-
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.
Essendon = Entitlement
- Thread starter Number8
- Start date
Brad Scott, like his brother the other day, giving commentary on MRP matters. Remember when Dimma was labelled a whinger…..
SCOTT CRITICISES AFL OVER ITS TRIBUNAL PENALTIES
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has criticised the AFL for penalising players based on outcomes and not actions, as GWS prepares to challenge Toby Greene’s suspension at the tribunal.
The Giants star was offered a one-match ban for launching at the ball in a marking contest with a motion similar to the one that led to Bombers forward Peter Wright’s four-week suspension for concussing Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
Greene turned side-on as he flew for a mark and his shoulder hit the head of Carlton defender Jordan Boyd during the final term of the Giants’ loss to the Blues on Saturday.
He escaped being sent straight to the tribunal because Boyd was able to quickly get to his feet and play out the game, with the impact graded as “medium” rather than “high” by match review officer Michael Christian.
With Wright due to return from his ban on Anzac Day, Scott said he was still seeking clarification from the AFL on how his coaching group should instruct players to attack the ball in marking contests.
Scott agreed with Giants coach Adam Kingsley that Greene had a right to contest the ball if he kept his eyes on it, and said the tribunal system was not adequate for dealing with Wright’s and Greene’s cases.
“All we can say to Pete is ‘keep your eyes on the ball, attack the contest’. The players are in an incredibly difficult position at the moment, and as a coaching group we’re just trying to get some clarity on how we should instruct our players,” said Scott, the former AFL general manager of football.
“I can show you so many examples where there are collisions with players with their eyes on the ball, but if one player gets concussed, the AFL holds someone liable for it … almost all cases now.
“It’s basically put back to the club to challenge it if they disagree, and the system is not set up for that … you don’t go to the tribunal with an ‘innocent until proven guilty’, you go to the tribunal if you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence, that’s the system.”
The Giants are challenging the one-week suspensions for both Greene and Jesse Hogan, who struck Carlton defender Lewis Young in an incident late in the game.
SCOTT CRITICISES AFL OVER ITS TRIBUNAL PENALTIES
Ed Bourke
Essendon coach Brad Scott has criticised the AFL for penalising players based on outcomes and not actions, as GWS prepares to challenge Toby Greene’s suspension at the tribunal.
The Giants star was offered a one-match ban for launching at the ball in a marking contest with a motion similar to the one that led to Bombers forward Peter Wright’s four-week suspension for concussing Sydney’s Harry Cunningham.
Greene turned side-on as he flew for a mark and his shoulder hit the head of Carlton defender Jordan Boyd during the final term of the Giants’ loss to the Blues on Saturday.
He escaped being sent straight to the tribunal because Boyd was able to quickly get to his feet and play out the game, with the impact graded as “medium” rather than “high” by match review officer Michael Christian.
With Wright due to return from his ban on Anzac Day, Scott said he was still seeking clarification from the AFL on how his coaching group should instruct players to attack the ball in marking contests.
Scott agreed with Giants coach Adam Kingsley that Greene had a right to contest the ball if he kept his eyes on it, and said the tribunal system was not adequate for dealing with Wright’s and Greene’s cases.
“All we can say to Pete is ‘keep your eyes on the ball, attack the contest’. The players are in an incredibly difficult position at the moment, and as a coaching group we’re just trying to get some clarity on how we should instruct our players,” said Scott, the former AFL general manager of football.
“I can show you so many examples where there are collisions with players with their eyes on the ball, but if one player gets concussed, the AFL holds someone liable for it … almost all cases now.
“It’s basically put back to the club to challenge it if they disagree, and the system is not set up for that … you don’t go to the tribunal with an ‘innocent until proven guilty’, you go to the tribunal if you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence, that’s the system.”
The Giants are challenging the one-week suspensions for both Greene and Jesse Hogan, who struck Carlton defender Lewis Young in an incident late in the game.
Yep, the Scotts get away with commenting on anything they want to, and this, yet again, shows the AFL's gross inconsistency and favouring of those they seem to like.
But, Scott makes a very good point. The AFL should be penalising on the basis of the action, not the outcome. If Wright gets 4 weeks for ironing out a player while going for a mark then so should Greene, and vice versa, Greene gets 1 week then so should Wright.
What the AFL need to do, highly unlikely because they prefer to make it up as they go along, is to have a tight range of games missed for a specific action. Eg: 3-4 weeks for hitting an opponent's head while going for a mark - some leeway to account for the situation but not much.
As for the "impact" grading, that should go as it just gives them too much discretion and we all know what the AFL does with discretion.
It is the action they need to stop, somehow as this is a very difficult situation. But the main point is: they need to define the actions they wish to outlaw and make it clear. At the moment it is the usual dog's brekkie.
DS
Devils advocate.
Drink drive and get caught the same penalty as drink drive and kill someone?
Outcome base seems normally how things are done.
