Rhyan Mansell welcome to Tigerland

[Legends of 2017]

So, 2 tribunals sat for how many hours to decide that the action Mansell had 2/10ths of a second to decide on was the wrong action. Next time , a player will need 3/10ths of a second to choose whether to brace to protect himself and get weeks, or leave himself open to get seriously injured.
His action wasn’t malicious or intentional. Both players were looking and going for the ball.
*smile* decision
Serious question. Now that the afl have set the precedent that it’s the result that determines suspensions, what happens if the same incident occurs but this time BOTH players get knocked out. Are they going to suspend both?

 

[Brodders17]

FREE RHYAN!

 

[larabee]

We spend so much time and money supporting Richmond and by extension the AFL.
I seriously prefer watching the Amo’s.
I’m almost ready for the switch.
They’ve stolen our game and destroyed its fabric.
They don’t deserve our support.
I’m starting to believe Richmond will be collateral damage in this sh#tfight.
Very sad day for all of us.

Yep, I doubt we’ll see the club getting 100,000 members ever again. Sad alright

 

[momentai]

Yes.
Noticed a few players last night waiting for the player to collect the ball and get set before tackling.
Dangerfield in particular waited for his opponent to collect and then tackled.
In the old days (a month ago) he would have at the least competed for the ground ball.
Now we have a spot where there are more tackles with no winner, the aim is to stop play and cause (yet more) ballups.

Noticed Cotch doing the same thing last week in the West.

 

[Dont Argue]

Appeal the appeal.
Employ Chris Townsend.
He got Cripps off

 

[Sintiger]

One of most ridiculous calls for suspension I have seen over the last decade or so was Cotchin on Shiel in the 2017 preliminary final. Two players going for the ball and Cotchin went lower and harder and won the contest. In my opinion he did what you would want your players to do, attack the ball and go low.
If this incident happened today he would be suspended.
It sucks and I am starting to get sick of it

 

[tigermike]

There has in addition to be a finding of careless conduct. ie a judgement based on an objective standard that the conduct that led to the collision was in some way unreasonable.
There was nothing (I can see) about Mansell behaviour that was unreasonable.
The AFL saying it was unreasonable doesn’t make it so.

I hope Mansell continues to run hard at the footy but if he disregards what an opposition player is also doing then he could face more suspensions. I saw Aish bending over to gather the footy in front of him and Mansell came in from the side to engage the contest. Aish was bent over and vulnerable in the head & shoulders area but Mansell still ran in hard to make contact like an old-time footy hit and his upper arm raised up as he followed through. These types of hits, when players don't factor in likely head contact, is what the AFL is trying to stamp out. It's very tough when players like Mansell have always played in a tough, hard manner but they just have to adjust or risk further suspensions. The club will guide him.

 

[tigermike]

One of most ridiculous calls for suspension I have seen over the last decade or so was Cotchin on Shiel in the 2017 preliminary final. Two players going for the ball and Cotchin went lower and harder and won the contest. In my opinion he did what you would want your players to do, attack the ball and go low.
If this incident happened today he would be suspended.
It sucks and I am starting to get sick of it

Not sure Cotch would be suspended. Didn't they both have their hands on the footy when contact was made?

 

[Sintiger]

Not sure Cotch would be suspended. Didn't they both have their hands on the footy when contact was made?

I can hear it now “ he chose to bump …..”

 

[Streak]

One of most ridiculous calls for suspension I have seen over the last decade or so was Cotchin on Shiel in the 2017 preliminary final. Two players going for the ball and Cotchin went lower and harder and won the contest. In my opinion he did what you would want your players to do, attack the ball and go low.
If this incident happened today he would be suspended.
It sucks and I am starting to get sick of it

Funny you should raise that example. I thought the same thing so I went back earlier today to watch it again.

No doubt in my mind he gets 3 weeks for that if he did it today.

How broken is the game when Auskickers get to to go for the ball and not worry about the man, and AFL players get told the exact opposite?

 

[Streak]

Not sure Cotch would be suspended. Didn't they both have their hands on the footy when contact was made?

I'm with Sinners on this one @tigermike

Cotch gets 3 weeks for that is today's climate.

 

[TigerMasochist]

LOL, Neitz yes, Radan ?

View attachment 19625

Geez taz, is it 2023 or 1990. Do we still really need a token sheila involved somehow for balance and integrity.

 

[TigerMasochist]

"We observe also that the Tribunal included highly experienced members with a long history of involvement in Australian rules football at the elite level. "

This statement is factually incorrect... but anyway, we really should accept this with a long-term view for where the game is heading, and instead focus more on finding solutions to playing and succeeding at the new version of AFL that will exist in 5-10 years.

Use this to get on the front foot and get ahead of the curve once again.

So they expect us to accept Gaelic AFL or AFLX in the future? Got no issues with the AFL having worked to remove the old fashioned thuggery out of the game. Got no issues with them working to eliminate the arms pinned sling tackle or the blatantly elevated head high bump. Game's *smile* though if you cant even brace to protect yourself when an opposition player comes into your line of approach at the last second as happened with Nigel.

 

[TigerMasochist]

The AFL doesn't go by precedent.

Actions leading up to a collision are controllable, it's not just about the split second before a collision. Players are carrying out learned behaviours that have been considered and practiced in the months and years prior.

It is controllable, and we shouldn't make excuses.

Yep. It's easily controllable, just ensure all players maintain a nice slow n steady jog when approaching a loose ball, they might even consider looking to the right, looking to the left n then looking right again before they attempt to take hold of the loose ball. Just in case of course.

