Carryover Points Binned

[yakka man]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-11-25/mrp-axes-demerit-points

Really handy for us as we have loads of players with carryover points.

Winning.

It still sounds bloody complicated though and the MRP will finds ways to muck it up. It still screws Fyfe, who will automatically have one week extra added to any suspension he may receive next year due to being suspended twice in the previous 24 months.

 

[electricfeel]

Fyfe will still get reamed

 

[Square Peg]

The Fyfe clause

A week's additional suspension for bad record, where players have been suspended for two matches in the previous 24 months.

 

[Silent Alarm]

It's an AFL conspiracy!!!!!! The AFL hate Fremantle and especially the very marketable and profitable Nat Fyfe!!!!!

 

[Yeti]

The AFL can't have Fyfe playing every game. It would make the rest of the competition look bad when he led us to a 20 win season, our first premiership, the Brownlow / Norm Smith double to go with his AFL Coaches Award and MVP.

Is there a clause in there about not requiring evidence to convict on pinching?

 

[Righteo]

Jesus how ******* easily influenced are they over their own policies/rules? All it takes is some minor media backlash/outcry and they scamper off to change it all up yet again. All that needs to be done is to judge each case on its merits so although I am happy the points s**t has been scrapped we won't know just how good or terrible the new system is until it needs to be used.

It's an AFL conspiracy!!!!!! The AFL hate Fremantle and especially the very marketable and profitable Nat Fyfe!!!!!

Yeah bro, so heinous aye?

 

[Taylor]

Only an extra week for a bad record, that's a lighten up.

 

[Seppo]

The way i read it Fyfe still get 2 weeks base sanction each time for his incidents.

 

[Seppo]

This is what they will be using to grade all findings next year.

 

[Taylor]

Is the bottom intentional supposed to read unintentional?

 

[Tonga Bob]

Is the bottom intentional supposed to read unintentional?

Everything the AFL does is intentional...

 

[Seppo]

Is the bottom intentional supposed to read unintentional?

Bottom left was supposed to read "Careless" I just did a quick copy and paste...

 

[ImperialPurple]

Think it's complete rubbish that they justified Fyfe's suspension, saying he would still be suspended under the new system. I call BULLSHIT!! They have to say that so it doesn't look like they dudded him out of this year's Brownlow - 'oh under any circumstances anywhere and with any system whatsoever in the history of the world, now and into the future, Fyfe would have been suspended for that bump on Rischitelli'.

If it looks like bullshit, and it smells like bullshit, it's the AFL.

 

[Taylor]

Are the rules still in place where certain acts are railroaded into being "intentional"?

For example bumping with incidental high contact, where the intent was to bump but not to impact high, such an act is careless but will be deemed intentional as the initial movement was intended. As far as I can tell.

 

[Purpletown]

This is what they will be using to grade all findings next year.
View attachment 94242

I think there is another category that might be relevant as well.....Wearing Swans jumper number 23 - free to do whatever you want with no penalty ever because the AFL need you to promote the game in a place that has no interest in it unless they are winning.

 

[PapaJ]

At a quick glance, there's some good and bad IMHO.

Firstly, the bad is that it's going to rely on the Tribunal more, a lot more in certain circumstances - in theory that might work, but the reason we went to the points system in the first place was that the tribunal were complete idiots to begin with and even less consistent than what we had recently. If you think this is an improvement, think how our last experience with the tribunal went with Fyfe.

On the positive side, they've simplified things a bit especially the combining of the categories so now we either have careless or intentional. TBH, this is really the only significant change they should have gone with, then asked the MRP etc. to actually follow the system properly and I reckon we'd all be right.

 

[PapaJ]

Are the rules still in place where certain acts are railroaded into being "intentional"?

For example bumping with incidental high contact, where the intent was to bump but not to impact high, such an act is careless but will be deemed intentional as the initial movement was intended. As far as I can tell.

Yeah, good question. My understanding is that they will grade such things to 'careless'. I think that is why they're bringing in such changes. But, from the little we've seen, head high contact will tend to be graded as harsher in the 'impact' category according to the article.

We really don't know until the detail comes out and we see it in operation. I personally am not too confident. In the end of the day, the old system wasn't that bad, it was just implemented poorly (especially last year) by a bunch of idiots.

You can tweak the system all you want, but if you have the same idiots running it, then it we're still going to get dumb results.

 

[Purple Suit]

It looks better but I don't like the three strikes policy for small stuff. The two issue I see is that players will be close to losing games when it gets to finals. They need to add another strike or remove an incident at the start of the finals series. The other issue is that a player might miss out on a Brownlow because they jumper punched someone three times through out the year. I think only series incidents or lets say two week/intentional incidents should count you out.

 

[freoextra]

Anything that reduces the amount of footballers being suspended for minor offences is ok by me. The tribunal should be there for acts we want taken out of football and certainly not accidental contact.

Pathetic the amount of players that were ineligible for the Brownlow last year.

 

[estibador]

This is what they will be using to grade all findings next year.
View attachment 94242

It's funny cos it's true!

No wait, it's not funny cos it's true.

 

[Purpletown]

Yeah, good question. My understanding is that they will grade such things to 'careless'. I think that is why they're bringing in such changes. But, from the little we've seen, head high contact will tend to be graded as harsher in the 'impact' category according to the article.

We really don't know until the detail comes out and we see it in operation. I personally am not too confident. In the end of the day, the old system wasn't that bad, it was just implemented poorly (especially last year) by a bunch of idiots.

You can tweak the system all you want, but if you have the same idiots running it, then it we're still going to get dumb results.

One of the biggest problems with the whole thing is how it changes as the year goes on. Fyfe got rubbed out early in the year for a similar incident to Viney who got nothing later in the year. Similar changes in "interpretation" of the system during the season have also been seen in the past so it's not just the Fyfe one that was rubbish.

It seems if a player from outside Victoria or NSW gets reported early in the year with a penalty that has changed since the previous season it's black and white from the AFL - no room for any consultation - end of story. Yet a few months later they will be tying themselves in knots trying to explain away how the previous similar case was different?

They are too pig headed to admit they may have got it wrong for a start and then to piss weak to stick with it once the media in Melbourne start to question them.

 

[yoong]

Other than the fact that previously reprimand cases will get converted to fines, I see the changes as window dressing of the current point system. If the same people are running the MRP then we'll still see the same results, unfortunately

 

[Frank J Moose]

Other than the fact that previously reprimand cases will get converted to fines, I see the changes as window dressing of the current point system. If the same people are running the MRP then we'll still see the same results, unfortunately

Fyfe's head clash was graded as medium. Even with these rules it's still a suspension. Grading impact is so subjective. Wearing purple makes the impact look a lot more severe than wearing red and white or blue and white hoops.