A Glitch in the System: MRP vs Umpiring Frees

Neese

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2008
10,797
15,294
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Norwood
? was in response to OP dribbling this "Kreuzer appeared dazed, but able to carry on with the game"
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
? was in response to OP dribbling this "Kreuzer appeared dazed, but able to carry on with the game"
Oops, I remember Kreuzer sat up so I assumed he carried on with the game. Nevertheless, it's a moot point and not the main gist of this thread.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,095
21,177
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's not a glitch it's an epidemic.

The cause?

Basing suspensions on injur and not actions. Players perform the same action 100 times in a game and get rewarded for it because it's perfectly legal. Comes out later that the player got injured and it's a suspension for the same action that was rewarded 100 times previously.

Players don't know what they can and can't do.

And no the Dangerfield incident wasn't the same. It wasn a legal tackle because the ball was well and truly gone and Dangerfield held on and drove him in to the ground needlessly.
Players know exactly what they can and cant do. They know the risks. They know that if they choose to bump and hit high they are potentially in a lot of trouble. They know that if they sling or pin both arms or raise above horizontal or spear tackle and hurt the player they are potentially in a lot of trouble.

Everything you hear from players and coaches different to this is them trying to reduce the risk of being suspended. They know that pinning both arms and driving head first in to the ground is not a perfect tackle. And if it was actually what the coaches were teaching then the AFL should investigate and fine/suspend the coaches.
 

mick500

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 17, 2012
6,237
4,979
AFL Club
Adelaide
Players know exactly what they can and cant do. They know the risks. They know that if they choose to bump and hit high they are potentially in a lot of trouble. They know that if they sling or pin both arms or raise above horizontal or spear tackle and hurt the player they are potentially in a lot of trouble.

Everything you hear from players and coaches different to this is them trying to reduce the risk of being suspended. They know that pinning both arms and driving head first in to the ground is not a perfect tackle. And if it was actually what the coaches were teaching then the AFL should investigate and fine/suspend the coaches.
Ben brown wasn't driven head first into the ground though. He was taken from behind and placed on his side. Both arms were pinned. Brown was still trying to dispose of the ball on the way down. The tackle was a good tackle imo. The injury was unfortunate.

I can see the difference between this tackle and the Dangerfield tackle, but it makes it a bloody tough job for the mrp. And the players . It's a very fine line when it's all happening so fast and you are trying to stop someone from doing something they are trying to do, ie: dispose of the football.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
Another thing that I feel is undermentioned but is quite crucial for the sake of an argument. When a player who is tackled and becomes concussed, there is a percentage of contribution from both the tackler and the tackled player. All the argument so far is the player who is pinning the arms and resulting in another player to be concussed, is all too blame. However, the tackled player is not just standing there doing nothing, but doing his best to resist/wriggle and often doing added motions that leads to extra inertia/momentum. So a heavy landing of a concussed tackled player, may actually be in part due to the resistance made by this tackled player.
Here's a simple formula:
Force of impact to head = [force/hardness of ground] + [force of tackler applied] + [force of resistance by the tackled player]
 

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Jul 12, 2004
48,452
5,949
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
There is a problem if Grundy gets suspended. The umpire made the only decision he could under the laws of the game, there is no possible free kick that could go against him, it was classic htb.

Dangerfield was a poor decision by the umpire, but you can't penalise the protected species
 

Adelaide Hawk

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2002
47,402
37,340
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
I think maybe if the umpires were quicker with the whistle and start paying frees for dropping the ball, it may cut down on overly-aggressive tackles. What's happening now is a player tackles an opponent, and the umpire stands there watching and barking out instructions to the player to get the ball out, etc. (Jeez I wish umpires would just umpire the game and stop trying to tell players what to do).

The player wants his tackle rewarded, doesn't hear a whistle, so he extends the tackle to riding his opponent into the ground, causing heads to hit the turf. I honestly feel if the whistle went straight away, there'd be little need for riding the opponent into the ground. The moment player is tackled and the ball spills out, pay a free. Now I know some people will scream about too many frees, but you can't have it both ways.

The way the game is currently umpired, it gives rise to rugby style scrums and increases the possibility of serious injury. Player has ball, gets tackled, drops ball ..... free kick. Pretty simple really.
 

