hall out for 2

[Big Punt]

it seems as if moore is also out with injury so schultz or morrision to be named IMO and its obvious who id pick. but i do feel we need to give morrison a chance, but just not this week.

If not this week then when? Hall out, Shultz still not 100% match fit after injury, Morrison in reasonable form at Coburg. If he can't get in this week, the writing is on the wall.

 

[jezza]

Unfortunately for Morrison he didn't have a good game for Coburg on the weekend playing up forward, although his form has been better when playing back.

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

I AM TOTALLY IN SHOCK! I was just watching the tribunal video on afl.com and discovered the following:

Ray Hall was originally given 3 WEEKS

WHAT THE F'IRETR'UCK IS GOING ON????!!

His early plea gave him the discount, meaning he serves 2. That would have to be one on the most ridiculous decisions i have EVER seen.

It certainly looks ridiculous, but Ray is a victim of the new points system. There was no real defence for it, technically, everything he was pinned for is there. This decision has just highlighted that basically every tribunal decision should be taken on its merits. The system works pretty well in rugby etc. because the indescretions are basically all identical, either you tried to rip the blokes head off, or tried to pick a bloke up and use him as a shovel, or you're innocent. Our sport has many more subtleties involved with player movements, contacts, and now acting to put up with, that a points system doesn't seem to be working in my view. Although the tribunal was a bit subjective in the past, at least you had some sort of idea what penalty would be given. I've got no idea anymore. The change definitely doesn't appear to be working, but what can you do?

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

the Cloke's are a pack of heck E N C U N T S

madtiger, I knew you had quite a bit of nutter in you, but WHAT?

 

[jezza]

madtiger, I knew you had quite a bit of nutter in you, but WHAT?

He's been temporarily suspended, possibly due to language like that.

 

[roo_stew]

Like Harvey I think the system is working up to a point but unfortunately , like many parts of our game and its rules, it depends on consistent interpretation. Sadly that cant be written down in any exact words and referred to as if it were identical in every case. You cant document personal experience.

Each offence must be considered in context of the incident, the game at that point, the intent and impact the violation was meant to cause and then, having made that assessment, maybe on points system, compare the case before them with those that have been judged before. Sometimes despite what we see has factually taken place from experience we know the severity or otherwise can be quite different. The comparison by a panel of those "learned in the game" must be made to ensure consistency and we will have to accept their judgement but lets use their knowledge! Any goose can add up points.

Just as we say to an umpire...we don't care if thats holding the ball, so long as you pay it that way all day so must the tribunal act accordingly.

 

[jezza]

Just as we say to an umpire...we don't care if thats holding the ball, so long as you pay it that way all day so must the tribunal act accordingly.

That's a great summary of what we want, nicely put.

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

That's a great summary of what we want, nicely put.

Absolutely, but unfortunately that's contentious at the moment as well. Every match I've been to this year (not just Richmond matches), I'm half guessing which way the umpires arms going to be directed after you hear the whistle. A lot of the time I'm wrong. Not sure whether it's a case of our game continually increasing in pace, or rules constantly changing, but there seems to be very little consistency across most decisions, not just week to week but within the same match. The only thing consistent across the AFL at the moment is that all the players are allegedly on drugs.

 

[roo_stew]

Absolutely, but unfortunately that's contentious at the moment as well. Every match I've been to this year (not just Richmond matches), I'm half guessing which way the umpires arms going to be directed after you hear the whistle. A lot of the time I'm wrong. Not sure whether it's a case of our game continually increasing in pace, or rules constantly changing, but there seems to be very little consistency across most decisions, not just week to week but within the same match. The only thing consistent across the AFL at the moment is that all the players are allegedly on drugs.

I know Mark Fraser is an exception and I may get howled down here because I'm just guessing but it appears to me like few, if any, of the umpires just havent played the game themselves at a reasonable level. Given that experience is a key factor in getting it right I have always been of the opinion that a criteria for umpiring at a senior AFL level should be having played the game at a certain level themselves.

A lot of our frustration stems from actually knowing what is really going on in certain circumstances compared to what it looks like. The umpires seem to pay what it looks like way too often. I am sure it would soon kill a lot of the divers too!

 

[Big Punt]

I think the new Match Review Panel/Tribunal system is an improvement. Not perfect, but an improvement. I reckon the inconsistencies were far greater in the last few years and a real concern. Last year the 3AW Sports Today program was using the old "Hey Hey Its Saturday" chook lotto theme to anounce a tribunal decision on a Tuesday night.

The points system and definitions need refinement, but its been a step in the right direction IMO.