Preview Round 21 – Western Bulldogs vs GWS Giants, Friday 11th August, 7.50pm, Etihad Stadium

[Determinant]

So, Jack Redpath fought his suspension, lost, & now cops 3 weeks. There's a part of me that says 'suck it' to the Bullflog supporters, but there's the other part of me that thinks that's really harsh. I have nothing against Redpath, and I certainly don't think what he did deserves 3 weeks. I'll take Toby's luck with the MRP and move on, but, there's certainly some inconsistency occurring in the back portion of the season.

I agree, 2 down 1 one at worst.
Doesn't feel as though consistent outcomes and the MRP are bedfellows very often

 

[Smartest Brain]

So, Jack Redpath fought his suspension, lost, & now cops 3 weeks. There's a part of me that says 'suck it' to the Bullflog supporters, but there's the other part of me that thinks that's really harsh. I have nothing against Redpath, and I certainly don't think what he did deserves 3 weeks. I'll take Toby's luck with the MRP and move on, but, there's certainly some inconsistency occurring in the back portion of the season.

What he got done for is softer than Greene's late fist, but he gets more time. Both of them should be a fine at most.

 

[dlanod]

So, Jack Redpath fought his suspension, lost, & now cops 3 weeks. There's a part of me that says 'suck it' to the Bullflog supporters, but there's the other part of me that thinks that's really harsh. I have nothing against Redpath, and I certainly don't think what he did deserves 3 weeks. I'll take Toby's luck with the MRP and move on, but, there's certainly some inconsistency occurring in the back portion of the season.

I think the MRP is designed such that the "equitable" time missed is the discounted time. It's designed that way to avoid media and fan outcry ("How did he only get X for that?") and reduce any incentives for the player to challenge. It does mean that if a player challenges and doesn't get off the resulting ban is a bit excessive, which is the case here.

 

[dlanod]

Just read Bokonon_'s post in another thread that it would've been 2 down to 1 if not for Redpath's bad record. I'm less worried about the "overs" on the ban now - if you've got a bad record, longer suspensions are the price you pay. Three seems excessive but when you break it down to one for the offence, one for his bad record, and one for challenging and losing (which he probably wouldn't have done if not for the second game for the bad record) it's clearer to me.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

Just read Bokonon_'s post in another thread that it would've been 2 down to 1 if not for Redpath's bad record. I'm less worried about the "overs" on the ban now - if you've got a bad record, longer suspensions are the price you pay. Three seems excessive but when you break it down to one for the offence, one for his bad record, and one for challenging and losing (which he probably wouldn't have done if not for the second game for the bad record) it's clearer to me.

For mine, though, if an offence is worth 2 weeks, you should get the benefit of a discount for early plea if you have a good record, no discount for bad record.

Grading an offence based on a player's record is problematic.

 

[dlanod]

For mine, though, if an offence is worth 2 weeks, you should get the benefit of a discount for early plea if you have a good record, no discount for bad record.

Grading an offence based on a player's record is problematic.

The problem with that is that every player with a bad record now has no disincentive to challenge.

 

[Giant Strides]

Yes, I understood the 1+1+1 aspect. But the original offence was more like 0.4, rounded to 0.5, that rounded to 1, that triggered a clause that added 1, and then they added 1 themselves. I hate the stupid jumper punches etc (yes, yours too Toby!!) so while it is soft, I don't really disagree with the AFL's desire to stamp them out. And yes, he's got a bad record, so the 2 doesn't get reduced to 1, and they challenged, so on their own heads the 3rd week.

But it would be better at something like a fixed penalty - 1 week for punching, perhaps upping to 2 weeks for the third offence in a 2 year period (similar approach to fines system). I don't think there should be a disincentive to challenge - it should be fairly black & white - in something like this.

 

[Colonial]

Oh god someone will get injured tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

Oh god someone will get injured tomorrow.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Hashtag pray for Phil

 

[Colonial]

Sorry. Had to share


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[_GT_]

That's why I beleive their club should be folded. Not becuase they have some nuffie supporters, but because they have a culture that encourages that kind of behaviour.Couple with a club unwilling to confront it.
After beer was thrown over Toby at their home game, I'd expect a club to come out with a statement condemning crowd behaviour. Nothing lime that has happened.
Compare it with Ports reaction to the Banana throwing incident.

Mick is our main cheer leader in the cheer squad....

 

[Bokonon_]

Mick is our main cheer leader in the cheer squad....

Ok I ****ed up, it's happened once before. If you been trying to point out reality to bunch of Bulldogs who were disappointed Cal Ward wasn't more seriously concussed in the PF on the Umpires etc board, you 'd be having trouble being objective too.
But thanks for letting me know and I will of course delete.