2015 Non Freo discussion

[Alfonz]

I think it is beyond a joke that Stefan Martin gets 2, while the Sydney players get 1. But it isn't like that is a surprise, coming from the pathetic MRP.

At the end of the day, the second week they should have got would only have been against Brisbane, so it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Let's hope that Port are somehow able to find some form and take advantage of Sydney's ordinary forward line.

 

[rgauci]

Out of interest was Ballantynes bump on Harry Taylor careless, reckless or intentional?

 

[Nothing]

Out of interest was Ballantynes bump on Harry Taylor careless, reckless or intentional?

There is only careless and intentional now. It was classed as careless, the same as Franklin's.

 

[Taylor]

I remember seeing it as incidental when I had my purple glasses on.

 

[Nothing]

I remember seeing it as incidental when I had my purple glasses on.

Yep, I thought incidental too. But, it is a similar argument in both. I don't think Franklin meant to run into Edwards head (like Ballas on Taylor) but they both approached the contest carelessly (without due consideration to the safety of others). Of course, if Ballantyne/Franklin had taken the ball, shrugged the tackle at speed, gone forward and kicked the goal/set up a score then everyone would rave about how great a play it was. It's a fine line and the AFL Laws of the Game committee are making a line too costly to cross. The result will be less of that type of play and more of the wait until someone else takes possession then tackle, that has been prevalent for the last couple of seasons.

 

[Tommo]

Yep initially I was disappointed that buddy only got one week, as I thought that it was intentional. However, that is not how the MRP system works this year. I had a look at the 2015 guide and the first thing the MRP does is decide, was the incident intentional or careless. Now he did intent to bump, but they wouldn't be able to say that he intended to hit him high, which was the reason for the report. It therefore is deemed careless. From there it becomes easy to determine, the impact was medium, as the player got up virtually straight away and the impact was to the head, so 2 down to 1 with a early plea is the correct outcome.

If you take the Balla incident as a comparison, he hit Taylor in the head with a bump. The MRP judged that it was carless like buddy as the intent was to bump but not to bump the head. They then considered it as medium impact, the same as buddy. They could have easily considered it high impact as Taylor was almost knocked out. So in a way Balla is fortunate to not have had an extra week. Balla obviously made contact to Taylors head and thus got 2 weeks + 1 for bad record making it 3 weeks. His early guilty plea automatically dropped a week.

So if you use these two incidents then they are being reasonably consistent.

 

[Taylor]

I have a fundamental issue determining the impact by the results the offendee suffers.

 

[Tommo]

I'm no expert in criminal matters, but my understanding is the more severe the outcome of a criminal act the greater the punishment given. The lawyers out there may be able to clarify that.

 

[Taylor]

I'm no expert in criminal matters, but my understanding is the more severe the outcome of a criminal act the greater the punishment given. The lawyers out there may be able to clarify that.

The more severe the result the more severe the charge itself, grievous bodily harm etc. So you're right in saying the punishment is increased due to the result, but it is due to the charge being higher up the pole due to the result.

 

[Tommo]

So a criminal system is the opposite to the MRP system? In that the MRP judges intent first, then determines the level to be charged. Where as in a criminal system a suspect would be charged, then intent would be determined after?

 

[yoong]

Yep initially I was disappointed that buddy only got one week, as I thought that it was intentional. However, that is not how the MRP system works this year. I had a look at the 2015 guide and the first thing the MRP does is decide, was the incident intentional or careless. Now he did intent to bump, but they wouldn't be able to say that he intended to hit him high, which was the reason for the report. It therefore is deemed careless. From there it becomes easy to determine, the impact was medium, as the player got up virtually straight away and the impact was to the head, so 2 down to 1 with a early plea is the correct outcome.

If you take the Balla incident as a comparison, he hit Taylor in the head with a bump. The MRP judged that it was carless like buddy as the intent was to bump but not to bump the head. They then considered it as medium impact, the same as buddy. They could have easily considered it high impact as Taylor was almost knocked out. So in a way Balla is fortunate to not have had an extra week. Balla obviously made contact to Taylors head and thus got 2 weeks + 1 for bad record making it 3 weeks. His early guilty plea automatically dropped a week.

So if you use these two incidents then they are being reasonably consistent.

Fair point Tommo.

Intent to bump: definitely intentional
Intent to bump and catch a player on the head: not sure, so benefit of the doubt -> careless

I checked, Steven May is also given Careless, so MRP have been pretty consistent on this.

