Suspensions: Why aren't finals weighted differently?

[Final Siren]

Surely this has come up before? I couldn't find a thread. Anyway:

The MRP system awards "points" for an infringement. For every 100 points, a player is suspended for 1 match.

It would be easy to weight finals matches a little differently, so that, for example, you don't miss a final unless you have 150 points, or 175 for a prelim, or 200 for a Grand Final.

I pulled these numbers out of my butt; the point is to recognize that being suspended for a final is worse than a H&A match.

Every year we have situations where players face missing a final because of a relatively minor infringement. If you have 80 or 90 carry-over points, for example, then any infringement in a prelim, no matter how minor or technical, will cost you the Grand Final.

This is disproportionate. Missing a GF is the worst penalty a player can face: it shouldn't be handed down unless the infringement was actually that bad.

Some people say, "Well players just shouldn't infringe." This misses the point, though, which is that the punishment should fit the crime. Currently, we have a one-size-fits-all approach, where being suspended for a Grand Final is considered to be just as bad as missing Round 2. That's wrong.

 

[MightyHawks]

You make an interesting point.

The umpires often change the rules for the Grand Final so why not change the MRP too?

 

[blue harvest]

Could work and seems fair, but you might find a lot of the SJ and Roughead bumps start occuring because players know they will get off.

 

[Final Siren]

Could work and seems fair, but you might find a lot of the SJ and Roughead bumps start occuring because players know they will get off.

As long as we're talking about relatively small numbers -- e.g. 150 points for a final suspension vs 100 points for a H&A match -- I wouldn't think it would encourage anyone to roll the dice. You'd have to have rocks in your head to risk missing a final based on an extra 50 MRP points. That's less than the difference made by what side of bed the MRP rolls out of that morning.

Selwood is a recent example of how bad the current system could be. That harmless push on his brother against West Coast was worth 80 points. With a 40% penalty for a bad record, though, it moved to 112 points, and a 1-game suspension. If that had been in a prelim, Selwood could have been suspended for the Grand Final -- for a push!

 

[Plugger35]

Makes sense, you don't want to see good players suspended from finals for minor incidents like Steve Johnson's little bump or block off the ball that caused no serious injury.

For blatant strikes or elbows to the head like Maxwell and Harvey then suspensions are still warranted though, even for finals. In those cases the player only has themselves to blame for being suspended.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Even better - let's just remove the points classifications for incidental s**t like SJ and Roughead.

I don't see how it is any worse than being in a melee or wrestling.

Give them a financial sanction of $900 and move on.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

OP, is your idea for the increased limit (and hence decreased suspension) to be in place for finals matches or for suspension which reach into finals games.
eg. if suspended on 300 points in round 21, which would mean missing the first week of finals, does that become 200 points (rounds 22 and 23) + 100 carryover points because the suspension would reach into finals? If the idea is to recognise that missing finals is a harsher penalty, then surely it would need to be for a suspension which would reach into finals.
And if so, assuming no more points were gained during the finals campaign, would that 100 carryover points then mean missing round one the next year?

I can't say I'm against the principle, and I do believe the points system needs some serious changes so this could be one of them.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

OP, is your idea for the increased limit (and hence decreased suspension) to be in place for finals matches or for suspension which reach into finals games.
eg. if suspended on 300 points in round 21, which would mean missing the first week of finals, does that become 200 points (rounds 22 and 23) + 100 carryover points because the suspension would reach into finals? If the idea is to recognise that missing finals is a harsher penalty, then surely it would need to be for a suspension which would reach into finals.
And if so, assuming no more points were gained during the finals campaign, would that 100 carryover points then mean missing round one the next year?

I really like this idea. Definitely would sort out the unjust suspensions that often occur during finals.

But the above post does point out what could be a pretty complicated grey area in this system.

 

[Final Siren]

OP, is your idea for the increased limit (and hence decreased suspension) to be in place for finals matches or for suspension which reach into finals games.

