MRP / Trib. Joel Selwood....again

[Duckimus Prime]

Really, you think the media prompt the MRP/MRO to look at incidents, Oh OK - and you do realize that occasionally players get fined for indiscretions during games which are not reported in the media...?

Yes I do. The MRO absolutely reacts to how the commentators treat an incident. With the Ebert bump I linked earlier, they spent the next two breaks analysing it and crucifying Ebert going on and on about how he had to be rubbed out of a long time. This is despite the fact that Perryman got up and took his free kick.

Later in the same game, Ebert copped a high bump. He wasn't able to take this kick afterwards. So by definition that should've been at least careless, high contact, high impact. But no GWS player was even sited by the MRO.

And the example of Jonas getting fined for a tackle on Naughton, who got up and took his kick with no problem. Robbie Gray needed to be looked at by the trainers after Caleb Daniel pinned his arms and put his head into the ground. No fine.

And this is without even getting into Mumford's continual dirty play. If the commentators weren't constantly laughing it off as clumsy Mummy he'd absolutely cop more interest from the MRO.

Toby Greene's been analysed and discussed again and again and again from this same match. With the constant coverage of Dangerfield going off to hospital, and he's not even expected to miss the next match. And oh look, Greene cops a suspension for something that is nowhere near as bad as Dangerfield's hit on Vlaustin in the Grand Final last year.

Dangerfield also go the defence from the commenators on that occasion, and managed to escape any sanction.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Not borderline, it IS corruption pure and simple

I long for a clean AFL competition, the rules of the game being enforced correctly for EVERY team AND every player cops their right whack.

 

[Xtreme]

Exactly!!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes I do. The MRO absolutely reacts to how the commentators treat an incident. With the Ebert bump I linked earlier, they spent the next two breaks analysing it and crucifying Ebert going on and on about how he had to be rubbed out of a long time. This is despite the fact that Perryman got up and took his free kick.

Later in the same game, Ebert copped a high bump. He wasn't able to take this kick afterwards. So by definition that should've been at least careless, high contact, high impact. But no GWS player was even sited by the MRO.

And the example of Jonas getting fined for a tackle on Naughton, who got up and took his kick with no problem. Robbie Gray needed to be looked at by the trainers after Caleb Daniel pinned his arms and put his head into the ground. No fine.

And this is without even getting into Mumford's continual dirty play. If the commentators weren't constantly laughing it off as clumsy Mummy he'd absolutely cop more interest from the MRO.

Couldn't agree with you more. The AFL media is just a boys club trying to protect their mates or their favourites. Lesser known players or clubs without as much clout get hung out to dry again and again.

 

[deanc]

Yes I do. The MRO absolutely reacts to how the commentators treat an incident. With the Ebert bump I linked earlier, they spent the next two breaks analysing it and crucifying Ebert going on and on about how he had to be rubbed out of a long time. This is despite the fact that Perryman got up and took his free kick.

Later in the same game, Ebert copped a high bump. He wasn't able to take this kick afterwards. So by definition that should've been at least careless, high contact, high impact. But no GWS player was even sited by the MRO.

And the example of Jonas getting fined for a tackle on Naughton, who got up and took his kick with no problem. Robbie Gray needed to be looked at by the trainers after Caleb Daniel pinned his arms and put his head into the ground. No fine.

And this is without even getting into Mumford's continual dirty play. If the commentators weren't constantly laughing it off as clumsy Mummy he'd absolutely cop more interest from the MRO.

Toby Greene's been analysed and discussed again and again and again from this same match. With the constant coverage of Dangerfield going off to hospital, and he's not even expected to miss the next match. And oh look, Greene cops a suspension for something that is nowhere near as bad as Dangerfield's hit on Vlaustin in the Grand Final last year.

Dangerfield also go the defence from the commenators on that occasion, and managed to escape any sanction.

I agree, the media often have their own interpretations and player favourites regarding reportable incidents, but I don't see any tangible evidence of how this influence's the AFL's MRO findings or tribunal outcomes - but I do understand how people could form that view, specifically given the frequent inconsistency of some sanctions/penalties on certain incidents vs others...