Based on this definition, Careless is a reasonable call for Buddy's bump as well.

 

[Taylor]

So a criminal system is the opposite to the MRP system? In that the MRP judges intent first, then determines the level to be charged. Where as in a criminal system a suspect would be charged, then intent would be determined after?

Intent also determines the charge, premeditation for murder as opposed to accidental killing etc.

 

[Tommo]

Fair enough, I guess drawing comparisons between the two is perhaps unachievable as the comparative complexities of the two systems are too different.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Fair enough, I guess drawing comparisons between the two is perhaps unachievable as the comparative complexities of the two systems are too different.

In other words the AFL have designed enough wriggle room to give any result that serves their best interests.

 

[XXRL]

Yep, it seems the MRP simply reverse-engineer the designations to get to the outcome they want, partly influenced by the media and public outrage.

 

[XXRL]

Also, is it basically the case that a bump to the head would almost never be graded as 'intentional', because what player would ever have an 'intent' to bump someone high given the consequences?

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Also, is it basically the case that a bump to the head would almost never be graded as 'intentional', because what player would ever have an 'intent' to bump someone high given the consequences?

There's the paradox.

" Now Lance remember you are under oath here; Although you ran straight past the ball and looked your target directly in the eye thereby knowing precisely where his head is and that you would collide with his head, please tell your honour did you mean to hit the victim high ? "

" No Sir, I did not "

Fair enough, not guilty.

 

[rgauci]

A few interesting observations. Rhys Stanley and Mitch Clark brought in to Geelong. They are apparently enquiring about Lachie Henderson. Are strongly linked with Patrick Dangerfield. Tom Hawkins as far as I know remains unsigned. Surely he's leaving. But for who?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I have a fundamental issue determining the impact by the results the offendee suffers.

I'm the same.

I hate seeing players rubbed out for the outcome rather than the intent. I don't want the system overhauled, but I'd like more emphasis put on in the intent.

i.e. a player throwing a haymaker but missing is far worse imo than a player who bumps an opponent, only for their heads to clash. Currently only the player who makes contact with the head will get suspended, whereas a player who throws a punch (but misses) will likely just cop a fine.

I thought Buddy got off lightly - 2 or 3 would have been more reasonable given he does have a record (though most of the time when he is looked at by the MRP, his cases have been thrown out, meaning he probably has less of a record than he should)

 

[Taylor]

Ultimately, the game is football and running past the ball to impact an opposition key player, who I am sure was mentioned as a target in the pregame briefing, is outside of the intention of the game.

Blah blah blah, game is soft etc etc. If nobody has the ball they should get the ball, not put hits on each other.

 

[lusheslewis]

Also, is it basically the case that a bump to the head would almost never be graded as 'intentional', because what player would ever have an 'intent' to bump someone high given the consequences?

In addition, if a player did intend to bump someone high would it look any different to Franklin's bump?

 

[Alfonz]

A few interesting observations. Rhys Stanley and Mitch Clark brought in to Geelong. They are apparently enquiring about Lachie Henderson. Are strongly linked with Patrick Dangerfield. Tom Hawkins as far as I know remains unsigned. Surely he's leaving. But for who?

Probably should talk about in the trading thread, but I reckon there is zero chance he'll be coming here. Especially with the extra flying and his history of back problems.

Stanley is a ruckman, Clark is the second ruck/KPF. Not cover for Hawkins leaving. They're probably just trying to work out the Dangerfield deal, and then work out how to give Hawkins what he wants.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Probably should talk about in the trading thread, but I reckon there is zero chance he'll be coming here. Especially with the extra flying and his history of back problems.

Stanley is a ruckman, Clark is the second ruck/KPF. Not cover for Hawkins leaving. They're probably just trying to work out the Dangerfield deal, and then work out how to give Hawkins what he wants.

Some huggies and a rattle? That'd be my bet

 

[darkshines]

Get the black and white gear out Fri nite. With the Rough missing, if the Pies can get it done, that would give us the chance to really dent their top 4 chances. Hard to win a flag from 5th.....

 

[Lost_Deputy]

Get the black and white gear out Fri nite. With the Rough missing, if the Pies can get it done, that would give us the chance to really dent their top 4 chances. Hard to win a flag from 5th.....

If they turn up like they did against us they'll be a chance. 96 tackles I'm pretty sure last week. That's finals like intensity.