MRP / Trib. Glass Gets 2 weeks - challenges

[Matera92]

I find it staggering that it ever made it to the MRP. Was soft as butter, no real high contact and Glass was basically penalized for bracing for contact. Can not believe the MRP are paid to do the pathetic job that they do.

 

[Agent93]

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.

I agree that this is what the AFL system currently does, but often the incident itself results in the victim's team being disadvantaged. I don't agree that it is the best or even fairest system since many times the incident results in the victim's team being disadvantaged due to the victim being unable to return the field for a period of time.

As far as not punishing the innocent, the grey areas in AFL rules allow umpires to constantly ping players for strange things that may or may not be there; the deliberate out of bounds rule being an example.

In other sports the in-game penalty system is used for deliberate breaches of the rules (think bad hits, not along the lines of out of bounds), engaging in dangerous play (rough conduct and play likely to injure) and unsportsmanlike conduct.

The the AFL the lack of a meaningful penalty in-game means that players can constantly stage for free kicks, kick the opposition players, stand on their hands, engage in melees, among others which are things we'd not like to see in the game.

If the ball is in the attacking 50 they can tackle high constantly, right up to deliberately punching a player out with the worst penalty in the current game being the ball will travel to the centre of the ground, and as we've seen the benefit can be completely removing the victim from the game. Imagine if in the '04 grand final Lynch had decided to break one of Pickett's ribs, instead of Wakelin who at one stage left the field under the blood rule?

I'm surprised coaches and list managers haven't decided to recruit a couple of thugs, and let them rub out the opposition's most dangerous player each week and just cop the 3 match ban. Yarran's getting away from Selwood? Send out the thug to eliminate him from the game. All it has to do is look negligent (see also: Goodes vs Caddy).

 

[Impunity!]

If Fyfe had been reported for kicking in the WAFL, it would have been an automatic red card!

 

[the harry]

I agree that this is what the AFL system currently does, but often the incident itself results in the victim's team being disadvantaged. I don't agree that it is the best or even fairest system since many times the incident results in the victim's team being disadvantaged due to the victim being unable to return the field for a period of time.

As far as not punishing the innocent, the grey areas in AFL rules allow umpires to constantly ping players for strange things that may or may not be there; the deliberate out of bounds rule being an example.

In other sports the in-game penalty system is used for deliberate breaches of the rules (think bad hits, not along the lines of out of bounds), engaging in dangerous play (rough conduct and play likely to injure) and unsportsmanlike conduct.

The the AFL the lack of a meaningful penalty in-game means that players can constantly stage for free kicks, kick the opposition players, stand on their hands, engage in melees, among others which are things we'd not like to see in the game.

If the ball is in the attacking 50 they can tackle high constantly, right up to deliberately punching a player out with the worst penalty in the current game being the ball will travel to the centre of the ground, and as we've seen the benefit can be completely removing the victim from the game. Imagine if in the '04 grand final Lynch had decided to break one of Pickett's ribs, instead of Wakelin who at one stage left the field under the blood rule?

I'm surprised coaches and list managers haven't decided to recruit a couple of thugs, and let them rub out the opposition's most dangerous player each week and just cop the 3 match ban. Yarran's getting away from Selwood? Send out the thug to eliminate him from the game. All it has to do is look negligent (see also: Goodes vs Caddy).

Yeah, that time that one player went into the crowd and picked up a ladder and then proceeded to beat his man til he stopped moving was pretty bad hey. Oh wait, that was in the WWE, I'm sorry.

But really:
pinging players for deliberate is a long way from sending a player off the ground
other sports, generally speaking, suck and are never as good as footy
Lynch couldn't do jack in 04 because he was on one leg and I'm pretty sure Pickett could handle himself (and that Port would have won even if 6 of their players were dead)
Recruit thugs hey? That'll work because the AFL don't really punish players for having a poor record do they and you'd be able to have say a dozen on a list of 38 players who are willing to do nothing except go out and snipe. Plus it's not like anyone would just line them up either really.
I do however like how you mentioned staging for free kicks with kicking people and standing on them.

 

[Quinz]

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

But you get your choice of topping. That's good!

 

[Impunity!]

But you get your choice of topping. That's good!

