Gibson bump

[MC_9]

I think Gibbo will get a fine.

It will probably be deemed careless - low impact - high contact. Which is $1000 with an early plea.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It seems their current interpretation of careless vs intentional is "did he intend to hit him in the head". Few players are clearly intending to hit someone in the head when they bump, so they get careless, and unless impact is high they get 2 down to 1 (which is what happened with Buddy). Would think careless, low impact, high contact which from memory is a fine with early plea. May get off entirely if Pavlich contact is deemed to make the contact unavoidable.

Mate, I applaud you. Here we have a poster who gives some thought to the actual guidelines the MRP are dealing with, rather than his/her own weird assessment of justice.

Well done!

 

[hk89]

Mate, I applaud you. Here we have a poster who gives some thought to the actual guidelines the MRP are dealing with, rather than his/her own weird assessment of justice.

Well done!

I'll admit to being a bit outraged at the Buddy 1 week when it was handed down, but once you read the guidelines it was hard to see how it was going to be anything else. Personally I think the system isn't working that well right now. Trying to write solid guidelines that take everything into account is difficult, and I don't think it has worked. I'd prefer they did something more like this following:
- Create a MRP team mostly made up of recent players, and contract them for at least 5 years to try to keep a consistent group together.
- Have the team sit down at the start of the process (possibly with input from a representative from each club, and of course the AFL itself) and collect together some video template incidents and agree on how much each should be worth.
- During the season don't worry about written rules, just find the closest matching template and grade based on the previously agreed upon penalty. Add new templates as required.

Main problem is no easily articulatable reason for each sanction other than "best matched template X". Written rules are at least easy to point at as a driver for justifications, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I think this type of system where sanctions are dictated by the best matching previous sanction would produce a lot more consistency (and probably fairness) compared to what we have now.

 

[hk89]

Not even looked at apparently? A bit surprised, thought it was worth more of a look than the Mitchell incident, even if they decided it was insufficient force or pavlich contributed to the collision. Shows what a difference media scrutiny can make to MRP outcomes.

 

[Greggy]

It's Gibson so assume intentional with a late look of confusion.

 

[blue harvest]

Not even looked at apparently? A bit surprised, thought it was worth more of a look than the Mitchell incident, even if they decided it was insufficient force or pavlich contributed to the collision. Shows what a difference media scrutiny can make to MRP outcomes.

I thought Gibson would get done.
Brilliant tactic as it turns out to get all the focus onto Mitchell for something he was never going to miss a week for, allowing the nothing to see here move along treatment for Gibbo.

 

[Greggy]

I thought Gibson would get done.
Brilliant tactic as it turns out to get all the focus onto Mitchell for something he was never going to miss a week for, allowing the nothing to see here move along treatment for Gibbo.

Lethal said there was nothing in it...

 

[Mister B]

Not even looked at apparently? A bit surprised, thought it was worth more of a look than the Mitchell incident, even if they decided it was insufficient force or pavlich contributed to the collision. Shows what a difference media scrutiny can make to MRP outcomes.

You know, I'm not surprised there was no penalty. The fact it is not even referred to as being looked at is what baffles me. A couple of weeks ago we had a statement about Goodes who effectively got up from the ground yet a guy, albeit unintentionally, makes noticeable contact with a guys head and not even a mention. Very strange.

 

[blue harvest]

You know, I'm not surprised there was no penalty. The fact it is not even referred to as being looked at is what baffles me. A couple of weeks ago we had a statement about Goodes who effectively got up from the ground yet a guy, albeit unintentionally, makes noticeable contact with a guys head and not even a mention. Very strange.

Surprised me too, I guess having Sewell on the panel helps, or does he have to sit out Hawk indiscretions?

 

[Mister B]

Surprised me too, I guess having Sewell on the panel helps, or does he have to sit out Hawk indiscretions?

Was Sewell seriously on the panel? Think they have a set panel rotation so would be luck of the draw. Having said that, I think the game would be much better off if there were less conflicts of interest, wether perceived or actual.

