#AFL Round 5 Weekly Discussion Thread

[liz]

Joel Selwood has been offered a one match suspension for retaliatory action against Thomas, following the bump that laid out Scott Selwood. I'm a little surprised he wasn't just fined. The action is somewhat similar to Hunter's on Papley (for which he got a week) but looks more to the shoulder than the face and lower force too. My expectation is that Selwood and Geelong will whinge to the tribunal (and in all likelihood will get off).

I'm just as surprised at Mitchell receiving a fine for his elbow to Goldstein's head. I'm not sure how they can come up with that. Surely it was either below the necessary force and hence no sanction should apply, or it was intentional/high/low, which the table says is a 1 match ban. A fine can only come about it were deemed careless rather than intentional. Not sure how any sane person could reach that decision based on other incidents that have been deemed intentional (Mason Cox, Jack Graham).

[Billericay]

I'm just as surprised at Mitchell receiving a fine for his elbow to Goldstein's head. I'm not sure how they can come up with that. Surely it was either below the necessary force and hence no sanction should apply, or it was intentional/high/low, which the table says is a 1 match ban. A fine can only come about it were deemed careless rather than intentional. Not sure how any sane person could reach that decision based on other incidents that have been deemed intentional (Mason Cox, Jack Graham).

Listening to the Superfooty podcast earlier today, they said that because he was in Brownlow contention, chances are he'll get away with it. If he wasn't he'd get a week. Think they got it right.

[Meg]

Joel Selwood?s jumper punch caused the back of Thomas?s head to thump into the ground which is dangerous - Selwood deserves a week off.

Agree with your summation re Tom Mitchell incident - either insufficient force and no penalty or a week off. Given Christian has made a lot of noise about how he will take into account potential for injury and not just actual injury, it should have been a week off in my view.

I have been doubtful from the beginning about the claim that a one-man match review ?panel? would achieve more consistency. The tendency to fit the penalty to the subjective perception of the act/player, rather than according to the match review penalty table, is just as likely with one person as it was with three. Or perhaps more likely without others to counter argue. And that said, the AFL now explicitly gives the tick-off to decisions (which we assume they did before anyway). I suspect they have decided a fine will serve as a warning to Mitchell without putting him out of the Brownlow race.

[Meg]

#AFL Round 5 Weekly Discussion Thread

I?ve just read the Match Review statement. The Mitchell penalty was manipulated by deeming it to be the non-classifiable offence of ?misconduct?, which is a financial penalty, rather than ?striking? which is classified by the penalty table.

In fact there were a total of four ?misconduct? judgements in the statement - a classification used sparingly in the past.

So when is an elbow to the head ?misconduct? and when is it ?striking?? H?mmm .......

Ps: and I can?t find a 2018 version of the Tribunal Guidelines. Really annoys me how hard the AFL makes it to get the most up-to-date versions of their rules/policies etc. The AFL website still shows the 2015 Tribunal Guidelines!

[Mel_C]

The MRP (or should I say the AFL) chooses the penalty that suits the situation. Case in point last year when Cotchin was free to play in the grand final.

As soon as I saw the Mitchell incident I said he would only get a fine because of the brownlow. It was behind play and he ran at the player, lifted his arm and hit him in the head. Can you imagine the outcry if that was Lindsay Thomas?

[liz]

Ps: and I can?t find a 2018 version of the Tribunal Guidelines. Really annoys me how hard the AFL makes it to get the most up-to-date versions of their rules/policies etc. The AFL website still shows the 2015 Tribunal Guidelines!

I don't have the full guidelines but I found a copy of the table here:

One-man MRP in sweeping changes for 2018 - AFL.com.au

It doesn't explicitly mention the concept of a "misconduct" charge.

[Meg]

Thanks Liz. I also found that statement and table but I can?t find the full 2018 Guidelines.

In the 2017 Guidelines (not on AFL website lol) offences are divided into
1. CLASSIFIABLE OFFENCES
2. DIRECT TRIBUNAL OFFENCES
3. FIXED FINANCIAL OFFENCES

Misconduct came into the third category in 2017.

Incidentally in the introduction to those 2017 Guidelines it is said that a change to be introduced in 2017 was that ?Selected jumper punches and strikes to the head that have insufficient force to constitute a Low Impact offence will be processed as a fixed financial sanction under Attempt to Strike.? Now that would have made more sense re Mitchell?s strike than calling it misconduct.


But who knows what is what in 2018 as the Guidelines are not readily available. Another example: Higgins getting knocked out has been deemed to be the result of an accidental head clash = no action. Only a few years ago the Guidelines explicitly stated that if a player chooses to bump and it causes a head clash, the player will be held accountable for the outcome. I think it was Fyfe? who received a (contentious) suspension under this ruling. I am not opposed to the apparent change in the way head clashes are judged - but I am not aware that the change has been made explicit.

[Hotpotato]

Eddie is hotly denying he is the human headline promoting ED and is still doing OK .
( The Project) .
He was actually quite bearable .

[Danzar]

Here's the full tribunal rundown Blockbuster Tribunal LIVE from 5pm AEST - AFL.com.au

I watched the North/Hawks game and missed that Sicily stamp. What a scumbag he's proving to be. It's not just an anger problem when he does that calmly off the ball.

[Meg]

Here's the full tribunal rundown Blockbuster Tribunal LIVE from 5pm AEST - AFL.com.au

I watched the North/Hawks game and missed that Sicily stamp. What a scumbag he's proving to be. It's not just an anger problem when he does that calmly off the ball.

Yes, the deliberate, calculated way Sicily made that leg stamp was a bit chilling!

I?m puzzled about the way the AFL has handled this (and I say ?AFL? as it is now clear that the claim of a one-man MRP is nonsense, Christian is just the front man for the AFL).

They said at the Tribunal that the two parties had already discussed and agreed a one-match penalty would be appropriate. If that is what the AFL thought, why did they grade it as ?serious misconduct? and not simply ?misconduct? with a one-match penalty without Tribunal involvement?

Also, when Hocking announced the new match review arrangements it was said that ?Cases referred directly to the Tribunal will attract at least a three-week suspension save for exceptional circumstances.? Yet the AFL was satisfied with a one-match penalty. So again, why refer it to the Tribunal?

[Meg]

Answering my own question above, I think if Sicily?s act had been graded only as ?misconduct? without the ?serious? added, it would have been only a financial penalty. Clearly AFL wanted a suspension. Good outcome.

[Danzar]

Answering my own question above, I think if Sicily?s act had been graded only as ?misconduct? without the ?serious? added, it would have been only a financial penalty. Clearly AFL wanted a suspension. Good outcome.

Good analysis

[barry]

How come non Victorian teams don't get these marquee date games?

[Meg]

#AFL Round 5 Weekly Discussion Thread

Following the Joel Selwood appeal at the Tribunal, Selwood?s defence is ?Thomas made me do it Sir?. Lol! It seems I?m the only one who was concerned about Thomas?s head bouncing into the turf as it hasn?t been mentioned. I think Selwood is about to get off. Wouldn?t be an an outrageous outcome - although it would be a win for retaliatory action on the field.

Update: yep, cleared. So we will see J Selwood next week.

[dejavoodoo44]

Here's the full tribunal rundown Blockbuster Tribunal LIVE from 5pm AEST - AFL.com.au

I watched the North/Hawks game and missed that Sicily stamp. What a scumbag he's proving to be. It's not just an anger problem when he does that calmly off the ball.

Yes, having just looked at the replay, it seems that he has a quick glance, to see if an umpire is watching and then decides to go the stamp. Classy guy.