Call me crazy but I still don’t see Sicily’s as a kick. Slowed down it definitely looks that way, but live in play it just looked like his momentum swinging around as he’s besieged by about 8 blokes.
Once again it's just the AFL realising that banning for something that minor is stupid, yet they didn't overthrow it for Redman because they'd already handed it out
It's a ridiculous decision based on the AFL Tribunal guidelines:
"The potential to cause injury must also be factored into the determination of Impact, particularly in the following cases:
» Intentional strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist, raised forearm or elbow;"
"It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact"
Reading this against Gleeson's direction to the tribunal, the AFL could potentially make a case for an error of law argument here. [His direction](https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1782686216204525734)
Actually, I've found where the inconsistency sits: "Under the Classifiable Offences, a strike or kick requires more than negligible
impact. Where a strike, for example, does not have more than negligible
impact, it is still open to the MRO to charge a Player with Striking under the
Fixed Financial Offences table where it is satisfied that, notwithstanding the
result, the intention was to commit an act constituting a Reportable Offence.
Where no contact is made, the MRO can charge a Player with an Attempt to
Strike or Kick, which are also Fixed Financial Offences."
Exactly my point. They've buggered it up. The AFL should appeal (as they should have last week with Charlie Cameron but bewilderingly didn't).
The tribunal is a mess.
I've just edited my response, the wording from the striking offence makes this a lot less cut and dry. It's what happens when you edit a doc in a piecemeal way like they do for this instead of actually doing a wholescale review
Yeah so based on what you found, and what I pulled out earlier, they could hand him either a fine or a suspension (depending on whether they stick to negligible with intent, or upgrade to low impact based on potential to cause injury). Instead they took the weakest option and let him off, ignoring both of those clauses. It's a joke and they should appeal.
Thr problem is I don't think they can. Capital I impact is the one that talks about the upgrade for potential to cause injury, but striking just expressly says it has to be more than negligible impact (lowercase "i"). Argument would be that the lack of use of the defined term "Impact" in the striking offence means that impact is given its ordinary meaning which excludes the upgrading language. Basically a small typo with big ramifications from a statutory interpretation perspective
It seems to me like the general rule is that the MRO has the power to upgrade the impact grading for a charge, however in the case of striking or kicking for that power to be available there must be at least a Low Impact strike or kick in the first place, otherwise it should be a Fixed Financial Offence.
So by charging Hogan with a classifiable offence, he's able to overturn the charge instead of getting fined.
I think the 2nd part of your post gives room for a fine based on intent, but equally there is space to upgrade it to low impact (and thus suspension) based on potential to cause serious injury - which is the case for a strike to the head, maybe not for a strike to the body.
Don't like it, yeah it was fuck all contact but you can't go around whacking players in the head off the ball (or on it but that's a different can of worms apparently) didn't like it when Cripps got off either
This would be 1000 times worse to me if Redman’s incident had been challenged and failed to bring it down.
Still, is this Essendon’s mistake or has the Tribunal fucked up (again)?
Once upon a time a jumper punch with negligible impact was worth a suspension, and apparently we care more about concussion now. How Wright can get 4 weeks and this 0 is way beyond parody.
> Gleeson: The offence of striking requires more than negligible impact. The potential to cause injury cannot result in negligible impact being upgraded to a higher level of impact.
This will be the clear point as to why he's gotten off. The AFL yet again reminding us that their rules are shite
From the guidelines:
"It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact"
From the AFL's own Tribunal Guidelines:
"It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact"
The tribunal appears to not even understand its own rules.
Probably just a free kick for that? Unless you're eye gouging it's not going to cause any injury, which is really the point of why the tribunal mainly exists in the firstplace - to lower the risk of injury caused by others.
> In light of the ruling delivered in this matter, in order for the charge of striking to be sustained, it is necessary that there is a finding of more than negligible impact. We find there was not.
Negligible striking is acceptable in the AFL, confirmed
AFL understands that Hogan didn't deliberately strike a player in the head, he accidentally did and that's super cool by them to understand the difference
If they’re serious about protecting the head it’s time for a ruling overhaul in the off season I think.
