Thats how I saw it, he ran in so quickly he would have smashed him either way. I think Mansell did that thing called "bracing for contact" that apparently is the way people are comfortable for the perpetrators to use to defend themselves, but those about to be poleaxed aren't allowed to brace for contact. Its such a weird world we are living in now.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Thats how I saw it, he ran in so quickly he would have smashed him either way. I think Mansell did that thing called "bracing for contact" that apparently is the way people are comfortable for the perpetrators to use to defend themselves, but those about to be poleaxed aren't allowed to brace for contact. Its such a weird world we are living in now.
Case is still deliberating. Can't believe Cartoon are making a big deal out of this.
Along with a healthy dose of character assassination for Mansell by the Carlton defense team!!!
A player has every right to defend themselves by bracing or lowering the head to minimise the force of the front on contact, especially a small player who has already had a couple of nasty concussions.
After nearly 4 hours, Cartoon win again. Must've brought in Cripps' lawyer this time. Gotta love the brown paper bags.....
Last edited:
Given reason is below via fox and good to see the Tribunal rejected the Carlton assertion of ducking by Mansell.
www.foxsports.com.au
Reasons:
We find Boyd did commit the reportable offence with which he's charged.
Vision clearly captures Boyd making contact to Mansell from front on when Mansell had his head over the ball.
Such contact is deemed to be careless unless one of the stated circumstances apply. We do not find that either of the circumstances apply.
Boyd was not contesting the ball. He was running at Mansell to bump him in an effort to stop him from disposing of the ball. This is apparent from a careful review of the vision.
Boyd did not give evidence before the Tribunal.
Second, we do not consider that the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of Boyd, which could not reasonably be foreseen.
Mr Boyd made a decision to run at speed at Mansell to try and bump him. Mansell had possession of the ball and it was reasonably foreseeable that he may change direction or position in a range of different ways shortly before contact, including crouching down as Mansell did.
This is one reason why choosing to bump rather than tackle an opponent is risky.
Boyd submitted that Mansell deliberately ducked to get a free quick kick. We do not make that finding on the evidence before us.
We now move to impact. The guidelines state that any careless, forceful front on contact which was high and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as medium impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.
If not for Boyd taking several steps immediately before contact to reduce the impact, we would have upheld the medium grading.
Vision captures the following: Boyd decelerated as he realised that high contact was about to be made, he significantly reduced the actual impact to Mansell. Boyd moved his arms in a position to try to cradle Mansell. Boyd used his hands to try to stop Mansell from falling backwards. These actions helped to minimise the actual impact of the contact, which was low.
Importantly, they also helped to reduce the potential for injury. For these reasons, we find the impact to be low.
Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case
Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case
www.foxsports.com.au
Reasons:
We find Boyd did commit the reportable offence with which he's charged.
Vision clearly captures Boyd making contact to Mansell from front on when Mansell had his head over the ball.
Such contact is deemed to be careless unless one of the stated circumstances apply. We do not find that either of the circumstances apply.
Boyd was not contesting the ball. He was running at Mansell to bump him in an effort to stop him from disposing of the ball. This is apparent from a careful review of the vision.
Boyd did not give evidence before the Tribunal.
Second, we do not consider that the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of Boyd, which could not reasonably be foreseen.
Mr Boyd made a decision to run at speed at Mansell to try and bump him. Mansell had possession of the ball and it was reasonably foreseeable that he may change direction or position in a range of different ways shortly before contact, including crouching down as Mansell did.
This is one reason why choosing to bump rather than tackle an opponent is risky.
Boyd submitted that Mansell deliberately ducked to get a free quick kick. We do not make that finding on the evidence before us.
We now move to impact. The guidelines state that any careless, forceful front on contact which was high and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as medium impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.
If not for Boyd taking several steps immediately before contact to reduce the impact, we would have upheld the medium grading.
Vision captures the following: Boyd decelerated as he realised that high contact was about to be made, he significantly reduced the actual impact to Mansell. Boyd moved his arms in a position to try to cradle Mansell. Boyd used his hands to try to stop Mansell from falling backwards. These actions helped to minimise the actual impact of the contact, which was low.
Importantly, they also helped to reduce the potential for injury. For these reasons, we find the impact to be low.
cast your mind back to the freo game a year or two ago when Mansell got suspended.
- He was contesting the ball. His eyes were solely on the ball until the last split second when he saw the freo player and braced for contact
- He was not running at his opponent but the ball
Result- Mansell gets a suspension, so how does Boyd only get a fine?
( yes , I know the freo player was concussed but Mansell was going for the ball not the player)
I thought the Carlton player was on trial.
Was this Appeals Board the same one that were handed brown paper bags for Cripps appeal?
I hope they didn’t expect the same pay rate.
Was this Appeals Board the same one that were handed brown paper bags for Cripps appeal?
I hope they didn’t expect the same pay rate.
What about when Marlion got dudded for his sidebump on Moore, who wasn’t even injured.
“Potential to cause injury”. Obviously that’s been shelved again, only to be brought out when they feel like it
Carlton are the Mob..everything they want, they get.
Boyd ran into him at 200kph.
If the tribunal had balls they shouldve given an extra week for challenging the 1 week suspension
Boyd ran into him at 200kph.
If the tribunal had balls they shouldve given an extra week for challenging the 1 week suspension
It’s like the “Break glass in case of emergency “ situation. In the AFL’s case it’s “Use in cases where we can’t actually ping any Richmond players for any legitimate infringement “ situation
geez that explanation and reasoning above of the Boyd / Mansell incident shows a lot of why the game is weird and wrong.
it's over-thinking and it's bloated on it's own self-importance.
blah blah blah blah blah ..... blow it out your backside ....
it's over-thinking and it's bloated on it's own self-importance.
blah blah blah blah blah ..... blow it out your backside ....
The inconsistency of the MRO or just that Carlton have better lawyers. Yes, I know I am being charitable for once!
Everything except a premiership in the DVD/Blu-Ray/streaming era.
Well it was the last century after all when you last
Don’t be greedy BB. Didn’t you get a DVD copy of your dynasty era ( Rd1-3 2022) ?
Sorry mate, couldn’t help myself
The AFL have so many questions that need answering, not least club bias and jobs for the boys culture but as it is a closed organisation, we will not get the answers the whole footy community need and want.