FRUMPY

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 18, 2006
12,607
12,331
AFL Club
Carlton
The game of AFL has come a long way since the increased efforts of player welfare, protection of the head, in-depth analysis regarding concussion etc. On the flip side, the game of AFL remains one of the most brutal team sports known to mankind, and therefore accidents and serious injuries are likely to occur in any given year.
It has to come to the point now where I have observed an ever-increasing flaw in our attempts to reach a perfect "safety" zone installed in an AFL game. By that, I mean in recent weeks the MRP (Match Review Panel) has come into significant question on their calling regarding player penalties for accidental/wreckless injuries caused upon another player. Rightly or wrongly, there is an increasing amount of MRP calls which is going against the calling of the umpires in-game. That is, there is a glitch in the system!
Here are a few examples which highlight the divergent calls between umpires and MRP:
1. Round 7 St Kilda vs GWS - Koby Stevens sling-tackled Nathan Wilson, dropping the ball and landed heavily on his head. Stevens received a free kick by the umpire, but later got 1 week suspension for a wreckless tackle.
2. Round 19 Geelong vs Carlton - Dangerfield sling-tackled Matthew Kreuzer in a similar fashion to the Stevens tackle, resulted in a no-call by the umpires (ie. 'play-on'). Kreuzer appeared dazed, but able to carry on with the game. Later during the week, the MRP gave Dangerfield 1 week off for a wreckless tackle.
3. Game last night Collingwood vs Kangaroos - Grundy tackled Brown from behind; Brown landed head-first to the ground and was significantly concussed, whilst 'illegally disposing of the ball', and was called a free kick to Grundy. More than likely Grundy is likely to face some MRP calls later next week.

The AFL are starting to create a game whereby in-game, umpires are awarding free kick to players, and then a few days later, the MRP goes a full reversal and penalises said player who originally has a free-kick paid for! Anyone noticing these "glitches"? More importantly, what should be done about this paradoxical situation?
3 weeks in a row a player has been suspended against carlton and no free kicks. Zorko, Dangerfield and Merrett. A free kick would be nice haha. The Zorko one I still cant believe, umpire was right there looking at it.
 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
Nothing weird about it.
Umpires dont have a perfect view, dont have multiple angles and have to judge it in real time, he probably didn't even realize Brown was concussed when he gave the free. And if there is no concussion then there is no suspension either.

MRP has all the views, all the time to judge it from every angle and look for different things that the umpires do.
 

Power04Surge

Team Captain
Sep 23, 2014
449
558
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Absolutely bullshit.

The tackler is trying to win HTB, or force the ball from the carrier.

As long as they dont get the player over the shoulder, if the ball carrier tries to stand up in the tackle and dish off to his mates, you drive that mofo in to the ground with absolute malice.

If they get hurt that's bad luck.

Stop talking about netball, and the responsibility of the tackler. If you're worried about your arms being pinned because you're a slow shit truck, then dish it off before you get tackled, and if you're tackled without the ball that's a free.

Netball campaigners like Barrett who's never even played footy shit me

EDIT: to be relevant to this thread - mpire made a call, no doubt he MRP will make a poo decision.
Totally agree. I was always taught that the best tackle is one that pins the arms and drives the player into the ground. Even better was if they spent the rest of the game off the field injured. Perfect tackle for the tough game we grew up loving. But it's not just an AFL issue, Australia in general has grown to become over sensitive pansies who are always looking for someone to blame. Accidents happen, don't like it, don't play.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bumsonseats

Premiership Player
Oct 8, 2009
3,933
4,757
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There is a problem if Grundy gets suspended. The umpire made the only decision he could under the laws of the game, there is no possible free kick that could go against him, it was classic htb.

Dangerfield was a poor decision by the umpire, but you can't penalise the protected species
if you truely believe that then you should give up watching football.
You still have to effect the tackle correctly. If a player gets run down from behind but the tackler gets in his back, then in the back should get paid....not htb.
No different here....the tackle was not executed correctly.....refer to the dangerous tackle laws.
The umpire made an incorrect decision (shock horro) and you need to get your head around that.
 

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Jul 12, 2004
48,452
5,949
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
if you truely believe that then you should give up watching football.
You still have to effect the tackle correctly. If a player gets run down from behind but the tackler gets in his back, then in the back should get paid....not htb.
No different here....the tackle was not executed correctly.....refer to the dangerous tackle laws.
The umpire made an incorrect decision (shock horro) and you need to get your head around that.
Tackled him around the waist, put him on his side, Brown dropped the ball, htb every day of the week, not a dangerous tackle. Otherwise there were at least 3 or 4 in the same game that should have been dangerous tackles under your ridiculous interpretation.