 

[hk89]

You know, I'm not surprised there was no penalty. The fact it is not even referred to as being looked at is what baffles me. A couple of weeks ago we had a statement about Goodes who effectively got up from the ground yet a guy, albeit unintentionally, makes noticeable contact with a guys head and not even a mention. Very strange.

Yup, it almost reads like they ran out of time assessing all the other stuff and just decided to call it a night before they got to Gibson. Very unlikely to get more than a fine at worst, but certainly odd not to be even listed in the 'looked at' incidents. Shrugs.

 

[DrEvil_]

You know, I'm not surprised there was no penalty. The fact it is not even referred to as being looked at is what baffles me. A couple of weeks ago we had a statement about Goodes who effectively got up from the ground yet a guy, albeit unintentionally, makes noticeable contact with a guys head and not even a mention. Very strange.

It's Gibson, he is just unco.....

 

[MF]

Typical favouritism for the AFL Hawk$ etc etc...

 

[DrEvil_]

Typical favouritism for the AFL Hawk$ etc etc...

Just muscle memory from his wrestling days...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I'll admit to being a bit outraged at the Buddy 1 week when it was handed down, but once you read the guidelines it was hard to see how it was going to be anything else. Personally I think the system isn't working that well right now. Trying to write solid guidelines that take everything into account is difficult, and I don't think it has worked. I'd prefer they did something more like this following:
- Create a MRP team mostly made up of recent players, and contract them for at least 5 years to try to keep a consistent group together.
- Have the team sit down at the start of the process (possibly with input from a representative from each club, and of course the AFL itself) and collect together some video template incidents and agree on how much each should be worth.
- During the season don't worry about written rules, just find the closest matching template and grade based on the previously agreed upon penalty. Add new templates as required.

Main problem is no easily articulatable reason for each sanction other than "best matched template X". Written rules are at least easy to point at as a driver for justifications, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I think this type of system where sanctions are dictated by the best matching previous sanction would produce a lot more consistency (and probably fairness) compared to what we have now.

Part of the difficulty is that much of the communication of these decisions are articulated by the likes of Dermie who thinks of himself as a lawyer but can't be bothered to read the guidelines. It creates outrage amongst the fans which in turn causes a reaction from the AFL, almost always making things worse.

They didn't need to change last year. The main issue was they failed to properly communicate the difference between reckless and negligent, which gave space for the Dermott's to spout his crap. Franklin should have got 4 weeks. It was a violent act that could have caused serious injury. But the rules didn't allow for that. Really, if they had shown some common sense all those years ago and pinged Byron Pickett for 6 when he was picking off blokes we wouldn't have this problem. Unduly rough play was the rule. Common sense could have determined the penalty. Instead they had to regulate it, and in doing so, created a can of worms that they now can't close. So Franklin gets the same as May, which we all know is unjust, and the baying crowd scream $ydney!

 

[hk89]

Part of the difficulty is that much of the communication of these decisions are articulated by the likes of Dermie who thinks of himself as a lawyer but can't be bothered to read the guidelines. It creates outrage amongst the fans which in turn causes a reaction from the AFL, almost always making things worse.

Reading the guidelines would help people be less outraged (at least it had that impact on me), but really they are the main problem. The MRP are probably all very reasonable people, but they have a set of broken guidelines to follow. I'm sure they all thought 1 week seemed wrong for Buddy in this particular case, but the guidelines essentially take common sense out of the equation. In the current form, the MRP only really seem to have two levers to pull when making decisions, impact and intent. Intent now seems to only be a single switch with two setting, "intentional/careless" and impact has only 3 settings. Location of impact is usually pretty clear from the incident (with a few rare exceptions), so the MRP isn't left with much room for nuance. People can usually agree within about +-1 week on what any incident should get (once you've factored out your feelings for the team involved), and I'm sure the MRP can too. Throwing out the guidelines completely and just going with "this is our opinion after viewing the incident" would IMO produce far more optimal outcomes, with the downside that it is a less accountable, and a more subjective system, and might cost more in terms of appeals being more common.

