MRP / Trib. Glass Gets 2 weeks - challenges

[Dark Sharks]

What the eff is up with all of these icons? Why wasn't I told about this? What is going on? Who am I?

I don't like change

 

[arfadunger]

Finally a small win for us, hopefully it's the start of things turning around.

Why the hell did he get suspended in the first place though? My understanding was that the MRP look at a couple of things before they make a decision. The video footage and the medical report from the opposing club. There was nothing in the video that was conclusive that Glass got Stewart high, and there was nothing in Stewart's medical report to suggest that he'd been hurt by it????????????

 

[pantskyle]

 

[W.C. Fry]

How did I know it would be Troll Parnell who testified against us.

The grin he gives when he calls a contentious 50m penalty, makes me suspicious of his motives in being an AFL umpire.

The likeness is amazing.

 

[Spooky17]

I can see the headline "Glass shatters MRP"

Obviously stoked he got off but didn't really expect it.

Glass shows them the error in the ways

 

[Spooky17]

How did I know it would be Troll Parnell who testified against us.

The grin he gives when he calls a contentious 50m penalty, makes me suspicious of his motives in being an AFL umpire.

Just look at that face, can't trust it

 

[Agent93]

I'm still amazed that got through the MRP, and then they made the cheesy video defending the result. It's just like every goal review which is not conclusive, there was no footage to show Glass hit him high. There's one thing that gets me though:

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Port Adelaide Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

Didn't the medical report from Port used in the tribunal say that Stewart didn't require treatment? So what is the MRP up to? How does the same medical report that is used to charge Glass in the first place show up as eveidence to get him off?

 

[the harry]

I'm still amazed that got through the MRP, and then they made the cheesy video defending the result. It's just like every goal review which is not conclusive, there was no footage to show Glass hit him high. There's one thing that gets me though:



Didn't the medical report from Port used in the tribunal say that Stewart didn't require treatment? So what is the MRP up to? How does the same medical report that is used to charge Glass in the first place show up as eveidence to get him off?

Med report may have been a reason it was low impact rather than something more serious?

 

[larrikin]

Med report may have been a reason it was low impact rather than something more serious?

Yep, spot on

 

[Oneiros]

That's what I figure as well. Probably used for determining impact. But why they didn't make the extrapolation that head-high contact most likely did not occur like the Tribunal did...

Surely the MRP panel needs to get rapped on the knuckles by the tribunal when they get things egregiously wrong like this. Something to make them a little more gunshy.

 

[Agent93]

Med report may have been a reason it was low impact rather than something more serious?

Yeah I suppose that could be it.

So we'd be confident in saying Glass got off because he didn't hit him high. He'd have still got a week if the charge was downgraded from reckless to negligent. How then does the MRP get off with charging a player with 'inconclusive' evidence. Fair enough Pannel reported Glass on what he thought he saw, be he doesn't have the luxury of going through the incident multiple times from multiple angles.

Slight off topic: I agree with whomever called for the removal of on-field reports. I think the MRP can easily cover the incidents which get reported these days. What I'd like to see is on-field punitive measures other than a free kick / 50m penalty, which should take away the need for silly suspensions.

Say Fyfe gets a yellow card for 10 minutes worth of sin bin time a la hockey for the kick, it stops Gold Coast and Collingwood getting the benefit of a small incident that occurred against Richmond. Same with Hall punching Staker, although he still should have been suspended, West Coast were basically penalised for his thuggery by the loss of Staker for the game. In that incident the umpires should have had the powers to send Hall off for the remainder of the game and force Sydney to play a man down.

 

[the harry]

Glass would have been sent off then? That's bad.

 

[Spooky17]

Yeah I suppose that could be it.

So we'd be confident in saying Glass got off because he didn't hit him high. He'd have still got a week if the charge was downgraded from reckless to negligent. How then does the MRP get off with charging a player with 'inconclusive' evidence. Fair enough Pannel reported Glass on what he thought he saw, be he doesn't have the luxury of going through the incident multiple times from multiple angles.

