Brad Sewell to bring some sanity to the MRP

[marklar]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...wlook-match-review-panel-20150212-13dalr.html

We can only hope!

 

[TurboBreuster]

The worst part is the inconsistency. If they get that right, then I'll be content!

 

[cryptor]

Good move. I also have great respect for Ball and Burke.

Harford should hopefully provide some insights into contentious decisions on his SEN show too.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He'll just become another AFL mouthpiece.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[Flukey!]

Clever. It will be hard to argue against guys with those credentials.

 

[cryptor]

He'll just become another AFL mouthpiece.

Don't kid yourself.

Given Ball is the (soon to be) former AFLPA President I don't see him or anyone serving alongside of him being used as a puppet or mouth piece of the AFL.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Given Ball is the (soon to be) former AFLPA President I don't see him or anyone serving alongside of him being used as a puppet or mouth piece of the AFL.

Ha, you're kidding right?

The AFL is one big boys club, the dinner on his table is now coming directly from AFL house.

 

[cryptor]

Ha, you're kidding right?

The AFL is one big boys club, the dinner on his table is now coming directly from AFL house.

We'll see. Mark Evans seems to have retained his integrity, and he's balls deep in the AFL ranks.

 

[hamohawk1]

any head high contact by an essendon players....season ending

 

[Rushed_Behind]

He'll just become another AFL mouthpiece.

Don't kid yourself.

I only came in to say the system will corrupt them all. Beat me to it.

 

[madhawksfan]

It can't be any worse than what it already is. Better to have two class acts in Ball and Sewelly there than the arse clowns from seasons past.

 

[Steven Tyler]

It can't be any worse than what it already is. Better to have two class acts in Ball and Sewelly there than the arse clowns from seasons past.

Still have Nathan Burke on the panel
That lowers the intelligence bar a bit!

Too many head knocks for that bloke

 

[Gralin]

Would be nice to think that Sewelly and Ball can bring something to the table, I'm sure that perception why they got the job, proof will be in the pudding, hope its not bad pudding

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

We'll see. Mark Evans seems to have retained his integrity, and he's balls deep in the AFL ranks.

I think Evans has been very good.

 

[savagelunchbox]

It's cute how Hawthorn fans think that having a Hawthorn player on the panel will make it any better simply because he played for Hawthorn. Naivety at its finest.

Echols said it best, the money in his pocket no longer comes from Hawthorn. When you're getting paid like 3x the average man's salary to do not a great deal for 4 days of the week, you don't try to be a renegade for the sake of a few fans whose names you don't know and who don't pay your salary.

It's still adorable that you all think he'll be the man to make the big changes and bring integrity and 'sanity' to the MRP.

 

[Flukey!]

I think the upside is the additions are recently retired, ball-players who understand the modern game.
They are also former player association representatives.

Regardless of what jumper they used to wear, they should bring some added credibility to the tribunal.
That can only be a good thing.

 

[savagelunchbox]

I think the upside is the additions are recently retired, ball-players who understand the modern game.
They are also former player association representatives.

Regardless of what jumper they used to wear, they should bring some added credibility to the tribunal.
That can only be a good thing.

Every year, with the new additions, someone says this. "Recently retired player", "understands the game", "in touch with the way the game is played" or "tough and hard player so will know what the players are thinking" yet every year the general consensus is the MRP is as FUBAR as its ever been and it stems back to who is paying the MRP. It's got nothing to do with how long retired the new addition is or how tough a player they were.

Think about it, if you're getting paid $200,000 p.a. for 70 days of work and your boss says "penalise anyone who goes near someone's head." do you think anyone in their right mind would tell them to get stuffed? I think you'll find most say, "yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir."

 

[Davo23]

I think the upside is the additions are recently retired, ball-players who understand the modern game.
They are also former player association representatives.

Regardless of what jumper they used to wear, they should bring some added credibility to the tribunal.
That can only be a good thing.

I agree with this, they're players just out of the game and will appear to have a better understanding of the game. Each incident will be looked at with fresh eyes.

And I don't subscribe to the theory that the MRP is corrupt, incompetent, etc.