That one.

eg. if suspended on 300 points in round 21, which would mean missing the first week of finals, does that become 200 points (rounds 22 and 23) + 100 carryover points because the suspension would reach into finals?

Yep.

And if so, assuming no more points were gained during the finals campaign, would that 100 carryover points then mean missing round one the next year?

That's how I think it should be. It might seem strange, though, in that a player could be found guilty of something, be allowed to play finals, then miss Round 1. An alternative would be to treat the 100 carry-over points the same as they are now, i.e. they'd have no effect until the next time the player is found guilty of something, then they'd be tacked on to the sentence.

 

[The Dodger]

Even with the current setup, i'm not a fan of players missing games for incidents that are players going for the ball and to hell with the consequences. As long as it is deemed to be that the ball was the objective then its an accident. Surely the players would agree to that as a collective.
The point the OP makes is a good one in that we expect the intensity to go up for finals so naturally there will be more collisions as players have a do or die attitude. Would be a shame to see a hard ball winner go in to get a loose ball and make incidental contact to the head because the other player had the same idea, then miss finals because of it.

 

[Richard Jones]

This is a tricky one.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Even with the current setup, i'm not a fan of players missing games for incidents that are players going for the ball and to hell with the consequences. As long as it is deemed to be that the ball was the objective then its an accident. Surely the players would agree to that as a collective.
The point the OP makes is a good one in that we expect the intensity to go up for finals so naturally there will be more collisions as players have a do or die attitude. Would be a shame to see a hard ball winner go in to get a loose ball and make incidental contact to the head because the other player had the same idea, then miss finals because of it.

To me, that's another quetsion and comes back to a larger overhaul of the points system. Sometimes what is deemed to be "negligent" is little more than accidental. There is a duty of care which needs to be recognised, even when the ball is the primary object; but it also needs to be recognised that there is inherent risk in a fast moving contact sport and sometimes the game demands things that can cause unfortunate impacts.

 

[The Dodger]

To me, that's another quetsion and comes back to a larger overhaul of the points system. Sometimes what is deemed to be "negligent" is little more than accidental. There is a duty of care which needs to be recognised, even when the ball is the primary object; but it also needs to be recognised that there is inherent risk in a fast moving contact sport and sometimes the game demands things that can cause unfortunate impacts.

I think that you should accept that risk before taking the field. What you cant accept risk for is incidents that go beyond what you would expect on a footy field. 2 players going at the ball 1 coming off worse is something to be expected IMO. It happens between teammates.

What doesn't happen between teammates is punches, eyes being taken off of the ball and bracing for contact. So those are the things that are not accidental and should be punished.

 

[ManInWhite]

Stupid idea in my mind - what you're actually saying is that players should be rewarded for committing reportable incidents. Next you'll be suggesting that speeding limits be relaxed coming up to Christmas holidays because we don't want people losing their licence and not being able to drive over the holidays.

 

[kickazz]

Conversely, a player's negligent bump or deliberate strike could lead to an opponent missing a final.

I've considered in the past finals should be diffeerent, but no, a player in a final (or leading up to a final in round 22) deserves the same protections as in any other game.

You cite SJ as an example. Did he deserve to miss a final for that? Probably not. But did he deserve to miss a game at all? Probably not. The point I'm trying to make is that if we fix up the MRP in the first place, finals or not should not be an issue.

The point about carry-over points etc is a valid one. IMO good record / carry over points should all get chucked out anyway, again, regardless of the time of year.

 

[dazzler1974]

Weightings should be double for finals and triple for the Grand Final!
I don't want to see a boxing match or players sniping blokes off the ball.
We are here to watch footy. those teams that go out to play the man rather than the ball should suffer the consequences!

 

[Maydok]

Stupid idea in my mind - what you're actually saying is that players should be rewarded for committing reportable incidents. Next you'll be suggesting that speeding limits be relaxed coming up to Christmas holidays because we don't want people losing their licence and not being able to drive over the holidays.

How so?