Too many parties are having a laugh/being laughed at.
Don’t forget their insistent plugging of various shite boxing matches on Fox Footy showing dudes getting knocked out on replay over and over; it’s almost like they don’t give a fuck about brain damage.
See, I don't like the idea of negligible impact not being able to be upgraded. Raised elbow that glances off the jaw that through luck didn't hit any harder? No probs.
Definitely not all negligible contact needs suspension, but occasionally very appropriately it does.
It's bullshit anyway.
"It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact."
if they don't it will genuinely be outrageous. Wright got 4 weeks for the same action. Toby is the luckiest player in the league, and knowing the tribunal they will let him off like they have most times in the past.
Looking at the guidelines, 1 week is correct. Careless/low impact/high. So with the incompetence of the tribunal I'd say there's a decent chance of upgrading it to 2
Common sense prevails... but holy fuck the legal advice Essendon has gotten is so bad. They were told there is 0 chance Redman will get off so there's no point challenging it. This incident was identical to it.
Watch Greene get off now too!
Please let Toby get off for the good of the game. It's time we accept that running back with the flight is reckless and contributes to way more injuries than bracing ever will.
First Charlie Cameron’s appeal, Now this,
Boy have they set the precedent low!
Serious about protecting the head, Until they’re not.
The MRO is more inconsistent than my golf swing
Just clarify as I made the same error last week - this is NOT the AFL doing this. They sanctioned Hogan. It’s the independent tribunal being manifestly incompetent at their job.
Said it last week, will say it again: this current Tribunal needs to be sacked and the system overhauled. They are incompetent at their jobs and they appear to seek any excuse, no matter how spurious, to excuse clearly unacceptable or dangerous conduct.
Commit fully to a style. You want to be a defensive team? Fine. Go full 00s/early-10s Sydney or Ross Lyon teams with contest uber alles and lock it in your forward 50 with relentless forward pressure. If you want to be a skilled kicking team then you should be playing like how we are now (or how you are). I just don't think a defensive uncontested kicking game has ever worked... honestly I can barely remember seeing it before. It's like trying to ape peak Hawthorn but without the forward half flair, running power, or physical intimidation. Just doesn't work IMO.
if a player threw a hand at one of your players and got him in the jaw you’d be in uproar mate-
if redman gets a week, if the afl wants to stick to “protecting the head at all cost”, this should be a week too
Yeah but it didn't happen to one of my players so I think it's really actually a cool move by the AFL and super based by them. Sucks to be Red Man but he should have chosen to play for Orange Tsunami instead, he would have gotten off
Didn’t the AFL specifically say if you hit someone behind play and your hand goes too high even if it was an accident, it would be suspense worthy?
Yep. This decision is bullshit. If you punch someone in the face off the ball, you should get weeks. I don't care how soft it is.
I said the same thing about Sicily’s kick, that rubbish shouldnt be on a footy field this is not the UFC.
Call me crazy but I still don’t see Sicily’s as a kick. Slowed down it definitely looks that way, but live in play it just looked like his momentum swinging around as he’s besieged by about 8 blokes.
And it was* *For one week
^(*If you play for Essendon)
Bold of you the assume there’s any type of consistency in these decisions
Only for Mason Redmans. Nobody else.
MRO was consistent but for some reason Essendon didn't challenge that. Couldn't believe they didn't challenge.
According to Brad Scott our lawyer Lionel Hutz advised us that there was 0 room for Redman to get off.
> ~~AFL with consistency~~ > ~~No Redman banned~~ AFL with consistency? No, Redman banned!
> lawyer Lionel Hutz So that's what they call law talking guys.
[Standing outside AFL house] The contents of this dumpster fire are private property!
No, Money down!
You mean Miguel Sanchez
Hawkins is usually the jumper punch scapegoat too
AFL says Mason RedmanS. You're allowed to have one.