 

[cryptor]

Reading the guidelines would help people be less outraged (at least it had that impact on me), but really they are the main problem. The MRP are probably all very reasonable people, but they have a set of broken guidelines to follow. I'm sure they all thought 1 week seemed wrong for Buddy in this particular case, but the guidelines essentially take common sense out of the equation. In the current form, the MRP only really seem to have two levers to pull when making decisions, impact and intent. Intent now seems to only be a single switch with two setting, "intentional/careless" and impact has only 3 settings. Location of impact is usually pretty clear from the incident (with a few rare exceptions), so the MRP isn't left with much room for nuance. People can usually agree within about +-1 week on what any incident should get (once you've factored out your feelings for the team involved), and I'm sure the MRP can too. Throwing out the guidelines completely and just going with "this is our opinion after viewing the incident" would IMO produce far more optimal outcomes, with the downside that it is a less accountable, and a more subjective system, and might cost more in terms of appeals being more common.

If the MRP had graded it intentional, medium impact, high contact it would have got Buddy 3 weeks down to 2 and the majority of people would've thought that was pretty spot on based on the framework they work in. Instead they managed to grade it as softly as reasonably possible and got a result that leaves the majority of the football world disillusioned.

I thought when they brought in this revamped system that it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately the inconsistency comes from how the MRP utilise the system and probably the fact that it's a small 3 person panel that rotates a member out each week.

I reckon some more consistent results could be obtained if all 18 clubs except for the 2 involved provided a staff representative from the club (perhaps the football department manager or something) and they all use the grading matrix to submit what they think. Then take the mean or median value as the punishment.

 

[Mitchell54]

Should get less than Franklin, didn't run 3 meters past the ball to cause the bump.
But....well it's the MRP and we do play Sydney this week so at least 1, probably 3 due to potential to cause injury and not a good look for the game.

Was thinking the AFL will try to get him suspended somehow. Glad he didn't cop it. The AFL must have a completely differnt System when reviewing Hawthorn and Sydney incidents. Hawks get over penalised, Swans opposite.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If the MRP had graded it intentional, medium impact, high contact it would have got Buddy 3 weeks down to 2 and the majority of people would've thought that was pretty spot on based on the framework they work in. Instead they managed to grade it as softly as reasonably possible and got a result that leaves the majority of the football world disillusioned.

I thought when they brought in this revamped system that it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately the inconsistency comes from how the MRP utilise the system and probably the fact that it's a small 3 person panel that rotates a member out each week.

I reckon some more consistent results could be obtained if all 18 clubs except for the 2 involved provided a staff representative from the club (perhaps the football department manager or something) and they all use the grading matrix to submit what they think. Then take the mean or median value as the punishment.

This is the problem. Follow our conversation and you will understand that it wasn't open for the MRP to find differently. They couldn't grade it intentional under the guidelines.

 

[skipper kelly]

If the MRP had graded it intentional, medium impact, high contact it would have got Buddy 3 weeks down to 2 and the majority of people would've thought that was pretty spot on based on the framework they work in. Instead they managed to grade it as softly as reasonably possible and got a result that leaves the majority of the football world disillusioned.

I thought when they brought in this revamped system that it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately the inconsistency comes from how the MRP utilise the system and probably the fact that it's a small 3 person panel that rotates a member out each week.

I reckon some more consistent results could be obtained if all 18 clubs except for the 2 involved provided a staff representative from the club (perhaps the football department manager or something) and they all use the grading matrix to submit what they think. Then take the mean or median value as the punishment.

If the majority of the football world are disillusioned over a discrepancy of 1 week then there really is serious issues among the football world.

 

[hk89]

If the MRP had graded it intentional, medium impact, high contact it would have got Buddy 3 weeks down to 2 and the majority of people would've thought that was pretty spot on based on the framework they work in.

The problem is that he is essentially being charged because he bumped someone in the head. You can intentionally bump, that is fine as long as you don't get them in the head, and the ball is somewhat in the vicinity. He was deemed not have intentionally bumped him the head, which is probably accurate (you'd have to have a special kind of nutter to actually deliberately bump someone in the head in the current environment). Edwards played out the rest of the game , and the medical report said he was ok, so the impact wasn't going to be higher than medium. Basically Buddy ended up getting exactly what the guidelines dictated he should get given the situation, so I think the guidelines are broken.

