Gardner 1 week suspension

[St Fidelius]

The charge was clearly upgraded from reckless, which it was, to intentional, which it was not, by a corrupt AFL, trying to help Demetriou's former team North Melbourne.

AFL an abbreviation for corruption.

To be fair, he should have never got himself in that position to start with.

It was a foolish incident and he has to pay for it.

[benengel14]

Taken from http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2009.pdf
To qualify for the 25% reduction:
25% of the base points shall be deducted if the player has not
been found guilty of any reportable offence within the previous
five AFL years. If the player’s only reportable offence(s) in
the previous five AFL years have been financial sanctions, he
still qualifies for the 25 per cent deduction. If a player takes
an early guilty plea, the demerit points, including additions or
deductions, are subject to a 25% reduction.

To receive extra points for previous offences:
A player will receive a 10% loading for an offence for each match
that he has been suspended in the previous three AFL years.
The maximum weighting a player can receive for offences in the
past three AFL years will be capped at 50%.

In my mind, if Gardiner has committed an offence either 4 or 5 years ago, this would rule him out of the early reduction, but at the same time not penalise him with extra loading.

[bigcarl]

Well, it looks like a win for Big Mac BUT...

- Could Blake be re-shuffled into 2nd ruck to allow Milne back in?

this is my bet. we know how they like to make minimum changes. both kosi and blake can share a bit of time in there, though i'd rather see kosi play the whole game forward.

getting thumped in the hitouts isn't such a worry anyway. saturday night the hitouts were 44 to 22 against us, but we still won clearances 35 to 21. and the game.

Ross said recently that the club's preferred structure is two dedicated rucks and two dedicated key forwards. I'm actually a bit of a fan of like-for-like replacements, particularly with the results we've been getting.

That way you theoretically don't destroy what is basically a very sound structure.

[benengel14]

What would be the effect of pleading guitly to RECKLESS conduct, low impact, high contact.
Although the conduct was intentional, his head high contact was not.
He was clearly trying to get his body and arm in the way of Jamar in a clumsy shepherding attempt.

Contesting at tribunal
If a player contests the level of the charge at the Tribunal
and is successful, he will still receive a 25% reduction for
the guilty plea.

If contested successfully, Gardiner would get 125 demerit points, Level 2 offence (Reckless, Low impact, High contact). Would still be entitled to 25% reduction = 93.75 points No Suspension.

I don't see how you can't get more clear cut intentional then what Gardiner did.

What the player did is often the best evidence of
the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that
the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference
of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it
afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious
and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it
evidence of an intention to produce the consequence.

[3rd generation saint]

1 week is as good a result as we could hope for, unfortunately we're not Sydney trying to win a premiership where a player can be cleared for striking because the ball is in the field of play somewhere.
A suspect two changes this week now, McEvoy for Gardiner, Milne for wither Raph, Gwilt or Gram.
Sadly, only think Goose or Max will get in if Gilbert doesn't come in.
In fact Max's future may be decided next week depending on how Zac goes on Fevola, if he beats Fevola, Max may have a long wait.

[ace]

Michael Gardiner, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Three striking offence against Mark Jamar, Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between St Kilda and Melbourne, played at Gold Coast Stadium on Saturday May 30, 2009.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.


What would be the effect of pleading guitly to RECKLESS conduct, low impact, high contact.
Although the conduct was intentional, his head high contact was not.
He was clearly trying to get his body and arm in the way of Jamar in a clumsy shepherding attempt.

I just read the charge against Sam Mitchell he got assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

A successful downgrade to reckless conduct (two points) would allow Gardiner to play but with 93.75 poimts towards his future record too.

[Mr Magic]

Michael Gardiner, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Three striking offence against Mark Jamar, Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between St Kilda and Melbourne, played at Gold Coast Stadium on Saturday May 30, 2009.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.


What would be the effect of pleading guitly to RECKLESS conduct, low impact, high contact.
Although the conduct was intentional, his head high contact was not.
He was clearly trying to get his body and arm in the way of Jamar in a clumsy shepherding attempt.

I just read the charge against Sam Mitchell he got assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

A successful downgrade to reckless conduct (two points) would allow Gardiner to play but with 93.75 poimts towards his future record too.

Is there anywhere one can find the official AFL MRP/Tribunal definition of Intentional, Reckless adn Negligent?

Also,
Does anybody know his Tribunal record over the past 5 years?

[ace]

Is there anywhere one can find the official AFL MRP/Tribunal definition of Intentional, Reckless adn Negligent?

Also,
Does anybody know his Tribunal record over the past 5 years?

"He has no existing good or bad record".
This means he gets no bonus for or against for the last 5 years.

[HarveysDeciple]

Hamish McIntosh is a quality player, no bit part Blake type ruckmen this week.

McEvoy needs to play.

[Mr Magic]

Is there anywhere one can find the official AFL MRP/Tribunal definition of Intentional, Reckless adn Negligent?

Also,
Does anybody know his Tribunal record over the past 5 years?

"He has no existing good or bad record".
This means he gets no bonus for or against for the last 5 years.

I understand that's what they said.
What I'm trying to find out is when was he suspended, more than 3 years ago and less than 5 years ago that would put him in the position of not having either a good (5 years) or bad (3 years) record?

[ace]

Contesting at tribunal
If a player contests the level of the charge at the Tribunal
and is successful, he will still receive a 25% reduction for
the guilty plea.