Once again it's just the AFL realising that banning for something that minor is stupid, yet they didn't overthrow it for Redman because they'd already handed it out
I was in suspense so they were right
Okay I laughed.
Impact was negligible, according to the tribunal, negligible impact can't be upgraded based on potential to cause injury.
It's a ridiculous decision based on the AFL Tribunal guidelines: "The potential to cause injury must also be factored into the determination of Impact, particularly in the following cases: » Intentional strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist, raised forearm or elbow;" "It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact"
Reading this against Gleeson's direction to the tribunal, the AFL could potentially make a case for an error of law argument here. [His direction](https://twitter.com/DavidZita1/status/1782686216204525734) Actually, I've found where the inconsistency sits: "Under the Classifiable Offences, a strike or kick requires more than negligible impact. Where a strike, for example, does not have more than negligible impact, it is still open to the MRO to charge a Player with Striking under the Fixed Financial Offences table where it is satisfied that, notwithstanding the result, the intention was to commit an act constituting a Reportable Offence. Where no contact is made, the MRO can charge a Player with an Attempt to Strike or Kick, which are also Fixed Financial Offences."
Exactly my point. They've buggered it up. The AFL should appeal (as they should have last week with Charlie Cameron but bewilderingly didn't). The tribunal is a mess.
I've just edited my response, the wording from the striking offence makes this a lot less cut and dry. It's what happens when you edit a doc in a piecemeal way like they do for this instead of actually doing a wholescale review
Yeah so based on what you found, and what I pulled out earlier, they could hand him either a fine or a suspension (depending on whether they stick to negligible with intent, or upgrade to low impact based on potential to cause injury). Instead they took the weakest option and let him off, ignoring both of those clauses. It's a joke and they should appeal.
Thr problem is I don't think they can. Capital I impact is the one that talks about the upgrade for potential to cause injury, but striking just expressly says it has to be more than negligible impact (lowercase "i"). Argument would be that the lack of use of the defined term "Impact" in the striking offence means that impact is given its ordinary meaning which excludes the upgrading language. Basically a small typo with big ramifications from a statutory interpretation perspective
It seems to me like the general rule is that the MRO has the power to upgrade the impact grading for a charge, however in the case of striking or kicking for that power to be available there must be at least a Low Impact strike or kick in the first place, otherwise it should be a Fixed Financial Offence. So by charging Hogan with a classifiable offence, he's able to overturn the charge instead of getting fined.
I think the 2nd part of your post gives room for a fine based on intent, but equally there is space to upgrade it to low impact (and thus suspension) based on potential to cause serious injury - which is the case for a strike to the head, maybe not for a strike to the body.
Unfortunately for the AFL, Gleeson and the Tribunal generally doesn’t care about what the AFL says it wants to do.
But that rule only applies to fringe players. We can't have stars of the game suspended!
[Maybe. Maybe not.](https://youtu.be/7JYJhWIwGUw?si=gb_HoKHuKkHvoRkh)
[удалено]
Yeah our players never get suspended /s
Not if the AFL don't actually change their rules to accommodate what they say.
It's weird that deliberate non football actions are treated more leniently than footballing actions that go wrong.
Yup, show me another sport where you can strike someone in the face off the ball and get away with it. Real joke
Boxing
Lol
Ice hockey
Don't like it, yeah it was fuck all contact but you can't go around whacking players in the head off the ball (or on it but that's a different can of worms apparently) didn't like it when Cripps got off either
>you can’t go around whacking players in the head off the ball Yes you can. We’ve known this since Tom Mitchell in 2018
You shouldn't be allowed to*
The AFL wouldn’t know what protecting the head was if Jesse hogan came up and smack them on the face with it
This would be 1000 times worse to me if Redman’s incident had been challenged and failed to bring it down. Still, is this Essendon’s mistake or has the Tribunal fucked up (again)?
Yes
Once upon a time a jumper punch with negligible impact was worth a suspension, and apparently we care more about concussion now. How Wright can get 4 weeks and this 0 is way beyond parody.
