Australian Football League - Opinions about our tribunal system

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Being a big fan of AFL pretty much all my life, Especially the West Coast Eagles, I have witnessed how the game has changed dramatically over the years. One thig that is standing out to me today is the trbunal system which to me, really sucks.


en.wikipedia.org...

For 2012, the Commission approved the following recommendations:

Striking and Behind Play Incidents
- Change to Tribunal guidelines around impact to ensure that any reckless or intentional strikes which are inherently dangerous and / or have the potential to cause serious injury will not be classified as ‘low’ impact and will be given a higher impact rating than other offences;
- Change to Tribunal guidelines around intent to ensure that any striking action with a raised forearm or elbow will be classified as intentional, unless there is clear evidence the strike was not intentional;
- Changes to Tribunal guidelines around intent to ensure that any striking action that occurs behind play, off the ball or during a break in play will be classified as intentional, unless there is clear evidence the strike was not intentional.

Rough Conduct (Tackles)
- Amend the guidelines to better distinguish between negligent and reckless dangerous tackles by including relevant factors such as lifting a player off the ground and using a double action in the tackle.

Staging
- MRP instructed to be more stringent on staging, with excessive exaggeration of contact in an unsportsmanlike manner to be a reportable offence in addition to feigning contact.


www.afl.com.au...

Obviously this has been happening during the games but one incident caught my attention last weekend which I thought was nothing more than to injure a player from the opposite team. From this incident, a player from the Carlton football received a broken jaw and will now miss 5-6 weeks because of the hit. Meanwhile, the player from Collingwood received a 3 week suspension which to me, seems to be very light.

Other incidents have also occured throughout the year that do not compare to the above which has seen players receiving similar sentences. Here are a couple of videos of incidents this year.

In your opninion, which would receive the largest penalty based on the incident.




2 weeks ago Taylor Walker put on this tackle, received 3 weeks for it because of a poor history yet received a free kick which resulted in a goal.



Last Friday night this incident occured. Some may say he was only going after the ball but if you look closer, Wellingham does not have any intention of going for the ball. His eyes are not on the ball for start. To me his intention was to take out the on coming player. He accepted a 3 week ban which to me does not make sense.

Here are a couple of other incidents which occured over the weekend



2 weeks...



2-3 weeks...

I'm sure there are more from this week and earlier on in the year. But the last time I remember someone wrecklessly breaking someones jaw was a few years back and I'm sure the offender received 7-8 weeks.




The one from the previous weekend concerning the Collingwood and Carlton player to me is a wreckless incident and the collingwood player should of received a harsher penalty at least. I disagree with our tribunal system which is now run on a demerit point system which is in the link at the top. I actually feel the system should go back to the 'what you done you are punished for.' It seems this Collingwood player has got off lightly to me considering two West Coast players were rubbed out for tripping (1 week) and a elbow to the family jewels (2 weeks) which was contested and turned into a body shot.

Opinions/




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Being a big fan of AFL pretty much all my life, Especially the West Coast Eagles, I have witnessed how the game has changed dramatically over the years. One thig that is standing out to me today is the trbunal system which to me, really sucks.


en.wikipedia.org...

For 2012, the Commission approved the following recommdations
o feigning contact.


www.afl.com.au...

Opinions/




I think those who came up with the existing tribrunal system have abrogated their responsibilities to determine guilt or otherwise and decide on a penalty. They have taken the easy way out and put the onus on the players and clubs to 'choose' a penalty.

My concern is with this, is that we may see this form of 'justice' extended into the wider justice system where those charged will have an incentive to plead guilty and will do so and accept a punishment that is beyond reasonable because they cant afford to go to court and defend themselves or if they do, they will face a 'double or nuttin' penalty.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It’s a guessing game (on what really happened) with a toss of a coin or roll of the dice to determine the penalty with extra hit points if they have been in trouble before….

My question to you is, how would you better this system?

BTW – The Swans will take the 2012 premiership.

Sydney Swans Forever!

Mickierocksman



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 


I actually think going back to the old system would work better. Not only is it AFL but the NRL are going through the same thing with soft suspensions. Whether they have the same system, I don't know. Back in the day you were penalised for what you did pretty much. I understand taylor walkers was because of previous incidents but never the less, Wellingham should of been rubbed out for at least 6 weeks. Simpson is out for at least 6 and because of that, Wellingham should serve near the same.

When it comes to the system itself and the carry over points, I don't think it is right for players to be penalised again for a previous incident.

About the Swans, you guys haven't run into any of the top sides apart from Adelaide. With our outs this week yous might beat us, but the run home is a hard one. Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Carlton, but I guess all the top sides have a similar deal.

edit on 12-7-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


The old system was ok, but also thwart with inconsistencies.

I think I found the problem; most members of AFL and NRL judiciaries are either former lawyers or have a law background….. one is even QC.

So once again - I think we have been shown that the world would be a better and fairer place without lawyers involved.

Good luck with your season mate, this year it is most certainly apparent that the current top 8 will or should remain intact for the finals run.

Mickierocksman
edit on 12/7/2012 by Mickierocksman because: AND IF WEST COAST DO BEAT SYDNEY THIS WEEKEND - DON'T COME FLAUNTING IT!!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Hi

Swans Def West Coast (Cough Cough)

It was a good game..... Good luck with the rest of your season.

Mickierocksman



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 


by tje looks of things with our injuries, we are going to struggle to make the top 2. Almost our entire forward line is injured and with others also, our depth was exposed on Sunday.. Sydney are a good side.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
And of course the swans won!

Was a good season, great grand final, here's to the next season mate!

Mickierocksman





top topics
 
1

log in

join