FYI, I've no idea how Selwood gets off with a fine for a 'deliberate' action, yet Greene gets a 2 week holiday for a 'careless' one - being the most recent example...?

 

[Madas]

Yep I'd love to hear the explanation on what constitutes "intentional" vs "careless" in this case. What a joke, if the AFL had any balls they would appeal the decision. Protect the head? How can you argue that you are protecting the head when players get off just because they were lucky enough not to have caused an injury? What sort of deterrent is that? AFL opening themselves up to future liabilities by failing to take it seriously.

Selwood made no attempt to go for the ball
Didn’t even look at it .
intentional every day of the week.
Why is no one comparing this to Dangerfields bump?
They are the same .
One player was unlucky to get knocked out the the other not .
The act was the same .
3 weeks.

 

[db26]

His a protected species pathetic what he gets away with afl turn a blind eye.

 

[sprockets]

If it is mentioned at all.

Whether Selwood deserves a week/s or not (could Selwood got lucky because the player jumped straight back up) I have been very surprised at the silence by the media!?
Greene was of course mentioned today, as he should, and then was expecting them to move onto analyzing Selwood's hit FROM THE SAME GAME and nothing.

I don't want to be melodramatic but really that's borderline corruption.

Disappointed I couldn't see #VICBIAS anywhere in your post. Do better.

 

[HairyO]

You guys do realise the MRO exists to be the target of your anger.

Everything he does is signed off by the AFL. When he suspends 1 player and doesnt even fine another player for exactly the same thing, they are okay with it.

When a player eye gouges and intentionally hits the head but is only fined, they are okay with it.

When a player has a history of throwing elbows and running through opponents with zero intention of getting the ball but is classed as Careless to allow the charge to be downgraded in an Appeal, they are okay with it.

When sometimes the "penalty increased due to risk of injury" is used sometimes, and sometimes it isnt, depending on whether the player is in the running to win a Brownlow, they are okay with it.

They pay him for this.

Replacing him with a panel would be the same thing. As long as they pay, they set the rules, and they dictate who get penalised.

Very simply put, the head is not protected above all else. And until the first $25 million lawsuit succeeds, wont be.

And that is how the AFL want it.

 

[StillAtLarge]

 

[HairyO]

View attachment 1199362

OOPS !!! Didnt see your head there.

So exactly what did the MRO think his intention was if it wasnt to line him up and bump him in the head ?

 

[demondavey]

Selwood made no attempt to go for the ball
Didn’t even look at it .
intentional every day of the week.
Why is no one comparing this to Dangerfields bump?
They are the same .
One player was unlucky to get knocked out the the other not .
The act was the same .
3 weeks.

Because the AFL follows a ridiculously illogical set of circumstances that suggest if a player is not badly injured then the action or act is deemed less severe. If the player is hurt then a bigger punishment is applied.

You could execute the same action, with a different result but one action is deemed lesser in severity. They don’t punish the action, they base it on the outcome.

 

[demondavey]

View attachment 1199362

That’s as blatant and serious as it gets.

 

[HairyO]

Because the AFL follows a ridiculously illogical set of circumstances that suggest if a player is not badly injured then the action or act is deemed less severe. If the player is hurt then a bigger punishment is applied.

You could execute the same action, with a different result but one action is deemed lesser in severity. They don’t punish the action, they base it on the outcome.

It was intentional, not careless.

That was the problem. The classification was wrong. Intentional and head high starts at a week.

 

[demondavey]

It was intentional, not careless.

That was the problem. The classification was wrong. Intentional and head high starts at a week.

Agree. But what I am saying is that similar action that are intentional and careless result in differing outcomes based on the injury to a player. Which is wrong.

 

[HairyO]

Agree. But what I am saying is that similar action that are intentional and careless result in differing outcomes based on the injury to a player. Which is wrong.

Oh the entire system is wrong. It is deliberately designed to allow the AFL to manufacture any result they want.

Player welfare simply is not a priority. We have seen eye gouging and deliberate head bumps ignored. We have seen elbows ignored sometimes, when it suits.

