Inconsistent mrp
- Thread starter bazzadog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 22, 2000
- 62,351
- 41,696
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Ford
Welcome to other other clubs gripe with the Match Review Prats
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Because apparently you are clueless.
bkozican
Norm Smith Medallist
Sorry mate, Im the first one to call the umpires in the wrong but he deserved that. Stupid bump really, Why even go for it. Reminds me of the Buddy bump against Sydney last year......Just no need for it in that situation.
Agree. Had to go for that, it should be the act rather than any injury it causes that is what we look at. Just surprised he copped a greater penalty than Le Cras a few weeks ago, seemed reasonably similar from a grading point of view. Must have had carry over points? Mostly its another shambolic decision on the back of a stupid system.
bkozican
Norm Smith Medallist
Spot on,
I just watched the charged video on the AFL site. Im not sure how this works but it seems an intentional hit gets a lower penalty than an accidental hit. The injury sustained should be irrelevant in the scheme of things. Like you said, It should be the act not the injury
- Jul 16, 2013
- 13,345
- 17,005
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Who knew Winderlich could break ribs with such a move.
Not like we have not seen this type of contact every week.
1 week was perfect for it. Would not have even been looked at if the Crows player had a set of testicles.
70 carry over points. Gia has a history - Kosi, Dangerfield and now Polec.
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
lol...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
MRP is inconsistent? Groundbreaking.
Freo2012
Premiership Player
There are actually 2 reasons the AFL does not allow precedence into the mrp process.
1. So they can change the rulings and interpretations based on what they require for marketing, based on whats happening in the media and the soccer mums, AND
2. So they can manipulate the system with who they decide are put up to the mrp and who gets to be the scapegoat - they never want to cost themselves $ by suspending any big names playing for their "focus" teams (obviously the expansion states and also whatever other focus they have at the time, special marketing rounds, ensuring certain teams have best opportunity at success)
The AFL is a money making machine first and foremost and EVERY decision they make on ANYTHING is in relation to that.
BTW: Precedence is the cornerstone of our judicial system and the AFL obviously does not believe in it.
1. So they can change the rulings and interpretations based on what they require for marketing, based on whats happening in the media and the soccer mums, AND
2. So they can manipulate the system with who they decide are put up to the mrp and who gets to be the scapegoat - they never want to cost themselves $ by suspending any big names playing for their "focus" teams (obviously the expansion states and also whatever other focus they have at the time, special marketing rounds, ensuring certain teams have best opportunity at success)
The AFL is a money making machine first and foremost and EVERY decision they make on ANYTHING is in relation to that.
BTW: Precedence is the cornerstone of our judicial system and the AFL obviously does not believe in it.
Similar threads
