MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Waynesworld]

You're clearly attempting to be rational and even handed but it is pretty hard to take it seriously when you're stating AFL & common sense in the same sentence.

Given your earlier analogy to car incidents for example if two drivers were having a drag race and both crashed hurting each other I don't see the authorities letting them both off because they've been injured equally. Part of the penalty in any of these issues - particularly with head high bumps - is surely the deterrent factor of the penalty. You don't achieve that with players getting off if they hurt themselves as well.

But, if you have a car accident, and you are 100% not at fault but kill or injure someone completely by accident, you are unlikely to be charged (this implies the other party are at fault).

However; if you are breaking the law and have a car accident, you are charged no matter what the outcome. But, the outcome of the accident will drive the severity of the charge.

In this instance there has been an outcome (Rohan being concussed) as a result of Durdin playing within the rules, yet he has still been penalised.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

My guess is the MRP would use common sense, something that is clearly lacking in this thread.

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen assuming it is posted as a joke. Otherwise this is the saddest thing I've ever seen.

 

[Waynesworld]

So trying to summarise this weekends events:

Man climbs goal post whilst opponent shoots after siren - please explain
Brownlow medalist raises elbow to opponent's head behind play - no case
Brownlow medalist #2 raises elbow to opponent's head behind play - no case
Young player executes perfect shepherd - 1 week suspension

Have I got it about right?

 

[Waynesworld]

So my 12 yo daughter is a pretty reasonable netballer.

She also wants to have a go at Football.

Being tall but fairly lightly framed she is only interested in kicking and marking - doesn't like the tackling element.

I think I'll tell her to hang off until next season, by then it should be a non-contact sport.

 

[Black2Blue]

There are no grounds for a challenge.

The way the rule has been written ensures that.

It's a loaded deck.

You can't beat that.

Ridiculous and beggars belief, but that is the reality of our "sport".

Yep, I've just gone through all the legal options and can't find a strong defence.
The good bloke clause? Sam who....
Or the protected species clause? Already used up the allocation on GA and NF
Or the big club clause? Lol norf
Or the common sense clause? Last seen in the 1990s

 

[hilly]

Anyone arguing against Durdin must also argue against Rampe.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Your kidding right ?
The Teflon player's

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Remember that old competition in the sun where you had to guess the position of the ball that had been edited out of the picture?

Nobody is winning this one.

I couldn't care less if it sounds like I'm talking out of my tin foil hat. This competition is rigged. How can the league give that the OK?

 

[DrZaius]

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen assuming it is posted as a joke. Otherwise this is the saddest thing I've ever seen.

Sadly ol' Mav has form in this department

 

[Royal Flush]

Remember that old competition in the sun where you had to guess the position of the ball that had been edited out of the picture?

Nobody is winning this one.

I couldn't care less if it sounds like I'm talking out of my tin foil hat. This competition is rigged. How can the league give that the OK?

Gerard Whately is one of the AFLs propoganda mouth pieces.
That's at least one for the tin foilers

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Mav]

Sadly ol' Mav has form in this department

I'm one of the few looking at this with out any emotion. I'm over AFL this year so I can.

Have you ever listened to Christian explain their decisions? Show me where the MRP hasn't used common sense.

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

Does anyone (Mav) honestly believe that a player is going to be suspended for a grand final due to an accidental head clash in a preliminary final?

 

[Tas]

I don't like that you can jump off the ground and intentionally hit someone in the head with a forearm but when your only option is to bump because someone is within 5m and doesn't have possession of the ball then them getting concussed should be considered a suspension. Granted he hit Rohan high accidentally, but was the force excessive? Was the act malicious? What is the probability of a footballer getting concussed in a similar scenario? Seems the difference is if you hit someone who is injury prone and they go down then you pay the price, if you hit someone that can take hits then you are okay? It seems kind of silly.

In that scenario, what does the AFL expect the defender to do and at the speed of the game you can't expect players to execute perfectly all the time.

 

[Tectonic]

I don't like that you can jump off the ground and intentionally hit someone in the head with a forearm but when your only option is to bump because someone is within 5m and doesn't have possession of the ball then them getting concussed should be considered a suspension. Granted he hit Rohan high accidentally, but was the force excessive? Was the act malicious? What is the probability of a footballer getting concussed in a similar scenario? Seems the difference is if you hit someone who is injury prone and they go down then you pay the price, if you hit someone that can take hits then you are okay? It seems kind of silly.

In that scenario, what does the AFL expect the defender to do and at the speed of the game you can't expect players to execute perfectly all the time.

We can definitely all agree the rule and it's application are rooted and should be fixed. Reminds me of the nic nat tackle a couple years back, where the AFL insisted that the tackler must take into account size and weight difference when applying force.

Makes no sense in game scenarios at all.

Durdin is very unlucky. I can almost guarantee that if somebody bumped Jack or Zurhaar in the same situation there would be no issue as they can take hits better.

I'm concerned that Jed will have to change his approach too, but he's a deft mover so hopefully he can work around the rule.


Ablett on the other hand can go and get ducked. It was at least a fine last week, should be at least a fine this week.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Durdin is very unlucky. I can almost guarantee that if somebody bumped Jack or Zurhaar in the same situation there would be no issue as they can take hits better.
.

