So, Barrett isn't always automatically full of it

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Good article, but he forgot to mention that the tribunal also once fined a player for pinching just based upon the word of the accusing player, without any independent corroborating evidence like video footage, even though that match-up had it's own camera for most of the day.
 
His criticism of the AFL system is correct though, regardless of what he thinks about Freo's chances for 2015. It's not a professionally run organisation, it still operates on an old boys club basis. Insiders get preferential treatment over outsiders.
 
I like Barrett's articles and opinion pieces. one of the few journos i'm actively interested in reading when I see the name.

Admiral Byng said:
Good article, but he forgot to mention that the tribunal also once fined a player for pinching just based upon the word of the accusing player, without any independent corroborating evidence like video footage, even though that match-up had it's own camera for most of the day.
Click to expand...
That was in 2013.
 
This article actually got me to post since bleeding purple continuously from last Saturday.
Barrett summarises the AFL Tribunal correctly pointing out the lack of professionalism. Poor governance and management of a supposed fair system. No wonder it invites so much criticism - it is anything but fair and self-serving.

Boomer 300 pinches Harvey - the tribunal love child.
 
Boomer decision isn't good for the game at all.

He was always, always going to get left off with an appeal considering the media and Selwood. It's happened in the finals before. The AFL won't soil the finals. And the finals will be full of the best players to give the most entertaining game. It's a load of s**t that the finals alters the weighting of the decision, a bit like how it was a load of s**t Viney got off because the Herald Sun and not the West was the paper outraged. The system is very questionable, Fyfe was hard done by, by reversing decisions all the time... load of horseshit
 
Yes he nailed it. Good to see. It would have been personally damaging for a few of our players given the decisions and lack of decisions that have been given. All of Fyfe, Crowley and Ballantyne would be unsure where they sit, and possibly Dawson as well. Look forward to seeing how the AFL shapes things for next year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Isn't it sad that the MRP/tribunal system so consistently inconsistent, 3rd world like in it's execution, that a clearly ****ed up decision like Harvey's is completely expected.

And don't give me 'good for the game' rubbish. What's good for the game is consistent dependable and fair judicial system, not kangaroo court, dumb arse 'make it up as we go' stuff we see week in and out this year.

The MRP/Tribunal this year have bee spineless and moronic.
 
Reckon Barrett got it spot on. It's not necessary that the system is broken, there is just no guiding principle on how to make a decision. And the execution of the process is so poor, it just doesn't make any sense to anyone.

Anyway,
Harvey should have gotten off, but not because it's the finals, not because Harvey is a good bloke and definitely not because it's good for the game.

Players should not be suspended for accidents on the field. Period. The bump rule is poorly thought out and badly enforced. If nothing else gets done, at least scrap the stupid rule.
 
The problem is the rule/interpretation around incidental contact. It would seem, at least according to the interview Fyfe had at the all Australian, to be a frustrating one for the players.
 
Anderson's system was a complete and utter mess. Dreamed up by a lawyer by the looks.. which is not surprising as that is exactly what he was.

The points system needs to be broken up and thrown away, or the allocation of points based on intent and impact needs to seriously be rejigged.

The assessment of impact is also an utter joke.

And the poorly thought out grouping of accidental head high contact as rough conduct needs to go. Utterly stupid to classify it as the same as a head high bump with a shoulder.

Get rid of it full stop... it was a standard afl knee jerk response to one incident.

If an mrp continues to exist they need to be able to consider precedent, and to make a balanced decision by weighting factors and using their brains... rather than interpreting a f*cking stupid table of penalties with no room for movement.

The standards for intent and impact also need to be established by having a set of videos that clearly guides the selection of each. And these should be used as precedents. Not a medical report that lumps everything short of concussion or broken bones as low impact, but still pins fyfe as medium for a bit of blood.
 
I've always been a bit of a fan of Barrett, even if he is 100% wrong about Freo's 2015. He's probably best in the business when it comes to AFL admin based issues like this. And he's absolutely spot on here.

The AFL should realise that putting fairness & consistency back into mrp/tribunal & umpiring would go a long way to helping with crowds & fan satisfaction. They're both so inconsistent and baffling at the moment that you couldn't easily introduce a new person to the sport.

Now that the high contact ruling has become such a joke I really think they should do something about the Fyfe incident. His recent suspension means he's not eligible for the brownlow anyway, so there's no need to worry about that anymore. But he should be getting an apology, because the interpretation of the rule when he was suspended wasn't correct, the appeals board has shown that. They can't do anything about the 2 matches that he missed, but those 2 weeks should be wiped from his record, and his suspension loading & carry over points should be removed. That's fair to Fyfe & Fremantle, and goes a long way to the MRP saving some face from the absolute debacle it's been this season.
 
Harvey should've been rubbed out....the MRP remarkably got the decision spot on....the tribunal however are a bunch of spineless tools.

People go on about the similarities and differences between Fyfe and Harvey

Fyfe was going at the ball - Harvey was not
Fyfe was in play - Harvey well off the ball
Fyfe drew blood on the play - Harvey drew blood on the play
Fyfe stayed 2 feet on the ground at all times - Harvey jumped off the ground to bump

Whatever way you look at it, it was a snipe from Harvey that should've been punished and the fact the tribunal let him off basically because it's finals is the biggest indictment of the lot

As for Barrett, he may make the occasional decent point but by and large, he's still an oxygen thief
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
So who’s kicking the goals this season?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
pK75
pK75
W
Get over it
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
DocT
DocT
FreoGirl
Toast It's time to celebrate Nat Fyfe and what he has done for our club
Replies
17
Views
838
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
Tonga Bob
Review Fremantle Contest Another Game In South Australia
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
506
Views
13K
poshman
poshman
Van_Dyke
Review Fremantle Contest a Game in South Australia
42 43 44 45 46
Replies
1K
Views
39K
hoss
H
88mph
  • Poll
The song after the goal
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
hoss
H
FreoRicci
Opinion Winging It
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
GingerDocker
GingerDocker

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top