Kirk cited....AND CLEARED..to play at least - but still gouged by the AFL

[T-bag]

My understanding of the rules as explained in the Goodes situation last year (or was it '07?) is: no. If the activation points of the offence you plead to/are found guilty of, are over 100, then you're ineligible, regardless of whether discounts take you below the 100 so you don't actually serve time.

His decision tonight is the action of the ultimate team man. The lawyers would have said 'we've got some (very small) chance of beating it entirely, and some (moderately good) chance of getting found guilty only of negligent contact, both of which avoid suspension. But of course if we go down on the reckless contact at a defended hearing, it's an automatic one game; and the current politics of umpire contact is such, that this result has to be a chance despite the merits of our defence'.

Kirk took the view (rightly) that his record is so good that the demerit points are very unlikely to ever be used against him, and so pleading to the higher charge was the only way of locking in a no-suspension outcome. Brownlow glory didn't come into it; or if it did, it was totally outweighed by doing the right thing for the team.

selfish I call it. should have taken one for the team at the chance to stick it up the AFL, tribunal, and the rules committee

[robamiee]

is he still elligable for the Brownlow or not?

hard to tell, if you go by the realfooty.com article the initial charge is 125 demerits and even though he has been cleared but give only 97 i cant tell if he eligible or not...

going to need some clarification here.

[liz]

hard to tell, if you go by the realfooty.com article the initial charge is 125 demerits and even though he has been cleared but give only 97 i cant tell if he eligible or not...

going to need some clarification here.

I think SimonH's post pretty much clarifies it. Unless there is a specific carve-out for grossly unfair demerit points awarded, he is not eligible for the Brownlow this year.

[shaun..]

The same question being asked in this article: Mitchell as culpable as Kirk - RFNews - realfooty.com.au

This part of the article should actually read:

Mitchell, it would seem, has delivered the most compelling evidence yet for the AFL to get a ******g clue. (I dont generally swear but the AFL just @@@@$ me)