What the OP actually suggests is that in a system where there is already weighting for prior offences, good behavior, carry over points, early guilty pleas (why?), level and intent of contact and so on, that there is also weighting given to the games themselves.

In other words, the penalty matches the crime.

You cannot argue that a home and away game should be the same value as a final. Can you?

It's common sense and it's fair.

If you enjoy seeing players miss finals for small or incidental offences then keep on going with the hysterical analogies.

 

[The_Ru]

That one.


Yep.


That's how I think it should be. It might seem strange, though, in that a player could be found guilty of something, be allowed to play finals, then miss Round 1. An alternative would be to treat the 100 carry-over points the same as they are now, i.e. they'd have no effect until the next time the player is found guilty of something, then they'd be tacked on to the sentence.

This is cataclysmically dumb. In round 22 I play a team who will finish top 4. I break their best player's jaw safe in the knowledge that he'll miss the finals but I'll only miss next week and then be available to play finals.

 

[hawkman]

This is cataclysmically dumb. In round 22 I play a team who will finish top 4. I break their best player's jaw safe in the knowledge that he'll miss the finals but I'll only miss next week and then be available to play finals.

If you break someone jaw you would be missing most if not all of the final series even if the points are raised

I like the idea, a soft suspension shouldn't cost someone a final especially a Grand Final

 

[The_Ru]

If you break someone jaw you would be missing most if not all of the final series even if the points are raised

I like the idea, a soft suspension shouldn't cost someone a final especially a Grand Final

Re-read the post I quoted in full.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Re-read the post I quoted in full.

I re-read it and fail to see your point. Maybe I'm missing something, that is quite often the case.
If you break someone's jaw, odds are you would get quite a few weeks to being with. You would still most likely miss all the finals and have carryover points for next year.
The OPs idea isn't to stop all suspensions for finals, but to minimise them on the basis that the penalty at finals time is harsher (missing a final is generally more of a penalty than missing a H&A game). Notch up enough points, and deliberately breaking someone's jaw would normally do that, games are still missed.

 

[Final Siren]

This is cataclysmically dumb. In round 22 I play a team who will finish top 4. I break their best player's jaw safe in the knowledge that he'll miss the finals but I'll only miss next week and then be available to play finals.

You are talking about an incident that would be intentional, high contact, and severe impact. Barry Hall got seven weeks for that. Using the numbers proposed earlier, he would still miss the entire finals series.

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

I think the idea of a suspended sentence would fit. Suspensions can be suspended until the next H&A season, based on how bad the offence is.
It could work like this:
A Week 1 Final game (QF or EF) can be played with a suspended sentence of 1 game.
A Week 2 Final game (SF) can be played with a suspended sentence of 1 games.
A Week 3 Final game (PF) can be played with a suspended sentence of 2 or less games.
A Grand Final can be played with a suspended sentence of 3 or less games.

In this way, if a player receives a 1 week suspension on the eve of the finals, that 1 week can be suspended when finals begins, and the whole finals can be played, with the 1 match suspension being served next year.

If a player receieves a 2 week suspension on the eve of the finals, he will have to miss the Week 1 Final (since you can only play that with 1 week suspended). The next week, he will have 1 week left on his sentence, which can be suspended to play the SF.

As long as the suspended sentence remaining is equal to or below the particular Week's Suspension Threshold (be it 1, 2 or 3 weeks), that player can play finals football, and miss the first round of next year.

 

[Final Siren]

5-year thread bump. Same problem keeps happening year after year...

Everyone acknowledges that missing a GF is a bigger punishment than missing a regular home & away game. But the rules don't reflect this.

The AFL have implemented a points multiplier for offences committed in a Grand Final, so now they count as double. But they haven't fixed the other side of the equation, where a player can still miss a Grand Final because of a fairly minor offence (even a third fine!).

No-one wants this. The solution is obvious. When will they do it?

 

[Foley#41]

Just reset fines at the start of the finals. Fixes the problem.
The MRP will still find ways to downgrade hits in the prelim but at least they can fine someone without risking them missing out on becoming a premiership captain.