I’ll just quickly refer to my own earlier post.
Based on the AFL’s own examples of what constitutes Low Impact - therefore a fine - and what constitutes Medium Impact- and therefore a suspension;
Redman’s tackle is Low Impact
Everything else - potential to cause injury etc etc is irrelevant.
Only real question is why Christiansen chose to impose a suspension in the first place.
I’m not expecting Redman’s suspension to be overturned but I’m stull rapt that the club has actually stood up for itself.
Because according to the tribunal guidelines, “Strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury, especially for … any dangerous tackle.” Actual low impact grading + upgrade to medium for potential to cause injury is legit, (providing the original grading of low impact is correct, personally I don’t think it was, I think it was “insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence.”)
The real question is not why was it applied to Redman, but why was it not applied in a whole lot of other cases.
You’ve misunderstood.
The AFL releases exemplars of what constitutes each level of impact.
Scroll back up to my earlier post for links, including video.
This is what takes the interpretation out of it, and clarifies what is ambiguously written down.
The reason Bont fell down like that was not because Redman tried to sling him. When Bont realised his arm was pinned he started to try and kick. This is what made him fall down to the side. It looks to me Redman was trying to pull him straight down by the way he drops his legs.
Glad we are challenging.
The problem we have is that for the past few weeks (after Buddy incident) the media has been saying how the MRO has been sanctioning incidents correctly (except Selwood) but its the Tribunal that has been over turning the MRO’s decisions. So of course this will be the week that the Tribunal will affirm the MRO decision.
If he doesn’t get off after the challenge I hope we appeal it.
IMO Redman’s medium grading is probably made up of low for the actual tackle itself + upgrade to medium for the potential to cause injury. As you say, there’s no way they can actually grade the tackle itself as medium, based on their own examples.
Whatever the impact grading of the tackle itself is, my point is that in addition to what the AFL says constitutes each level of impact, there is further scope in the tribunal guidelines for the potential to cause injury to be applied and for that to increase the impact grading beyond what the examples show.
The tribunal guidelines make the point that an incident could not result in injury at all, yet still be graded as severe due to the incident’s potential to cause injury.
That shot of Bont isn’t Redmond with him, it is Hind.
■■■■■■■ ridiculous. What a way to make their own rules even more difficult to adjudicate
I suspect everything has gone well at AFL house and Redman is now out for 6 weeks.
I didn’t mean well for us!
The tribunal is like umpiring. Make it up as you go along. And if you hate the team involved? That just makes it even better.
They may as well say if you tackle you are going to be judged as intentionally placing the other player in danger. (Which you could equally say about attempting a contested possession).
How about the AFL taking responsibility for the game rather than blaming it on the players (depending on their name) and hiding behind umpiring that they’ve made an impossibility?
too many interpretations at play with the AFL, it’s quite stupid
Has the MRP apologised and withdrawn the charge yet?
As well being amazed, you could also show a bit of humility after that little foot-stamping tanty.
So the impact to Dangerfield was reclassified as Medium and he went to hospital??
Haha mental innit?
2 minutes ago
MEDICAL REPORT
The Bulldogs medical report states Bontempelli was assessed on the spot for head injuries but required no treatment. He did not need to leave the field and no further investigations or treatment were required. He won’t miss any training.
VISION
We’re starting with vision of the tackle, which was on Bulldogs superstar Marcus Bontempelli.
Several angles are being shown before Gleeson starts to make his case.
REDMAN’S TURN
Essendon defender Mason Redman will now have his case heard.
The Bombers are challenging his dangerous tackle charge, and will contest the medium impact grading, arguing impact is low.
Ben Ihle is representing Redman, who is appearing via video link.
Jeff Gleeson will remain in place as AFL counsel.
Case closed