I think the idea of more people and a median or average of those would yield better results, but base it on how similar the group think the incident is to example incidents they've all agreed on at the start of the year, that way the group isn't just saying "we reckon it was about 2 weeks worth", but rather "we gave this 2 weeks, because we thought it was about the same level of indiscretion as example case C, which all clubs and the AFL agreed at the start of the season would be 2 weeks. It also takes the pressure of trying to write a set of written rules to cover everything. If an example hasn't been agreed on at the start of the year, then send it up as they do now with severe incidents that they think the MRP rules will not adequately deal with.

I reckon they need a different way of incentivising early pleas too. 2 down to 1 means you get half the penalty that the system thought was fair, simply because you put your hand up for it. That is way too much off IMO. Extra points against your record if you waste time appealing and lose might be enough, and no downgrading at all for an early plea. Or maybe a system like the cricket where each club gets a number of appeals, that diminish down to zero if you keep getting them rejected which would make them think very carefully about when to appeal.

 

[HairyO]

Reading the guidelines would help people be less outraged (at least it had that impact on me), but really they are the main problem. The MRP are probably all very reasonable people, but they have a set of broken guidelines to follow. I'm sure they all thought 1 week seemed wrong for Buddy in this particular case, but the guidelines essentially take common sense out of the equation.

Potential. To. Cause. Injury.

Its a shame they only use this on Hawthorn players, rather than include ex-Hawthorn players as well.

Its why they never even considered it with Tippett.

The most interesting thing is Mark Evans admitted to going and joining their discussion and the media didnt even bother talking about the massive potential for him to have influenced their decision. Why even have an MRP? Why doesnt Evans just dole out the punishments each week?

 

[hk89]

Potential. To. Cause. Injury.

Its a shame they only use this on Hawthorn players, rather than include ex-Hawthorn players as well.

Not convinced the "Potential to cause injury" clause was relevant in the Buddy situation, the guidelines say:
"The potential to cause serious injury is also relevant in the following cases: » Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling; » Spear tackles; and » Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned
"
My memory of the Buddy vs Edwards bump was that Edwards didn't really have his head over the ball, in fact the criticism of Buddy largely centered around Buddy having passed the ball and going for Edwards instead of the ball, implying Edwards himself hadn't reached the ball yet. Was it Lewis that got reference to the "injury potential"? If so , again that seems right via the guidelines, "forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact" sounds like a not unfair characterisation of Lewis late spoil attempt. I blame the guidelines more than anything, they are fundamentally broken in my opinion. Whether or not they are being used as part of an AFL agenda is another matter, but I can see how the MRP would give out what we have seen without an agenda in play given the way the guidelines are worded.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Potential. To. Cause. Injury.

Its a shame they only use this on Hawthorn players, rather than include ex-Hawthorn players as well.

Its why they never even considered it with Tippett.

The most interesting thing is Mark Evans admitted to going and joining their discussion and the media didnt even bother talking about the massive potential for him to have influenced their decision. Why even have an MRP? Why doesnt Evans just dole out the punishments each week?

Another one. Read the guidelines and you'll come a lot closer to understanding MRP outcomes, if not necessarily liking them.

 

[HairyO]

Not convinced the "Potential to cause injury" clause was relevant in the Buddy situation, the guidelines say:
"The potential to cause serious injury is also relevant in the following cases: » Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling; » Spear tackles; and » Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned
"
My memory of the Buddy vs Edwards bump was that Edwards didn't really have his head over the ball, in fact the criticism of Buddy largely centered around Buddy having passed the ball and going for Edwards instead of the ball, implying Edwards himself hadn't reached the ball yet. Was it Lewis that got reference to the "injury potential"? If so , again that seems right via the guidelines, "forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact" sounds like a not unfair characterisation of Lewis late spoil attempt. I blame the guidelines more than anything, they are fundamentally broken in my opinion. Whether or not they are being used as part of an AFL agenda is another matter, but I can see how the MRP would give out what we have seen without an agenda in play given the way the guidelines are worded.

Edwards had his head down preparing to pick up the ball and Buddy hit him front on. It is the perfect case for the potential to be used.