The topping contains sodium benzoate

 

[Impunity!]

(that's bad)

 

[Ochre]

Oh, here's the problem, someone switched Troy Pannell from good to evil

 

[Matera92]

The topping contains sodium benzoate

That's bad. (didn't want to leave you hanging)

 

[Makka]

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.

Haha...just watched it! Really? You could clearly see in the video there was no head contact, which is what the commentators even said on the night with the replays! He just made himself look like a tool. I can understand the umpire thinking there was contact because it would of happened so quick but it was obvious in my opinion that he threw his head back to avoid the contact but there was no connection. Glad he was cleared!

 

[Agent93]

Yeah, that time that one player went into the crowd and picked up a ladder and then proceeded to beat his man til he stopped moving was pretty bad hey. Oh wait, that was in the WWE, I'm sorry.

Or that time the full forward got angry and KO'd the defender.

But really:
pinging players for deliberate is a long way from sending a player off the ground

Exactly, which is why you wouldn't send a player off for it. A deliberate bad tackle however... like the sling tackles, coathangers etc that AFL tries to outlaw. There's been several incidents of players being injured by these.

Recruit thugs hey? That'll work because the AFL don't really punish players for having a poor record do they and you'd be able to have say a dozen on a list of 38 players who are willing to do nothing except go out and snipe. Plus it's not like anyone would just line them up either really.

GWS were willing to waste a squad spot on Folau, and Byron Pickett and Campbell Brown basically turned into one of these... I reckon you could do it with 4, including 1 on the rookie list.

Let's say we have a hypothetical player with the size of Josh Hunt and the disposition of Ballantyne playing in the forward pocket whose game was to make the defenders earn every touch, even before any attacking moves. Josh Ballantyne 'accidentally' pops the resting mid in the head, or mashes his head to the ground in a tackle and Trent Shuey is off for the remainder of the game.

I do however like how you mentioned staging for free kicks with kicking people and standing on them.

I'm not sure how to take this one, are you agreeing that those things suck and shouldn't be in the game? I personally don't like seeing that, nor the antics that come from agitators like Ballantyne.

 

[Agent93]

Ugh.. I feel like Dargie.

 

[the harry]

Or that time the full forward got angry and KO'd the defender.
One of the benefits of a sub rule
I just don't think it happens enough to warrant putting the game at risk of having a game decided by umpires discretion.

Exactly, which is why you wouldn't send a player off for it. A deliberate bad tackle however... like the sling tackles, coathangers etc that AFL tries to outlaw. There's been several incidents of players being injured by these.
More grey areas for the umpires to try and interpret? I can't see how that will improve the game at all. Lets face it, they're struggling with the below the knees and hands in back rule enough.

GWS were willing to waste a squad spot on Folau, and Byron Pickett and Campbell Brown basically turned into one of these... I reckon you could do it with 4, including 1 on the rookie list.
C'mon, why do you think they picked Folau? That was a successful move by GWS. How many games has Brown missed becuase of the MRP in the last two years? It's just not viable. Neither is playing with an actual playing list of 34 players. If you've constantly got a couple of players suspended it would make it extremely hard to be successful.
Let's say we have a hypothetical player with the size of Josh Hunt and the disposition of Ballantyne playing in the forward pocket whose game was to make the defenders earn every touch, even before any attacking moves. Josh Ballantyne 'accidentally' pops the resting mid in the head, or mashes his head to the ground in a tackle and Trent Shuey is off for the remainder of the game.


I'm not sure how to take this one, are you agreeing that those things suck and shouldn't be in the game? I personally don't like seeing that, nor the antics that come from agitators like Ballantyne.
I think it's silly to mention staging in the same breath as deliberately hittting someone.

 

[swannies]

Haha...just watched it! Really? You could clearly see in the video there was no head contact, which is what the commentators even said on the night with the replays! He just made himself look like a tool. I can understand the umpire thinking there was contact because it would of happened so quick but it was obvious in my opinion that he threw his head back to avoid the contact but there was no connection. Glad he was cleared!

The most enjoyment I've had today, watching a tool at work. Crikey, this game is being run, administered by soft *****, is it not? I don't mean allowing thuggish behaviour either, but bumps are part and parcel of the game. If it's a bit late it's a free kick down the ground, simple, not a 3 week suspension.