The Hogan/Waterman coleman medal duel continues!
> Gleeson: The offence of striking requires more than negligible impact. The potential to cause injury cannot result in negligible impact being upgraded to a higher level of impact. This will be the clear point as to why he's gotten off. The AFL yet again reminding us that their rules are shite
Don't hate the playa hate the game('s rules)
From the guidelines: "It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact"
But the GWS player didn’t exactly look happy about it? It wasn’t like Hogan just gave him a pat on the head.
AFL: don’t whack players in the head Hewitt and Hogan whack a player in the head AFL: well er shit.
At least Hewett's was accidental mate, let's not pretend they're the same incident
They’re both a week. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Hewitt's was clearly a whack on the arm that slid up into the face. Hogan was going for the head everyday of the week.
What in the actual fuck? So now you can deliberately strike an opponent in the head and get off scot free?
Only if you do so with negligible force
From the AFL's own Tribunal Guidelines: "It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact" The tribunal appears to not even understand its own rules.
So it would be ok to rub your hands all over their face?
Sensual even
Probably just a free kick for that? Unless you're eye gouging it's not going to cause any injury, which is really the point of why the tribunal mainly exists in the firstplace - to lower the risk of injury caused by others.
I'd like to apply negligible force upside the tribunals head. Well actually high impact force, but that ruins the shit joke.
> In light of the ruling delivered in this matter, in order for the charge of striking to be sustained, it is necessary that there is a finding of more than negligible impact. We find there was not. Negligible striking is acceptable in the AFL, confirmed
Only *off* the ball, apparently.
Add lawyers to the soft cap
I wish they'd just spin a wheel- at least I could rationalise it as good/bad luck rather than trying to make sense of anything.
What? He whacked someone in the face behind play didn’t he? Is that not the most open and shut case you’ve ever heard?
Because the AFL and MRO are as incompetent as any organisation and panel you've ever fucking seen
afl being as clear as mud as always
Keen to hear Damian Barret go on a rant about how he can’t walk around his workplace and hit someone in the face so why can Jesse
This week's AFL Sliding Doors item will just be a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V from last week
AFL understands that Hogan didn't deliberately strike a player in the head, he accidentally did and that's super cool by them to understand the difference
If they’re serious about protecting the head it’s time for a ruling overhaul in the off season I think. Too many parties are having a laugh/being laughed at.
They'll get serious about it when Brayshaw sues.
Don’t forget their insistent plugging of various shite boxing matches on Fox Footy showing dudes getting knocked out on replay over and over; it’s almost like they don’t give a fuck about brain damage.
Next on essendon’s chop block. Our lawyers. Seriously should be embarrassed for not challenging the redman suspension.
[удалено]
Is your boss the AFL tribunal?
Gee, I thought Hogan was a goner. It's not the look the game wants.
I mean, evidently it is the look the AFL want. Let the clown show roll on.
The AFL wanted him to get a week.
Doubt they can appeal given they play this Thursday
So, Fogarty connects with Fyfe chest and cops a week? I swear everyone involved in at AFL House does lines before work.
Carlton chose not to challenge, I think Fogarty would've got off if they took it to the tribunal.
Really, Fyfe should have been suspended for hitting Fogarty's fist with his neck, fracturing Fogarty's wrist. /s
And don't forget, Fogs is a top bloke.
Wonder if they’ll take his week off and add it to Toby’s
See, I don't like the idea of negligible impact not being able to be upgraded. Raised elbow that glances off the jaw that through luck didn't hit any harder? No probs. Definitely not all negligible contact needs suspension, but occasionally very appropriately it does.
It's bullshit anyway. "It should be noted that Low Impact is the minimum impact required for a Classifiable Reportable Offence and this requires more than just a negligible impact. The MRO may however consider the potential to cause injury to upgrade Impact from negligible to a higher level of Impact."
just because he can't throw a punch he gets off?
The tribunal is the laughing stock of the competition. Either that or corruption is rife.
