit through loss after loss, with players taking dives because the halfwit ump is going to give them an easy free, the AFL is kidding itself. Who in their right mind wants to see games being so heavily influenced by umpires?

Its rubbish. The AFL is turning the game into netball.

And that shows with record attendances and the most money ever paid and by a fair way fortv, radio and internet rights. Games have always been influenced by decisions. Go and look at replays of games in the 70's.
Skills of footy have never been better and most new rules have improved the game. The hands on the back being the exception.

[rodgerfox]

Giansuracusa on Koschitzke - No penalty, worth at least 6 weeks

Absolute horseapples.

horseapples?? Is that anything like nana's coleslaw ? !!

That bump was a straight up and down hip & shoulder to a chasing player. Absolutely fair in the spirit of the game.

6 weeks my backside.

Although the intention may have been in the spirit of the game, Guido left the ground and got Kosi in the head. Accidentally or not, he got him high and caused sever injury.

The rules of the game state that that is illegal.

[St DAC]

Although the intention may have been in the spirit of the game, Guido left the ground and got Kosi in the head. Accidentally or not, he got him high and caused sever injury.

The rules of the game state that that is illegal.

Exactly. And the ball wasn't within 5 metres either. Either you have rules, and apply them, or you don't. At the moment we have selected application of the rules, or as is in the Baker case, just make it up as we go along to suit the agenda.

AFAIK it's not against the rules to stop running. And blocks happen a hundred times a game.