MRP / Trib. Crime and punishment - should players get sent off? Was May's suspension adequate?

[James North]

In-game, the offending player should have to go off for the length of time that the victim of the foul is off the field. That should even the rotations up on the day.

In terms of post-game penalties, what sucks is what happens to someone like Cameron/Mathieson. Cameron gets 4 weeks, Mathieson gets 6!

 

[adey115]

I was "ok" with May getting 5 weeks, mainly because I feared they were only going to give him 2-3. My preference was 6+ based on the circumstances of running past the ball, choosing to bump, choosing to jump, direct head contact, and it being 2016 and us having the knowledge that significant head contact is damaging in the long term - we now have evidence as recent as Justin Clarke, and as long term as Diesel Williams and Dean Kemp.

With the 'modernisation' of our thinking in relation to the head and the game (based on 'the head is sacrosanct' mantra, which I entirely agree with), I think a video based red card system is a highly realistic option for those 'obvious cases' requiring review.

Those obvious cases are actually few and far between. We're talking about May Vs Martin. We're talking about Hall Vs Staker. We're talking about Milburn Vs Silvagni. We're not talking about careless bumps that go wrong.

The obvious cases usually involve an immediate game stoppage. Umpires also have the power to call for an immediate game stoppage. We wouldn't ask them to make the Red Card decision - but we would ask them to call for the review, that's all. Then do leave it to the guy upstairs to review all available footage.

I actually don't think it is that complicated. We'll hear white noise from the moronic neanderthals stuck in the past. But the actual discussion isn't an overly complicated one. If we're protecting the head, we should be thinking of ways to reduce the chance of the May style hit happening. IF the threat of a send off is real, then the deterrence is real. And if we can minimise the 'error' of the wrong red card via the video (which I firmly believe we can), then it's an entirely sensible road to take.

As well as giving the bar-steward 8 weeks.... thug.

 

[notliondown]

My concern with the red card system (which I agree with in principle) is - does the immediate penalty affect the MRP's thinking?

What I'm trying to say is, the red card can have dramatically different affects on the out come of a game.

For example - if Merrett or Martin is red carded 2 minutes into the first quarter, we as a team effectively go a critical man down for the entire game - almost certainly costing us the game given reduced rotations.

If the same penalty is handed out with 5 minutes left of the final quarter the effect would be far less dramatic. And, if the man we lost was say... Mayes... would the affect be comparable?

Effectively the red card system can become a team penalty for an individual act - which is not necessarily a bad thing... but is it a fair thing?

I can see the argument then ensuing at the MRP that already the team had suffered, that by taking him off 2 minutes in he'd already served 1 match, that a potential loss should be worth more than a game the team goes on to win... and so it goes.

The next question is, should the team who was red carded only have 17 players on the field like the NRL sin bin? Because again the timing of the penalty becomes critical.

I like the idea of an immediate penalty... and I guess like all rules it would have to try and balance the pros and cons.

Could the penalty be a points advantage? Mays hit was worth say 4 goals awarded to the Lions instead as the immediate penalty?

 

[adey115]

Simple. Remove the man from the rest of the game. Still allowed 18 players on the field, but down 3 on the bench.
That is essentially what happened to the Lions on the weekend. So the red card is the equivalent of an injury where a player can no longer take the field, rather than being one man short on the field as such.