If contested successfully, Gardiner would get 125 demerit points, Level 2 offence (Reckless, Low impact, High contact). Would still be entitled to 25% reduction = 93.75 points No Suspension.

What happens if a player pleads guity to a lesser charge but is found guilty of the greater charge.
Does he still get the 25% reduction for pleading guilty.
In this instance would Gardiner be rubbed out for two weeks for contesting with a guilty plea or would he still only get one week.

[ace]

[.

I don't see how you can't get more clear cut intentional then what Gardiner did.

The umpire saw it.
He paid a free kick but did not consider it worthy of reporting.
Not reporting it means that the umpire assessed what he saw to be less than negligent.

[Hurricane]

1 week is as good a result as we could hope for, unfortunately we're not Sydney trying to win a premiership where a player can be cleared for striking because the ball is in the field of play somewhere.

We also probably cant get his mum to write into a teary letter to the newspapers.

Silly act, take the week and get another game into Ben McEvoy. Simple as that

BANG BANG

[benengel14]

I don't think the lack of report from the umpire provides any evidence that it was intentional/reckless or otherwise.
I would think the majority of reports are laid by the MRP not the umpires anyway.

Page 10-12 if you want the definitions of Intentional/Reckless/Neg http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_doc ... t_2009.pdf

Just in regards to Reckless/Negligent - its an objective standard. What would a reasonable player in position of Gardiner would have done.
Intentional - what was the actual intention of Gardiner to be determined by reference to evidence (i.e. video footage, player's testimony)

[benengel14]

What happens if a player pleads guity to a lesser charge but is found guilty of the greater charge.
Does he still get the 25% reduction for pleading guilty.
In this instance would Gardiner be rubbed out for two weeks for contesting with a guilty plea or would he still only get one week.

If you don't successfully argue it down a level, then you get no benefit of the early plea. Nor should you - it would mean every player would be contesting charges with no early pleas.
This doesn't sit well with people when they view it from perspective: that a player is penalised for doubting the MRP assessment. Rather than viewing it as a bonus for an early plea.
It does rely on the MRP getting it right the first time, and a club having to be pretty sure that it can argue it down a level before contesting it.


It doesn't matter what the umpire thought, it matters what Gardiner was thinking as according to all available evidence. The fact that he saw a player running past, lifted his elbow to a decent height and then made contact to his opponent's head would seem intentional to me.
If he was involved in a passage of play and didn't see the player running past and still stuck out his elbow - well then maybe a reckless/negligent charge would be appropriate.
I would have thought Gardiner's best chance (slim one), would be to argue it was below the force/impact required for a reportable offence.

[bergsone]

One week got to be happy with that.


What i am really interested in seeing now is.....how King steps up,is he REALLY hungry for that number 1 spot,how Gardiner comes back following week,reckon he has been great so far,hope he comes back evenmore hungry for the his spot

IMO these 2 can really get over a Blake/ottens combo etc giving us a realfirst hands on the ball advantage

[plugger66]

Some people who are unhappy with this decision need to use both eyes. He got a week luckily. He will not fight it. It was intentional and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get a grip. He got 2 downgraded to one. lets be happy with that.

[Solar]

will take that, a week off will do him a world of good

[SainterK]

We all know he is a better player with his angry pants on, but this was more of a brain fade....

[bigmicka]

He got rubbed out in round 16 2005 for striking Chris Johnson. Got 2 weeks.

This will make his second suspension since 2001. Can't find stats before that.

mic

[Mr Magic]

He got rubbed out in round 16 2005 for striking Chris Johnson. Got 2 weeks.

This will make his second suspension since 2001. Can't find stats before that.

mic

Thanks - that's why he has no 'good record' in this case.

[perfectionist]

Sorry, I'm unclear. In the past, other teams (and not St Kilda in one case) availed themselves of the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge and still get the 25% despite the ruling. Has this changed for all teams or just for us.

Isn't the idea in getting a guilty plea, for players to admit wrongdoing and amend ways? If pleading guilty is not the idea then, I presume, accepting the MRP decision is. However, looking at the two most recent incidents, the MRP is blind. Mitchell is a serial offender, the elbow is always out. It has only been luck that he has not contacted with any greater authority. One day he will take someone's eye out.

Hawthorn got their fluke flag, now what is the MRP waiting for?

And for what it's worth, I thought Michael Gardiner deserved a week, as did Mitchell.

[saintspremiers]

Gardy is a bloody idiot for doing what he did.

My first reaction was 1 week, perhaps 2 - dependant on his priors...

IMO the club should fine him a few G's as well.

Idiotic and totally stupid thing to do.

[Eastern]

The charge was clearly upgraded from reckless, which it was, to intentional.

The ONLY intention was to cause a whole lot more damage. A complete brain fade where he is lucky that he didn't execute his intentons to the intended standard !!

[Bernard Shakey]

Extremely lucky. Was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Probably the best week for him to have a week off imo.

Now i want Ross to bring in Goose. Deserves his chance. Swap Kosi and Blake through as the second ruckman, and while doing so either have Goose up at full forward or in the back half when Petrie and Hale slide down there. If Gilbert doesn't get up as well then Mac should get a go too and keep Matty down back.

Have you bee to many Sandy games, nathan000?

I'm presuming you haven't, because you want Ross to bring in Goose.
Why would Ross bring in Goose?
Goose has played serviceably at Sandy, but is nowhere near a senior game.