Slight off topic: I agree with whomever called for the removal of on-field reports. I think the MRP can easily cover the incidents which get reported these days. What I'd like to see is on-field punitive measures other than a free kick / 50m penalty, which should take away the need for silly suspensions.

Say Fyfe gets a yellow card for 10 minutes worth of sin bin time a la hockey for the kick, it stops Gold Coast and Collingwood getting the benefit of a small incident that occurred against Richmond. Same with Hall punching Staker, although he still should have been suspended, West Coast were basically penalised for his thuggery by the loss of Staker for the game. In that incident the umpires should have had the powers to send Hall off for the remainder of the game and force Sydney to play a man down.

This

 

[Agent93]

Glass would have been sent off then? That's bad.

Agreed, but in the opinion of the field umpire at the time Glass had done something that deserved more of a penalty than a free kick. Why should teams in the fixtures following reap the benefit for an incident that occurred against port?

Yes, I agree umpires make incorrect decisions. But I also firmly believe that the current system of supplemental punishment is out of whack. The onus would be further placed on the 3 field umpires to be correct rather than letting someone else deal with it. The likely benefit is it'll stop players doing dubious things that are a blight on the game such as hits behind play, staging (see also: Hobbit, Ballantyne, Baker, Thomas, Hams).

 

[ziad]

Agreed, but in the opinion of the field umpire at the time Glass had done something that deserved more of a penalty than a free kick. Why should teams in the fixtures following reap the benefit for an incident that occurred against port?

Yes, I agree umpires make incorrect decisions. But I also firmly believe that the current system of supplemental punishment is out of whack. The onus would be further placed on the 3 field umpires to be correct rather than letting someone else deal with it. The likely benefit is it'll stop players doing dubious things that are a blight on the game such as hits behind play, staging (see also: Hobbit, Ballantyne, Baker, Thomas, Hams).

and in giving evidence the umpire said he was behind and could not see - he guessed.

pathetic and unprofessional.

 

[Makka]

If they didn't have the evidence to start with he should never have been charged. It really is pathetic the way the system works.

 

[Impunity!]

If they didn't have the evidence to start with he should never have been charged. It really is pathetic the way the system works.

It is worth watching Mark Fraser explaining why the charge was laid, then reading the jury's conclusions. Certainly doesn't leave you with a huge amount of confidence in the MRP.

 

[Spooky17]

It is worth watching Mark Fraser explaining why the charge was laid, then reading the jury's conclusions. Certainly doesn't leave you with a huge amount of confidence in the MRP.

Link please?

 

[Impunity!]

Link please?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-30/fyfe-tribunal-challenge-fails

See the video inset - "The Verdict".

 

[Agent93]

Youtubes:

 

[Spooky17]

Cheers guys!

 

[Evelyn208]

That verdict video was before the hearing I assume.. where is he "reading the jury's conclusions"?

 

[the harry]

Agreed, but in the opinion of the field umpire at the time Glass had done something that deserved more of a penalty than a free kick. Why should teams in the fixtures following reap the benefit for an incident that occurred against port?

Yes, I agree umpires make incorrect decisions. But I also firmly believe that the current system of supplemental punishment is out of whack. The onus would be further placed on the 3 field umpires to be correct rather than letting someone else deal with it. The likely benefit is it'll stop players doing dubious things that are a blight on the game such as hits behind play, staging (see also: Hobbit, Ballantyne, Baker, Thomas, Hams).

Because innocent people shouldn't be punished?

Also, the suspension isn't supposed to remedy the situation and bring relief to the "victim", it's supposed to punish the offender.

 

[Impunity!]

That verdict video was before the hearing I assume.. where is he "reading the jury's conclusions"?

I'm sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was, watch the video, where Fraser seems pretty certain there was head high contact, and then read (in the paper, or online) the jury's conclusion (after having heard evidence from the umpire (who thought Glass bumped Stewart's chin), Glass (who said he didn't bump at all, to the chin or otherwise), and watching the footage) that no head high bump occurred.

 

[Stereophonic]

Knew this would be thrown out as soon as it happened.

This occured about 3 minutes before I broke my remote.