If we continue on the path some think we will be f’ed. No one will want to tackle and no one will want to win the ball because others want htb to br paid as soon as a player is touched...
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
5,882
4,440
AFL Club
Geelong
Nothing weird about it.
Umpires dont have a perfect view, dont have multiple angles and have to judge it in real time, he probably didn't even realize Brown was concussed when he gave the free. And if there is no concussion then there is no suspension either.

MRP has all the views, all the time to judge it from every angle and look for different things that the umpires do.
There is plenty wrong with incidents that can be considered frees and reports. It's an absolute ludicrous position to be in.
The umpire had been living under a rock after the Dangerfield incident.
Surely he could've fixed his incorrect call knowing the tackle would be deemed a suspension.

The game is a mess.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
I just want to put another spin on the point of this thread. The point is based around 2 separate issues regarding the rules for Umpires and MRP:
1. Umpires - they are to call in the "spirit of the game", and understand that dangerous tackles should be penalised, but in the heat of the moment and allowing for "accidents", umpires have the right to call holding the ball, despite there be concussions being a by-product of a bump/tackle.
2. MRP - they are to focus on "dangerous/wreckless acts", and the end results of these acts. So unfortunately, what we're seeing more of is the medical reports from head injuries (dizziness, headache, concussion, faint or coma) being the main factor in formulating the penalties for the accused.
So what is happening is that there is a growing clash between "spirit of the game" (unintentional acts are accepted) vs "medical reports from dangerous acts" (unintentional acts are being penalised). This is causing a mismatch between the Umpire calls versus MRP calls. That is why I termed this "a glitch in the system". The AFL controls both the umpiring and MRP rules, and needs to seriously consider how they can help reduce such "glitches".
 

PieNSauce

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 22, 2007
8,246
5,397
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
are jealous!
I just want to put another spin on the point of this thread. The point is based around 2 separate issues regarding the rules for Umpires and MRP:
1. Umpires - they are to call in the "spirit of the game", and understand that dangerous tackles should be penalised, but in the heat of the moment and allowing for "accidents", umpires have the right to call holding the ball, despite there be concussions being a by-product of a bump/tackle.
2. MRP - they are to focus on "dangerous/wreckless acts", and the end results of these acts. So unfortunately, what we're seeing more of is the medical reports from head injuries (dizziness, headache, concussion, faint or coma) being the main factor in formulating the penalties for the accused.
So what is happening is that there is a growing clash between "spirit of the game" (unintentional acts are accepted) vs "medical reports from dangerous acts" (unintentional acts are being penalised). This is causing a mismatch between the Umpire calls versus MRP calls. That is why I termed this "a glitch in the system". The AFL controls both the umpiring and MRP rules, and needs to seriously consider how they can help reduce such "glitches".
Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them. Instead, they choose to put the onus on players by allowing them to do things which they consider dangerous but punishing them when they result in an injury. Now you just can't help wondering what the hell Gillon gets paid the big bucks for?
 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
There is plenty wrong with incidents that can be considered frees and reports. It's an absolute ludicrous position to be in.
The umpire had been living under a rock after the Dangerfield incident.
Surely he could've fixed his incorrect call knowing the tackle would be deemed a suspension.

The game is a mess.
No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.
 

Whiskers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2006
5,882
4,440
AFL Club
Geelong
No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.
You're kidding.
Interpretation can be blurred but free kicks/suspensions are world's apart.
 

Agent93

#RebelforLife
Sep 10, 2010
16,597
20,098
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Toronto Maple Leafs
Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them
Let me start by stating it is the MRP's remit to penalise players for conduct that endangers other players' health. The AFL's umpiring interpretations and MRP guidelines makes this bloody hard to be consistant. So let's analyse a possible cause:

The goal of the tackle is to remove possession of the ball from the opposition which can be achieved in two ways; knocking the ball free, or forcing the opponent to not dispose of the ball correctly. The latter is most of consequence here because most tacklers realise when the ball is free. Players a currently well coach to finish the tackle which locks the ball in and forces the HTB/incorrect disposal decision from the umpire, or a ball up.

Finishing the tackle is generally what creates the risk for the tackled player as this motion seeks to bring the player to ground by upsetting their balance. In the Grundy/Brown gif above you can see there is the secondary finishing motion which slings the player as has tackled from behind and knows he will be penalised if he takes Brown forwards and lands on him*. The requirement of the tacklers to perform the secondary motion is entirely due to how the game is umpired - AFL umpires are instructed to wait rather than immediately penalising the player for not disposing, or calling for a ball up due to the player having no opportunity to dispose.

