Moved Thread MRP Overhaul - More fines; allow precedent

[Phone]

It will overcome inconsistency / lack of clarity.

I like the changes. I am sure Hocking’s frustrations at Geelong as Football Manager with the MRP influenced some of of the changes.

you must have never had a bad boss if you reckon one person doing it all will end the inconsistency/lack of clarity

the reality is most of the inconsistency stems from the fact that no two incidents are the same and that people (fans, media, club people) are absolutely terrible at comparing incidents, and then they scream 'inconsistency' at the end of it

 

[romeohwho]

Pleased with these changes. Well done Hocking.

 

[Nobby]

It will overcome inconsistency / lack of clarity.

I like the changes. I am sure Hocking’s frustrations at Geelong as Football Manager with the MRP influenced some of of the changes.

One man panel might overcome inconsistency, I doubt it, but it doesn't really seem like a good idea. At least with 2-3 members you have different interpretations and can get a more suitable finding. WIth one guy, if he gets it wrong, he'll get it wrong all year. And thats without the AFL putting pressure on, if he doesn't agree, it's a lot easier to stand your ground when there is a group of you.

And like someone else mentioned, if he's sick, what happens then? I would have left it at a panel of 3 with minimum 2 required to review a game. Having 1 guy do all 9 games is a large burden.

 

[Seeds]

Pleased with these changes. Well done Hocking.

what? these changes have taken away any semblence of independence from the system. Now if the brownlow favourite or the good guy of the moment is up on a charge the afl can simply say not guilty. They dont even have to provide explanation anymore. How is this a good change?

A relatively small fine for the games highest paid players now also means they can push the rules on niggling far more then ever before as the penalty is basically nothing for them. Not so insignificant for the games younger players. We now effectively have two different penalties for players based on incomes.

 

[romeohwho]

what? these changes have taken away any semblence of independence from the system. Now if the brownlow favourite or the good guy of the moment is up on a charge the afl can simply say not guilty. They dont even have to provide explanation anymore. How is this a good change?

A relatively small fine for the games highest paid players now also means they can push the rules on niggling far more then ever before as the penalty is basically nothing for them. Not so insignificant for the games younger players. We now effectively have two different penalties for players based on incomes.

Shortening the time frame= good. A fine rather than a punitive extra week’s suspension=good. One man panel=good. Intent to be factored in = good.
Be happy.

 

[Seeds]

Shortening the time frame= good. A fine rather than a punitive extra week’s suspension=good. One man panel=good. Intent to be factored in = good.
Be happy.

one man panel is not good. far from good. There is a reason why courts dont have one man panels. And on top of that its only a farce of a panel anyway as the afl now has the final say. Removing independence when punishment is involved is never ever a good thing.

And the fines will be abused by the higher income earning players. Just watch.

 

[romeohwho]

one man panel is not good. far from good. There is a reason why courts dont have one man panels. And on top of that its only a farce of a panel anyway as the afl now has the final say. Removing independence when punishment is involved is never ever a good thing.

And the fines will be abused by the higher income earning players. Just watch.

Pretty sure most court decisions have one person adjudicating-that’s all that is needed if they have a clue. The league is trying to address things that were problematical for mine. Good for them. These strike me as reasonable measures. Let’s see how it goes shall we.

 

[Obeanie1]

One member review system? Not sure about that.

And an ex player at that.

Just wait until he rules out a player from a club traditional rival leading into a key game or final. That will simply lead to unwanted comments and aqusations.

That is a hell of alot of pressure on one person.

The AFL rubber stamping every decision in the background isnt a great look either. Lack of trust in the system they have created or are they just control freaks?

 

[Taylor]

Having one person allows direct accountability, it will let the AFL fire someone for doing their job, so they can both look like the good guys and get the dirty stuff done

 

[Obeanie1]

Confirmation that the AFL was effectively adding a week to suspensions this year to ensure the final penalty was what they wanted after any discount was applied.


Confirmation Cotchin shouldn't have played in the grand final


Don't like this as it basically penalises clubs who are close to their football department spend whereas those clubs far from their cap don't face the same consequences.

Really?

A club can now challenge without risking an additional week penalty. Thats a good outcome.

If a challenge fails the club pays $10k. Also a fair outcome as the tribunal isnt at no cost.

This adds to the the football soft cap. Its not that much and how often does it happen?

 

[Sterge]

Surely becuase it has the chance to rub you out of a final and that is not what we want to see.

They have 100% panicked because of this years finals, the sensible thing would have been to follow the FIFA model and have it reset before finals. Still discourages people from doing it but also makes it almost impossible to get rubbed out for something stupid during finals.

 

[Nobby]

They have 100% panicked because of this years finals, the sensible thing would have been to follow the FIFA model and have it reset before finals. Still discourages people from doing it but also makes it almost impossible to get rubbed out for something stupid during finals.

And that's what's wrong with the AFL, too many decisions appear to be made without proper thought.

Had a good opportunity to make some good changes ..... again, but they've just gone for a quick fix.

 

[_Mike_]

Move from one flawed system to another. #goodworkAFL. Rather than address the real issue (which was the makeup of the MRP panel), they've decided to make it a one man show.

 

[Obeanie1]

Wait til the first really controversial decision of the season when the media pack gathers ...
The AFL will simply throw Christian to the lions.

Bit concerning reading him saying he needed to develop his own guidelines.

Reinventing the wheel again?