What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Tribunal

Messages
4,010
Tough Port Adelaide utility Byron Pickett will have the dubious honour of being the first player to front the new-look AFL tribunal.

Pickett was given no option of accepting a penalty and was sent to Tuesday night's hearing, while Carlton midfielder Scott Camporeale will accept his one-match striking ban.

Port will also announce on Tuesday morning whether Pickett's team-mate Brett Montgomery will take his one-match penalty, also for striking.

Hawthorn midfielder Sam Mitchell has the same decision to make.

The newly-created match review panel had a busy first session, going through video footage of reports and incidents after round one of the Wizard Cup.

"There's no such thing as a soft start - we've had four reports and three or four incidents being looked at....plenty on their plates straightaway," said AFL operations manager Adrian Anderson.

"I'm looking forward to it....we're ready to give it a role and long-term it's definitely going to be for the betterment of footy."

Pickett, last year's Norm Smith Medallist, will answer a charge of engaging in rough conduct against Adelaide's James Begley during last night's match at AAMI Stadium.

Mitchell was charged with striking St Kilda onballer Luke Ball and Camporeale was booked for striking Essendon defender Andrew Welsh.

All those charges were laid during the games, while Montgomery was charged on video evidence for striking Crow Brett Burton.

The three-man match review panel of chairman Peter Schwab, Andrew McKay and Peter Carey also cleared Saint Allan Murray of a rough conduct charge and also decided against taking action over three other incidents.

A Carlton spokesman confirmed that Camporeale would accept the one-match ban, rather than risk a two-game suspension if found guilty.

Apart from deciding whether charges should be laid, the match review panel also assesses the severity of each offence.

Pickett was sent straight to the tribunal because the panel decided his incident was worth 10 "activation points" - three for intentional conduct, four for severe impact, one point for being in play and two for high conduct.

Begley was bent over the ball when Pickett cannoned into the top half of his body.

Pickett has a one-match ban for striking, dating back to the 2002 season, and this will count against him in penalty if found guilty.

The three other cases were all judged to be worth six activation points.

Under the league's complex grading system, those three players would receive a two-match suspension if they went to the tribunal and were found guilty.

If Pickett is found guilty, the tribunal will have the discretion to decide his penalty.

St Kilda veteran Andrew Thompson said he was also looking forward to the new system.

"I wasn't overly confident about the outcomes in the tribunal in the past - in the future, if they can get a bit more consistency, that's a good thing," he said.
 

CyberKev

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
2,323
Sam Mitchell would certainly be well advised to take the 1 match penalty on offer, as I think the offence deserved 2.

Frankly, I think the AFL has screwed-up by adopting this ludicrous points based penalty system.

I've always felt that each individual offence should be treated as such and judged for what it is.

I've never been enamoured of the nonsensical "good previous record" clause that effectively allowed some players a get out of jail free card, and I certainly don't like a system that allows a player to get a lenient sentence (or a let off) for choosing NOT to defend the charge!

Ordinary effort, Demetriou & Co!!!
 

Hoops

Juniors
Messages
270
I agree with you CK, though the majority of AFL fans are for this new tribunal system. They see the old one as inconsistant, and because this system is different then it must work :roll:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way and time will proove this.
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
The reason why many of us support it is because serial offenders like Jonathon Brown will now get the punishment they actually deserve.

This system is better than the one we had previously.
 

CyberKev

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
2,323
meltiger said:
The reason why many of us support it is because serial offenders like Jonathon Brown will now get the punishment they actually deserve.

This system is better than the one we had previously.

Sam Mitchell gets a week when he deserved 2!

Byron Pickett gets 6 weeks when he deserved 3!

Heaven help us if we get a scenario with James Hird like the NRL got with Brad Fittler last year... No player should be allowed to get off a charge simply by pleading guilty before the event and having a relatively clean record beforehand.

Not a better system, just one that is equally bad if not worse.

Judge each incident on its merits, and if certain players are getting outed more than others, then it will be up to their club to decide if they can afford such ongoing largesse.
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
I disagree,

The penalties Brisbane's thug CHF would have received post-GF would have been sensationally higher under this new system & he did get off lightly.

Pickett deserved 6 weeks.
 

Cove Cobra

Juniors
Messages
2
I agree.

Pickett deserved everything he got. Going for the man is is dog act, especially when the ball is loose.
 

camsmith

Juniors
Messages
1,727
Dog act? c'mon, i was watching some 70's footy on tv the other day, i saw these types of "hits" tackles whatever, more than once.


The AFL is Soft :( (modern afl)


Im not saying the players are soft, anything but, but the AFL (stupid men in suits...) are... :x :x
 

Cupid Stunt

Moderator
Messages
2,815
Pickett deserved no more than 3 or 4. It's a bloody conspiracy... :mrgreen:

As for Smith, poor bastard was just wiping some dirt off an opponents chin & gets given 2, just a bloody shame! People still just love picking on Western. ;-)

I'm with Cam here, time to make them earn a salary again & let them actually make some reasonable contact.
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
Cupid Stunt said:
Pickett deserved no more than 3 or 4. It's a bloody conspiracy... :mrgreen:

Maybe the first time you do it. Yes.

Byron is a repeat offender and deserved what he got.
 

JTR

Juniors
Messages
984
I'm a Dees supporter so am naturally biased, but does anyone else (besides Twizzle ;-) ) think Brent Moloney's 2 week ban is completely ridiculous?

To me it looked like he was going in for the tackle on Bartel, but then when the ball came loose and Bartel started falling he pulled out, twisting his hip/legs around to avoid any contact.

It was Bartel cannoning himself into the turf afterwards that did the damage. Moloney barely touched him! :evil:
 

CyberKev

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
2,323
Johnny the Red said:
I'm a Dees supporter so am naturally biased, but does anyone else (besides Twizzle ;-) ) think Brent Moloney's 2 week ban is completely ridiculous?

To me it looked like he was going in for the tackle on Bartel, but then when the ball came loose and Bartel started falling he pulled out, twisting his hip/legs around to avoid any contact.

It was Bartel cannoning himself into the turf afterwards that did the damage. Moloney barely touched him! :evil:

Yeah, dubious decision.

One of a number of dud sentences handed down thus far this season.

The new tribunal set-up is poor, and for mine we're seeing knee-jerk reactions to 'offences' that serve the intention of justifying the new system, moreso than bringing increased justice to the code.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
153,603
Johnny the Red said:
I'm a Dees supporter so am naturally biased, but does anyone else (besides Twizzle ;-) ) think Brent Moloney's 2 week ban is completely ridiculous?

hey, I'm not that bias
 

Hoops

Juniors
Messages
270
Johnny the Red said:
I'm a Dees supporter so am naturally biased, but does anyone else (besides Twizzle ;-) ) think Brent Moloney's 2 week ban is completely ridiculous?

To me it looked like he was going in for the tackle on Bartel, but then when the ball came loose and Bartel started falling he pulled out, twisting his hip/legs around to avoid any contact.

It was Bartel cannoning himself into the turf afterwards that did the damage. Moloney barely touched him! :evil:

The thing about the Bartel incident is that although It only looked liked Moloney only brushed him. Bartel didn't put his arms out to break his fall which suggests he was knocked out before hitting the ground. :?
 

Latest posts

Top