 

[TigerMasochist]

And exactly what's expected in a final - Towner on Crouch, Cotchin on Shiel, Ellis on Whitfield (?). Sets the tone, makes a statement, and lifts the whole team.

Cotchin on Mumford. Reckon if any of those occurred this year the players would all be paying a visit to the tribunal n having a holiday. Might as well cancel the game as it's rapidly becoming nothing more than a lawyers *smile* fest.

 

[momentai]

I hope Mansell continues to run hard at the footy but if he disregards what an opposition player is also doing then he could face more suspensions. I saw Aish bending over to gather the footy in front of him and Mansell came in from the side to engage the contest. Aish was bent over and vulnerable in the head & shoulders area but Mansell still ran in hard to make contact like an old-time footy hit and his upper arm raised up as he followed through. These types of hits, when players don't factor in likely head contact, is what the AFL is trying to stamp out. It's very tough when players like Mansell have always played in a tough, hard manner but they just have to adjust or risk further suspensions. The club will guide him.

We see this differently. I saw a shoulder to shoulder bump with Aish unaware of pending collision and Mansell aware. It was a continuation of their quest to seek possession. One was ready for contact the other not. Mansell testified that he was not seeking possession at the time of contact. I suppose he thought he had to say he was seeking the ball or that he was bracing for contact, when given the minuscule time frame involved he could quite easily be doing both.

While seeming a little uncomfortable with the way the tribunal had dealt with the ‘careless’ requirement, the appeal chair appears to have based the decision on this. “They the tribunal are all very experienced and know what they are doing,” or like.

My beef is that Mansell’s action was thought to be unreasonable. The meaning of the unreasonable part is now unclear… is it Mansell unreasonable or DeGoey unreasonable.

The meaning of ‘unreasonable’ has in the past born some relationship to the penalty. Here the tribunal and the Appeal Board have effectively given the word a new meaning, which apparently is that every collision unavoidable or not, that results in injury to one party is to be considered the result of the ‘carelessness’ of the other. (This has happened without a change to the games rules, which itself is also wrong).

Bump in any circumstance leading to injury and an automatic 3 weeks has now replaced bump ‘carelessly’.

Until next week at least! Or maybe just until the AFL gets a new Director of football, and a more carefully considered direction to go with it.

 

[artball]

View attachment 19627

This is Murray. Murray likes pies.

Pie in the AFLs face
Send him down the Murray River in a barbed wire canoe

 

[wigglyworm]

Lets see how the interpret this the week before the grand final.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

We see this differently. I saw a shoulder to shoulder bump with Aish unaware of pending collision and Mansell aware. It was a continuation of their quest to seek possession. One was ready for contact the other not. Mansell testified that he was not seeking possession at the time of contact. I suppose he thought he had to say he was seeking the ball or that he was bracing for contact, when given the minuscule time frame involved he could quite easily be doing both.

While seeming a little uncomfortable with the way the tribunal had dealt with the ‘careless’ requirement, the appeal chair appears to have based the decision on this. “They the tribunal are all very experienced and know what they are doing,” or like.

My beef is that Mansell’s action was thought to be unreasonable. The meaning of the unreasonable part is now unclear… is it Mansell unreasonable or DeGoey unreasonable.

The meaning of ‘unreasonable’ has in the past born some relationship to the penalty. Here the tribunal and the Appeal Board have effectively given the word a new meaning, which apparently is that every collision unavoidable or not, that results in injury to one party is to be considered the result of the ‘carelessness’ of the other. (This has happened without a change to the games rules, which itself is also wrong).

Bump in any circumstance leading to injury and an automatic 3 weeks has now replaced bump ‘carelessly’.

Until next week at least! Or maybe just until the AFL gets a new Director of football, and a more carefully considered direction to go with it.

I agree. This has muddied the waters considerably. What happens if two players are running from opposite directions and they both contest the ball and there's a head clash? One gets concussed and misses two weeks. The other one has a sore head but plays on. I will let you decide who the tribunal charges but we know who it will be. For an accidental head clash!

(Mansell had no intent to bump or injure, he just went hard for the ball and turned to brace for impact when it became obvious there would be a collision).

But now they have changed the interpretation and the second player who didn't get hurt will be charged because he was "careless". He will have to be charged now for them to have an consistency at all. Haha I made the point about Huston on Dangerfield Thursday night...by the tribunals own reckoning in the Mansell case Huston HAS to be cited. He turned and put his forearm up to brace and caused a massive injury to Dangerfield. I will be waiting to see him charged.

It's a dog's breakfast. Even if you didn't intend causing injury, you can get rubbed out for longer than someone who did (Kozzie, McAdam, DeGoey).

 

[RoarEmotion]

I agree. This has muddied the waters considerably. What happens if two players are running from opposite directions and they both contest the ball and there's a head clash? One gets concussed and misses two weeks. The other one has a sore head but plays on. I will let you decide who the tribunal charges but we know who it will be. For an accidental head clash!

(Mansell had no intent to bump or injure, he just went hard for the ball and turned to brace for impact when it became obvious there would be a collision).

But now they have changed the interpretation and the second player who didn't get hurt will be charged because he was "careless". He will have to be charged now for them to have an consistency at all. Haha I made the point about Huston on Dangerfield Thursday night...by the tribunals own reckoning in the Mansell case Huston HAS to be cited. He turned and put his forearm up to brace and caused a massive injury to Dangerfield. I will be waiting to see him charged.

It's a dog's breakfast. Even if you didn't intend causing injury, you can get rubbed out for longer than someone who did (Kozzie, McAdam, DeGoey).

Wouldn’t want to play near a mccartin. Get life.

(I don’t want to mock their situation which is serious - just the interpretation)