 

[demondavey]

The only way stuff like this will change is if people actually give enough time and energy to looking to change it. Club officials all get on the same page, supporters and members come along, and the media doesn’t let it go. You might even want to start involving legal professionals to look for flaws in the logic.

 

[demondavey]

Oh the entire system is wrong. It is deliberately designed to allow the AFL to manufacture any result they want.

Player welfare simply is not a priority. We have seen eye gouging and deliberate head bumps ignored. We have seen elbows ignored sometimes, when it suits.

Correct. And I look at Venables from WC retiring due to severe concussion from a completely innocent incident involving no fault, and then I look at this involving what could be a severe head injury that could ruin a career, and it just doesn’t stack up. This could have resulted in severe concussion and ruined the guys career.

Phenomenally bad.

 

[Freshwater]

Selwood is a protected species. What he did to Taylor Dureay 2 months ago was a dog act, he got charged and got off? There was another incident in the same game, charged got off. This one is potentially worse because it wasn’t just a cheap shot but a full ‘line up’. Charged again, got off again. A joke!

 

[Madas]

Because the AFL follows a ridiculously illogical set of circumstances that suggest if a player is not badly injured then the action or act is deemed less severe. If the player is hurt then a bigger punishment is applied.

You could execute the same action, with a different result but one action is deemed lesser in severity. They don’t punish the action, they base it on the outcome.

I know
I deal with it at club level when reports and tribunals are involved.
A few years ago when I first started seeing the ridiculousness of the way the matrix is designed I contacted the WAFC .
Unsurprisingly they said it was modelled off the AFL and there’s nothing they could do about it .
We now try really hard to umpire any s**t like that out of the game at 16’s / Colts level.
What else can you do ?!

 

[demondavey]

I know
I deal with it at club level when reports and tribunals are involved.
A few years ago when I first started seeing the ridiculousness of the way the matrix is designed I contacted the WAFC .
Unsurprisingly they said it was modelled off the AFL and there’s nothing they could do about it .
We now try really hard to umpire any sh*t like that out of the game at 16’s / Colts level.
What else can you do ?!

Red card system might work where umpires can act immediately should they see something. This intervenes before the tribunal and media get involved.

 

[Bostonian]

 

[Madas]

Red card system might work where umpires can act immediately should they see something. This intervenes before the tribunal and media get involved.

Currently the red card is instant off for remainder of the game , then automatic 1 week suspension IIRC .
Then the tribunal looks at it and applies the injury/ intent matrix.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Yes I do. The MRO absolutely reacts to how the commentators treat an incident. With the Ebert bump I linked earlier, they spent the next two breaks analysing it and crucifying Ebert going on and on about how he had to be rubbed out of a long time. This is despite the fact that Perryman got up and took his free kick.

Later in the same game, Ebert copped a high bump. He wasn't able to take this kick afterwards. So by definition that should've been at least careless, high contact, high impact. But no GWS player was even sited by the MRO.

And the example of Jonas getting fined for a tackle on Naughton, who got up and took his kick with no problem. Robbie Gray needed to be looked at by the trainers after Caleb Daniel pinned his arms and put his head into the ground. No fine.

And this is without even getting into Mumford's continual dirty play. If the commentators weren't constantly laughing it off as clumsy Mummy he'd absolutely cop more interest from the MRO.

Toby Greene's been analysed and discussed again and again and again from this same match. With the constant coverage of Dangerfield going off to hospital, and he's not even expected to miss the next match. And oh look, Greene cops a suspension for something that is nowhere near as bad as Dangerfield's hit on Vlaustin in the Grand Final last year.

Dangerfield also go the defence from the commenators on that occasion, and managed to escape any sanction.

Commentators should not be allowed to discuss MRO decisions or what they think the outcome should be during matches.

This completely intervenes with the integrity of the MRO remaining partial to the incidents and not having to juggle a different decision to that of the commentators after they have been banging on about some nonsense for 2 hours during the broadcast.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Commentators should not be allowed to discuss MRO decisions or what they think the outcome should be during matches.

This completely intervenes with the integrity of the MRO remaining partial to the incidents and not having to juggle a different decision to that of the commentators after they have been banging on about some nonsense for 2 hours during the broadcast.

Or he could just have the balls to make his own decision