 

[Impunity!]

The most enjoyment I've had today, watching a tool at work. Crikey, this game is being run, administered by soft *****, is it not? I don't mean allowing thuggish behaviour either, but bumps are part and parcel of the game. If it's a bit late it's a free kick down the ground, simple, not a 3 week suspension.

Lucky the jury saw sense. For what it's worth, on the night, the chairman of the tribunal said he agreed with the jury's decision, too.

 

[lewigie]

So why did they give him 3 weeks in the first place?? Did they even watch the video replays or just go by the umpire's report and slap Glass with 3 weeks?

Surely the MRP aren't so busy that they can't put considerable time and thought into each case.

 

[ChampRevesby]

Surely the MRP aren't so busy incompetent that they can't put considerable time and thought into each case.

Fixed for you
And the answer is yes they are.

 

[Agent93]

So why did they give him 3 weeks in the first place?? Did they even watch the video replays or just go by the umpire's report and slap Glass with 3 weeks?

Surely the MRP aren't so busy that they can't put considerable time and thought into each case.

MRP points system - they judge the intent, impact, and location of contact according to preset grades, and using those grades marry it up to a points system.

Glass got ~250 points (cbf looking it up) and had ~82 carry over points from his last incident. 300 - 399 points = 3 weeks. Players get a 25% discount for the current charge for pleading guilty and not going to the tribunal, which in Glass' case would have brought his total points to between 200-299, thus 2 weeks.

The points system is supposed to bring parity into suspension lengths, unlike the old days where you'd wonder why one bloke got 4 weeks and another got two for what looked like similar incidents. It's about the only transparent, non-grey area thing in the AFL. Sadly it's still subjective to the judgement of the umpires, the MRP and the Tribunal. But with 3 levels of judgement you'd hope they get it right in the end.

Which they did in Glass' case. The umpire was unsighted and the MRP got it wrong, and the tribunal over-ruled based on all presented evidence. It's a good result in the end, and hopefully the MRP get some teaching points out of it.

As a side point, I'm not sure how many people make up the MRP, but I imagine there's multiple eyes that have to review some 25 hours of footage each week. That's a tough thing to get done by Tuesday.

 

[Forward Press]

I might be one of the few that actually prefers the MRP and the points allocations.

I like the transparency (as Agent93 alluded to) and the certainty in working out punishments. They got it wrong in this one but that's why you can appeal it to the tribunal. The great thing about that is since you know the intent, impact and location worked out by the MRP when they assess incidents, you can attack one or more of those elements at the tribunal to reduce or overturn the suspension.

 

[Agent93]

Exactly, I think one of the only reasons the system doesn't work as well as it could is that team's are often reluctant to challenge MRP decisions in the tribunal. That is mostly due to the 25% points discount, which is purely there to reduce the tribunal's workload. From a business perspective, it's a good system, and that's a win.

Further evidence is that fans of other leagues, NHL for example, want to bring the AFL's system in rather than have vague explanations over suspensions.

The downside is sometimes the clubs don't recognise the sting in the tail of accepting those 93 odd carry-over points for a minor offence that they could possibly challenge and get off completely.

 

[lewigie]

I understand what you're saying, but surely they would've looked at the video evidence and seen that Glass clearly didn't hit him high, and therefore wouldn't have to apply to even apply points for the contact. This would've solved the issue and we wouldn't have had to waste time challenging it.

Did they just not bother, and go off the umpire's judgement? Reeks of incompetence.

 

[Impunity!]

I understand what you're saying, but surely they would've looked at the video evidence and seen that Glass clearly didn't hit him high, and therefore wouldn't have to apply to even apply points for the contact. This would've solved the issue and we wouldn't have had to waste time challenging it.

Did they just not bother, and go off the umpire's judgement? Reeks of incompetence.

The MRP looked at the video and spoke to Pannell (who thought it was a head high bump, though the jury disagreed) and decided to lay the charge, as "reckless". As the PAFC medical staff said no treatment was necessary at the time or after the game, they rated the contact low impact.

 

[Dark Sharks]

Chaos ball!

Sorry but this thread needed more Dwayno