#AFL Round 3 Weekly Discussion Thread

[barry]

Ray Chamberlain is from ACT. Andrew Stephens, Alex Wetton, James Strybos (R) , Andrew Adair (R) are Banana Benders. Jacob Mollison is from the Albury League. This does not mean he is, from NSW. He could be from Wodonga but he's at least close. Matthew Baigenr is a Rookie Umpire who started in East Sydney Junior AFL.

So there are some but not many

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Are they based in Sydney or Brisbane where the local teams can get advise/feedback ?

I'm pretty sure Razor Ray lives in Melbourne.

[dejavoodoo44]

Ray Chamberlain is from ACT. Andrew Stephens, Alex Wetton, James Strybos (R) , Andrew Adair (R) are Banana Benders. Jacob Mollison is from the Albury League. This does not mean he is, from NSW. He could be from Wodonga but he's at least close. Matthew Baigenr is a Rookie Umpire who started in East Sydney Junior AFL.

So there are some but not many

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

So, essentially, in almost fifty years, only one rookie from Sydney has come partly through the system. Can't help thinking the process hasn't really been working.

[dimelb]

What we need is a Northern States Umpire Academy.
On second thoughts, try to get it past the powers that be.

[dejavoodoo44]

What we need is a Northern States Umpire Academy.
On second thoughts, try to get it past the powers that be.

Yes, festooned with Collingwood and Hawthorn jumpers and captioned with slogans like, 'Bad People' and 'Do Not Indulge'.

[Markwebbos]

Now, no Dusty when we meet Tigers at Marvel.
Have they unravelled ?

NoRanceRiewoldtMartin no Tigers

[Ludwig]

NoRanceRiewoldtMartin no Tigers

And no Cotchin and Short as well. A serious danger game now that it seems we have a big advantage in personnel.

[liz]

I can see the Martin suspension being reduced to a week. I know why they want to give it two weeks but I’m not sure that grading of medium impact stacks up against other decisions in recent years.

[wolftone57]

Are they based in Sydney or Brisbane where the local teams can get advise/feedback ?

I'm pretty sure Razor Ray lives in Melbourne.

There are umpires who on the panel that actually umpire the NEAFL games.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

Martin downgraded to one week. Gets to play us.....

[Melbourne_Blood]

Martin downgraded to one week. Gets to play us.....

Yet that is disappointing . But the two players that routinely murder us , rance and Riewoldt , wont be ! Perhaps Cotchin as well . Based on who they have missing I would be almost confident of a win against our long time bogey side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[neilfws]

I can see the Martin suspension being reduced to a week. I know why they want to give it two weeks but I’m not sure that grading of medium impact stacks up against other decisions in recent years.

Someone on Twitter reckons that if the aim of the tribunal is to eliminate particular acts, such as elbowing people in the head off the ball, they should just do away with intent and impact altogether.

Then the question would simply be "did the act occur?" and if it did, the penalty is whatever it is for that act.

I have some sympathy for that viewpoint. But I guess there are always going to be grey areas, such as bracing for collisions looking like hits.

[barry]

Someone on Twitter reckons that if the aim of the tribunal is to eliminate particular acts, such as elbowing people in the head off the ball, they should just do away with intent and impact altogether.

Then the question would simply be "did the act occur?" and if it did, the penalty is whatever it is for that act.

I have some sympathy for that viewpoint. But I guess there are always going to be grey areas, such as bracing for collisions looking like hits.

Couldnt agree more if I tried.

[wolftone57]

Couldnt agree more if I tried.

I agree too. What is intent? Can you tell me definitively what was going through a player's mind when the incident occurred? A good lawyer always pulls intent apart in every court in the universe haha.

I used to love the charges brought by the police prosecutors. There was always a charge with intent. The first thing a lawyer got the police witnesses to answer was 'with intent to do what?' If the answer is burgle or deal drugs etc with no action being recorded, the lawyer would simply ask 'so you can read my client's mind?' The problem with intent is you have to prove someone intended and action and to do that you have to know their thoughts. I mean a burglar might have a bag full of tools for a job but he could say he was just walking home from helping a mate with a project. Therefore intent is now in doubt.

In football there are no burglary tools, so circumstantial evidence. Only conjecture as to the state of a player's mind at the time of an incident. I put it to you that the tribunal cannot know the intent in a player's mind. Only the resulting action.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[Odysseus]

Someone on Twitter reckons that if the aim of the tribunal is to eliminate particular acts, such as elbowing people in the head off the ball, they should just do away with intent and impact altogether.

Then the question would simply be "did the act occur?" and if it did, the penalty is whatever it is for that act.

I have some sympathy for that viewpoint. But I guess there are always going to be grey areas, such as bracing for collisions looking like hits.

neilfws and others have made significant comments on the tribunal's criteria.

My two-cents worth is that the idea of intent and result are both folly, and a better criterion would be potential to cause injury.

When Gaff hit Brayshaw, I have no doubt that he had no intention of smashing the young man's teeth in, judging from what appeared to be genuine remorse on his part. I seem to remember that he later said he wanted to hit Brayshaw in the chest (?) but Brayshaw's movement led to his connecting with his jaw.

In a sport where there are two players moving, it's ludicrous to throw a punch at all and claim that the intent wasn't to do particular damage. It's a nonsense that a player can attain that degree of accuracy with a punch or an elbow thrust or a foot that is swung close to an opponent's head. (Yes, I am thinking of Buddy's head last Saturday.)

So for me, it's the potential to cause injury that is the criterion that the Tribunal could use better to eradicate these acts.

As a thought-experiment, take the analogy of Driver A and Drive B at different times hurtling around a bend on the Great Ocean Road, travelling way in excess of the speed limit, and on the wrong side of the road.

Driver A rounds the corner, and there's a family in a car driven sedately as they all take in the scenery ... up until that point when they're all killed in the accident. And, as these things sometimes happen, Driver A emerges unscathed.

Driver B some other time screeches in the same fashion around the same corner, ... but there's no on-coming car and no accident.

Before they rounded the bend, was there any difference in the moral culpability of the two drivers? Surely not.

So what eventuates can't be a right criterion by which to assess these acts, whereas the use of potential damage would allow the Tribunal to penalise those who engage in dangerous conduct. If a player is protected because an opponent might say his elbow hit my back before glancing up and taking my head, I say it's folly to raise an elbow anywhere near someone's head. I watch the footy to see skill, not measured violence.

When I say that intent has no place as a criterion, I don't refer to two players each going for the ball, as in the instance that saw Will Hayward's jaw broken, I'm only referring to the deliberate acts of violence and to foreseeably dangerous acts (such as kicking when a player's head is close to the ball).

[KTigers]

Man, the AFL & GWS must really feel like they dodged a bullet by not having that religious crackpot Israel Folau taking up a list spot anymore.
Holy moly, where do these people come from !