What he really meant: “We’re lucky that the player was not from Essendon. So ‘it’s the vibe’ is good enough”
I think this is a really important point. Otherwise the tribunal is saying you can’t even give a free kick in a marking contest for high contact if the player makes the ball their objective. It’s hard to filter out what in the laws allows an incidental knee to the head in a high mark, but disallows spoiling high contact. Interestingly the laws don’t differentiate between intent to mark or intent to spoil for allowable/disallowed contact. So if a spoiling player gets someone on the side of the face with their elbow and is penalised, a player clunking a mark who makes similar contact to an attempting spoilers face should similarly be penalised.
Not saying that’s how I’d umpire it, but the laws don’t suggest an umpire differentiate between those situations.
Last night Hawkins gave away a free kick for face-high contact during a marking contest, and he took the mark. He was very surprised, normally he gets away with those.
I agree though, it’s a shambles. On the one hand one section of the Laws of the Game says no high contact allowed. Then just a couple of pages on, part of the same section says “incidental” contact is allowed under certain circumstances. Umps have been paying high contact in marking contests, so presumably on field they go with the first part of the rules. The MRO seems to agree (even if he was wrong about the impact grading.) Then the tribunal agrees, but it seems only because their chair (Gleeson) gave the jury specific instructions; if a “reasonable” player could foresee that their actions would result in a reportable offence, the contact will be deemed “unreasonable,” rather than “incidental” (and therefore 18.5 wouldn’t apply, instructions which don’t seem to be in the tribunal guidelines, it seems like he made them up on the spot.) That said, if a “reasonable” player is aware of 18.5, then the “reasonable” player could think “this contact is allowed under 18.5, therefore isn’t a reportable offence, therefore it will be incidental rather than unreasonable.”
Then the Appeals Board says that actually, despite what the umps, the MRO, and the Tribunal think (albeit after some apparently unsupported instructions made by its chair to the jury,) Van Rooyen didn’t do anything wrong.
North could appeal, couldn’t they?
Newman’s ban was overturned. Likewise with Ballard.
Or is the $10k too much to risk?
Aren’t all their costs ultimately underwritten by the AwFL? Appeal and the money just gets shuffled from one account to another
Daicos got fined for his intentional off-the-ball strike of Acres (intentional, body contact, low impact.) Acres collapsed from the strike but got up unassisted pretty soon afterward.
Either it was originally graded negligable impact and was upgraded to low due to the potential to cause injury, (but if the impact was negligable why wasn’t acres done for staging,?) or it was graded low but the potential to cause injury wasn’t factored in, even though the tribunal guidelines say that it must be in the case of intentional strikes.
Daicos remains eligable for the Brownlow.
dees fans going mental about the jonas one because it was paid as holding the ball and lead to a critical goal for port.
he can consider himself lucky he didn’t do that to glass ribbs silvagni
Naarm appeal failed - Lachie Hunter out for 1
They have a good point.
First time I saw that I thought that Hunter was stationary and Rozee just ran into him.
I’ve had to reassess that opinion. Worth a week.
Near identical to the hannebury v Hurley imo
Cerra got a one match ban. Likewise with Parker.
To my eyes, Neale has gotten 2 players suspended by exaggerating for a free kick.
Yeah I thought he seemed to deliberately angle his head into the ground on this one
Only one report from the VFL/VFLW this week: Jake Melksham offered one week for a first case* of striking.
Zorko is such a dirty grub, very lucky to only get one week for that