 

[Flukey!]

Think about it, if you're getting paid $200,000 p.a. for 70 days of work

What is that based on?
And your post suggests that they operate without integrity because of who is paying them.

 

[cryptor]

Every year, with the new additions, someone says this. "Recently retired player", "understands the game", "in touch with the way the game is played" or "tough and hard player so will know what the players are thinking" yet every year the general consensus is the MRP is as FUBAR as its ever been and it stems back to who is paying the MRP. It's got nothing to do with how long retired the new addition is or how tough a player they were.

Think about it, if you're getting paid $200,000 p.a. for 70 days of work and your boss says "penalise anyone who goes near someone's head." do you think anyone in their right mind would tell them to get stuffed? I think you'll find most say, "yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir."

Mark Evans has just sacked the old panel and scrapped the old system (which didn't allow for a common sense approach). Why would they go to all this trouble if they're simply looking for the same outcome?

The new system and panel may not work out either but you're taking a pretty jaded view before they've been given a shot.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Mark Evans has just sacked the old panel and scrapped the old system (which didn't allow for a common sense approach). Why would they go to all this trouble if they're simply looking for the same outcome?

The new system and panel may not work out either but you're taking a pretty jaded view before they've been given a shot.

Look at the history. New faces every year and everyone says the same cliche lines, but the end result is always the same, they do exactly what the AFL tells them regardless of how they played as a player.

 

[Gralin]

Trial by media was just as big a part of the old system. But I'm hoping that getting rid of the stupid illogical points system they had will mean we get some new wrinkle to complain about at least

 

[Brant]

I agree with this, they're players just out of the game and will appear to have a better understanding of the game. Each incident will be looked at with fresh eyes.

And I don't subscribe to the theory that the MRP is corrupt, incompetent, etc.

For the 1st time in living memory, I gotta disagree with you D-23. SLB is spot on.

It's not like the AFL has overhauled the MPR & Tribunal & given Sewelly/Ball the freedom & authority to "suddenly make these ridiculous outcomes seem less biased & make sense."

Regardless who sits on the panel, there is still no allowance for precedent & the outcomes (result, maybe as opposed to the process) remain the same. E.g. We're looking at the likely result that those involved (& maybe purporters) of the largest systemised doping programme the Southern Hemisphere has ever seen will receive 2-3 week suspensions whilst Lake gets 5 weeks for a choke for which his 'victim' didn't miss a single second of play (impact had to be zero). This is an outcome based system whereby the AFL 'decides' what is right/wrong for the game without & what they want to see on TV & finds that outcome through rubber (or no) process. No amount of Sewells or Balls (hahaha I said 'balls') on the Panel will change that, unless they're given authority & scope to make it right.

What the AFL has done here is a thinly veiled attempt to buy credibility by nominating some 'hard nuts' (previously Burke, now Sewell & Ball) to come to the same contrived results. The results they arrive at will never be their results as their ratio will never be their own. The AFL would be better off asking Jerry Seinfeld to read the MRP/Tribunal Result as the Australian Public would be far more accepting receiving their crap from a comedian than from a purported person of authority.

I applaud Sewell for taking the cash - I certainly would, but I'll not believe that there'll be any change to the outcomes that we'd have seen this year without him, or if someone as ridiculous as James Hird came to them...

*hadn't read Cryptor's post so wasn't aware that previous Panel had been scrapped & replaced. Still, it's not as simple as to scrap panel & hope for different outcome unless process is also replaced.

 

[lethal03]

Would be nice to think that Sewelly and Ball can bring something to the table, I'm sure that perception why they got the job, proof will be in the pudding, hope its not bad pudding

My feeling is these guys would give conca 6 weeks and fyfe a fine, how it should be.

 

[cryptor]

Look at the history. New faces every year and everyone says the same cliche lines, but the end result is always the same, they do exactly what the AFL tells them regardless of how they played as a player.

True, but they were putting those new faces into a broken system. It's now new faces into a new system. The new system might still be crap but I'm willing to give it a chance - especially when it includes Mark Evans, Sewell and Ball behind the wheel. If that makes me naïve then so be it.