I posted this once, it was reported and removed. Lol
Herb has made it ok for everyone,… Right?
Some sanity returned
To zero weeks?
There are some just don’t pass the pub test. Even in this day and age.
When even the players are making a united statement through the Player’s Association basically saying, hey we get the intent to do all we can to protect the head but this is ridiculous and unrealistic, then you know suspending these two tackles had gone too far. Especially for such a lengthy term - fk ya matrix.
Yeah, completely overturned
1 Like
It’s funny how it’s 3 or nothing. Way overs to begin with, ridiculous from the MRO.
3 Likes
But seriously, in those video examples of how to do it the guy being tackled is standing still … no natural forward momentum.
That’s not really a very realistic simulation, not to mention the guy being tackled isn’t trying to help that forward motion, whereas in many cases the player being tackled is deliberately assisting the “fall forward”.
Cripps is a bad example because Libba was making a valid attempt to hand ball and was therefore trying to stay upright as much as possible to free his hands. As a consequence he contributed positively to avoiding head-ground contact, where many players don’t.
2 Likes
Just goes to show how inept the mro are really.
I am starring to believe they just make ridiculous decisions to spark discussion and feed the news cycle
4 Likes
So despite the Appeals Board ruling that Cameron was unreasonable in his tackle on Duggan, Cameron’s suspension was overturned due to an error of law made by the Tribunal; the Tribunal failed to consider whether or not Cameron’s conduct was likely to cause injury. That’s strange given that it was obvious that Cameron’s conduct did cause injury; Duggan was concussed.
Shocking that the Tribunal could make such a school-boy error of law allowing a marquee player to escape suspension in the lead up to finals… much like when they made the school-boy error of law that allowed Cripps to escape suspension in the lead up to finals (and go on to win the Brownlow by 1, after polling 3 votes in a game for which he otherwise would have been suspended.)
8 Likes
This is a joke isn’t it - as you said didn’t consider the ability to cause injury when the player was concussed. The whole system is a joke and needs an overhaul.
I really don’t think it was worthy of a suspension but there was a sense of karma that he did.
So what will Beford argue - the same thing or was injury considered in the Appeals case?
4 Likes
It starts with the MRO’s grading system being broken to begin with.
Concussion = 3 weeks seems reasonable, (outcome,) but then there are these caveats that the outcome is irrelevant if the conduct (action) is not unreasonable. There’s no scope for the MRO to say “well the conduct wasn’t unreasonable, but the player was still concussed, so drop it to 1 or 2 weeks instead of 3,” it’s all or nothing. It essentially means the MRO is deciding between 3 weeks or 0 weeks before the Tribunal gets anywhere near it.
That’s just one of the problems with the system.
2 Likes
Again Cameron gets off wtf
The systen is joke
1 Like
It was a Farking stupid suspension
4 Likes
You’re not incorrect, but this decision isn’t incorrect either.
Pity it’s on “rule of law” grounds and not “What the freaking hell was he even reported for” grounds.
6 Likes
99% of the football public think it wasnt a suspension. Do you think its worthy of one?
Just think it disaproves when Brad said that its very hard to over turn a suspension
If we get a 3 match ban on a player we better farking appeal this time
2 Likes
Bloody Dodoro can’t even recruit a half back lawyer
4 Likes
“Turning conveyancers in to barristers since 2010”
5 Likes
There was nothing to disprove, everyone knew it was bullshit when he said it.
What these decisions show is the further up the chain you go, the more common sense is used.