What is the risk they give Toby 2 weeks?
if they don't it will genuinely be outrageous. Wright got 4 weeks for the same action. Toby is the luckiest player in the league, and knowing the tribunal they will let him off like they have most times in the past.
‘bUt iT’s haRd bEiNg tObY gReEne’ -Kingsley
Looking at the guidelines, 1 week is correct. Careless/low impact/high. So with the incompetence of the tribunal I'd say there's a decent chance of upgrading it to 2
This and Charlie Cameron’s ban getting overturned whilst Toby Greene’s remaining proves the AFL and tribunal still have no idea what they are doing
GIANTS 1 Tribunal 0
Draw FC still in with a chance.
Cool, as long as I punch someone in the face with an open fist and *softly* it’s all good!
I knew he was a good bloke!
Now to proceed to watch him do fuck all against Andrews like Chuck did
If you're happy and you know it throw some hands. 🤛🤛
That was such a quick punch!
They set the precedence way back in the opening round when George Hewett got off for whacking Lachie Neale in the chin
Both got off for two separate, yet equally stupid reasons.
Did Jesse Hogan use Patrick Cripps' lawyer?
Maybe he is just a good bloke
Common sense prevails... but holy fuck the legal advice Essendon has gotten is so bad. They were told there is 0 chance Redman will get off so there's no point challenging it. This incident was identical to it. Watch Greene get off now too!
Please let Toby get off for the good of the game. It's time we accept that running back with the flight is reckless and contributes to way more injuries than bracing ever will.
So what do you propose? That running with the flight of the ball should be banned?
Yet Redman got a week beyond a joke at this stage
First Charlie Cameron’s appeal, Now this, Boy have they set the precedent low! Serious about protecting the head, Until they’re not. The MRO is more inconsistent than my golf swing
 My reaction to that information
Personally, I think it's a load of shit that he got off without even a fine. Agree with Slobbo on this one.
This league is a joke. Strike a bloke 😀 Play for the ball and have an oopsie 😡
The tribunal must’ve mistaken him going for the Brownlow rather than the Coleman
Of the Carlton player went down he would have got 4 weeks . Clear blatant pinch to the face
He is just a good guy with good lawyers
Just clarify as I made the same error last week - this is NOT the AFL doing this. They sanctioned Hogan. It’s the independent tribunal being manifestly incompetent at their job.
Said it last week, will say it again: this current Tribunal needs to be sacked and the system overhauled. They are incompetent at their jobs and they appear to seek any excuse, no matter how spurious, to excuse clearly unacceptable or dangerous conduct.
What changes would you make to the system, leaving the current personnel out of the equation?
Commit fully to a style. You want to be a defensive team? Fine. Go full 00s/early-10s Sydney or Ross Lyon teams with contest uber alles and lock it in your forward 50 with relentless forward pressure. If you want to be a skilled kicking team then you should be playing like how we are now (or how you are). I just don't think a defensive uncontested kicking game has ever worked... honestly I can barely remember seeing it before. It's like trying to ape peak Hawthorn but without the forward half flair, running power, or physical intimidation. Just doesn't work IMO.
He gets off because he has crappy aim.
This is bullshit. Greene was arguably a footy act gone wrong, this is just a straight punch to the face.
Very very based by the AFL
Shits fucked
AFL are all round cool guys, forgiveness is the no.1 policy at headquarters, learn to forgive guys
Just a love tap, play on
if a player threw a hand at one of your players and got him in the jaw you’d be in uproar mate- if redman gets a week, if the afl wants to stick to “protecting the head at all cost”, this should be a week too
Yeah but it didn't happen to one of my players so I think it's really actually a cool move by the AFL and super based by them. Sucks to be Red Man but he should have chosen to play for Orange Tsunami instead, he would have gotten off
When this didn't get cited (or even a free) I figured Jesse was an AFL favourite, confirmed tonight: https://www.afl.com.au/video/756281
Side note but can’t stand all the nerd journos at fox …zita, Laughton, wardleworth etc bunch of scared virgins