If the AFL is serious about preventing head injury in tackles it needs to instruct umpires to adjudicate correct disposal more radpidly, and/or allow tacklers from behind to land on top of the opponent in the tackling motion.

TLDR; the umpire's adjudication of incorrect disposal is the key contributor to cuncussions in tackles.

*I'm not sure whether the 'in the back' rule has been reworded in the last 30 years but the interpretation has evolved from encompassing deliberate pushes from behind to including falling on a player, and holding ground with your hands on an opponent, but excluding the Cyril 'push in the butt' tackle.
 

TiggerMan22

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2012
11,651
20,214
AFL Club
Richmond
You're kidding.
Interpretation can be blurred but free kicks/suspensions are world's apart.
Because the veiw of each is world's apart.

Which part of this don't you get?
Here's a question, did he umpire call the free before he knew Brown was knocked out? I'm guessing no.
Could he tell if Grundy slung him? Probably not.
Could he even see Brown head hit the ground? Probably not.
 

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
6,345
4,364
AFL Club
Adelaide
No there's not. Umpires make wrong calls all the time, you can't expect them to see the same the MRP see from a single angle, ground veiw, looking between players and in real time.
Umpire decisions in this thread discussion, are making the "wrong call" according to hindsight and MRP rules. However, they're making decent calls according to "the spirit of our game", from 100+ years of AFL/VFL existence.
Now let me make it clear, the spirit of the game is not about causing people to end up in hospital with 3 day comas, but it's about playing tough and acknowledging that injuries and accidents can occur. All AFL players know this.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
5,162
3,896
AFL Club
Collingwood
I watched half of the lives games on the weekend and saw 15 tackles very similar to Grundy's.

The result of those tackles - some were paid a free kick for holding the ball, others were paid a free against for a dangerous tackle, whilst others were called play on. Interestingly, there were no other suspensions because there were no other concussions.

Is this inconsistency not a problem? I reckon it is...
 

bumsonseats

Premiership Player
Oct 8, 2009
3,933
4,757
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I just want to put another spin on the point of this thread. The point is based around 2 separate issues regarding the rules for Umpires and MRP:
1. Umpires - they are to call in the "spirit of the game", and understand that dangerous tackles should be penalised, but in the heat of the moment and allowing for "accidents", umpires have the right to call holding the ball, despite there be concussions being a by-product of a bump/tackle.
2. MRP - they are to focus on "dangerous/wreckless acts", and the end results of these acts. So unfortunately, what we're seeing more of is the medical reports from head injuries (dizziness, headache, concussion, faint or coma) being the main factor in formulating the penalties for the accused.
So what is happening is that there is a growing clash between "spirit of the game" (unintentional acts are accepted) vs "medical reports from dangerous acts" (unintentional acts are being penalised). This is causing a mismatch between the Umpire calls versus MRP calls. That is why I termed this "a glitch in the system". The AFL controls both the umpiring and MRP rules, and needs to seriously consider how they can help reduce such "glitches".
You seriously have no clue.
The umpires are there to umpire in accordance with the laws of the game.....
You obviously havent been watching to much football lately. How many times have you seen free kicks awarded for a Dangerous tackle this season.
I can recall at least 3 or 4 - most of them for slings. And the head of the player being tackled did not necessarily hit the ground.
The umpire had every right to pay a dangerous tackle against Grundy as per the laws of the game, but saw it differently.
In the same game, Adam Trelor was awarded a free kick for a dangerous tackle against Jack Ziebell - arms pinned and brought (perhaps even slung) to ground - hit hit the ground but force was not as significant.
The dangerous tackle law is pretty straight forward - I know you might not like it and that is your right - but that is the law as it is adjudicated.
The umps have the same ability as the MRP to adjudicate on a dangerous tackle. Its the MRPs role to determine if further action needs to be taken.
As I have stated previously, if you pin the arms and bring the player to ground (vulnerable position), you bear responsibility for the consequence if the player is injured. The vulnerable position is the pre-cursor.

Put another way, the AFL is too gutless to make rule changes that would have the effect they are seeking because they know the public would never accept them. Instead, they choose to put the onus on players by allowing them to do things which they consider dangerous but punishing them when they result in an injury. Now you just can't help wondering what the hell Gillon gets paid the big bucks for?
No......the dangerous tackle law has been there for at least the last 2 or 3 years.
Think Bryce Gibbs tackle on Robbie Grey. That is how the MRP pinned Gibbs.
There is definitely an increased focus on umpires calling dangerous tackles now, which perhaps was not there even last year.
But the dangerous tackle law has been there during that period.
 

Top Bottom