Could we argue that Rohan is a pussy?

 

[Twinkletoes]

Ablett- Elbows players in head in consecutive weeks. All good.

Fyfe- Elbows player in head. All good.

Ball players apparently.

Chrisso looked into Durds' background and determined he was a thug with a history of such incidents!

https://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-08-26/match-report-round-23-v-brisbane​

"North Melbourne: McKay fell to ground heavily in the third quarter when he clashed heads with teammate Sam Durdin as the pair attempted to spoil a marking contest. McKay was stretchered off and did not return."

 

[muttley45]

This is why Sidney Stacks bump on Viney was a thing of beauty, intended to bump ? yep, medical report confirms damaged shoulder ? yep, strict liability ? er, not in this case, no head contact so nothing to see here.

 

[dogboy]

The AFL is slowly losing the fight to other sports with their constant altering of the rules and mind blowing interpretations of the ones they police. If they are thinking that fans will not jump off the sport they have got another thing coming and other football codes will take a bigger piece of the pie. They had better stitch up that online deal in the US quick smart because if that dilly dally they will have nothing but a shell of the game we all used to love to throw down on the table. Favoritism and unfairness in the chase of administrative bonuses to the AFL fat cats is not the way to run a sport.

 

[The Dingrel]

I'm one of the few looking at this with out any emotion. I'm over AFL this year so I can.

Have you ever listened to Christian explain their decisions? Show me where the MRP hasn't used common sense.

Flabbergasted the hit on Higgins last season wasn't a suspension! Higgins had the ball, a tackle rather than what was essentially a shirt front hit would have been the obvious decision. Have the rules changed that much since last year? I thought last year was tackle the player and if you elect to bump and make head high contact regardless of it was intentional or not, your gone. Sure didn't seem so for Hawthorn. So no common sense or consistent application of the law there. Reckon in a court of law a public prosecutor would have appealed that one.

 

[Mav]

Flabbergasted the hit on Higgins last season wasn't a suspension! Higgins had the ball, a tackle rather than what was essentially a shirt front hit would have been the obvious decision. Have the rules changed that much since last year? I thought last year was tackle the player and if you elect to bump and make head high contact regardless of it was intentional or not, your gone. Sure didn't seem so for Hawthorn. So no common sense or consistent application of the law there. Reckon in a court of law a public prosecutor would have appealed that one.

ok, I'll try and explain it again.

Last year the MRP said that it didn't consider accidental head clashes that occurred when bumping as foreseeable. Christian said at the time of the Burton/Higgo clash that he believed we all didn't want to see such accidents penalised, they used common sense. In the off season the Competition Committee recommended changing the rule. It was accepted and in December the AFL released the updated rule stating accidental head clashes would be now be penalised if they resulted in injury. So yes, the rules have changed.

Now, here's the thing. The Competition Committee is run by, as Snake_Baker calls them, Football People. Our very own supreme leader, Brad Scott sits on the committee! It was football people that have made the decision and the MRP just follows the guidelines set.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Flabbergasted the hit on Higgins last season wasn't a suspension! Higgins had the ball, a tackle rather than what was essentially a shirt front hit would have been the obvious decision. Have the rules changed that much since last year? I thought last year was tackle the player and if you elect to bump and make head high contact regardless of it was intentional or not, your gone. Sure didn't seem so for Hawthorn. So no common sense or consistent application of the law there. Reckon in a court of law a public prosecutor would have appealed that one.

The rule was previously that the player had to reasonably foresee head high contact occurring, which isn't really applicable to a clash of heads. This came into effect because of LT's hit on Reid. Then, because of the Burton incident mainly, they changed it to ANY time you elect to bump, you automatically factor in that you could clash heads and thus are responsible if this happens. Hence why Durdin had to go.

So yes, the rules have changed that much, they just don't take into account situations where a bump is the only reasonable course of action (ie - shepherding).

In short, basically every rule change involves a North player and Mike Christian is unable to assess when a player does and doesn't have an alternate option to bumping, so they've had to dumb it down for him.

 

[Benj7]

I would say amateur hour but it’s been like this as long as I remember.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

Could we argue that Rohan is a pussy?

Pussy says Nah. He's a handbagger.

 

[Dirty_11]

It’s actually a 50 metre penalty, but the dead shits couldn’t even get that right.

Not only did the let the turd off, but they actually stopped the play and made us go back and take the kick from the spot of the incident.

The game is the biggest running joke at the moment. The sport is now secondary, to the entertainment value.

The 'Gil years' will go down as the most farcical in the history of the game. What a useless bunch of imbeciles we have running the game.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

The 'Gil years' will go down as the most farcical in the history of the game. What a useless bunch of imbeciles we have running the game.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Well. Nobody predicted that would happen.

 

[Dirty_11]

I’d also like to see us test the new rule that states a head clash will always be considered a foreseeable consequence of a bump.

Just because the AFL says it was foreseeable doesn’t mean it was actually foreseeable.

Lawyers would have a field day with that one in an actual court of law.

Scrap the MRO, go back to a tribunal which comprises of at least 30 rotating ex-players who adjudicate in groups of 3 and we will start to get outcomes that take into account the fabric of the game.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk