He nails it. The current situation where action and outcome are conflated is causing mass confusion at every level.
Sort it out AFL.
Sort it out AFL.
NO TROLLS Hamish Brayshaw - Open Letter to the AFL.
- Thread starter dockshark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 29, 2013
- 3,934
- 9,545
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Bang On
Are we ready for any attempted punch to be 3 weeks e.g. Hogan?
Agree the outcome has too much impact on the outcome.
Agree the outcome has too much impact on the outcome.
- Feb 4, 2021
- 496
- 1,241
- AFL Club
- West Coast
That was spot on.
- Thread starter
- #5
I would be ok with it, so long as it’s made very clear to the clubs and players and so long as they are absolutely consistent.
If you're throwing a punch then you're done. End of story, no place for it on the field or anywhere
The AFL should not be in charge of the Rules of the Game Committee and dare I say, should not be in charge of its Tribunal.
Time for both facets to be controlled by a national body leaving the Australian Football League to runs its competition. A national body providing a Tribunal across the major competitions of AFL, WAFL, SANFL and VFL would bring consitency
Time for both facets to be controlled by a national body leaving the Australian Football League to runs its competition. A national body providing a Tribunal across the major competitions of AFL, WAFL, SANFL and VFL would bring consitency
mcgrath_truther
AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
He's bang on the money with this.
The inconsistent rulings and arbitrary findings that change week in-week out is extremely frustrating as a viewer, as similar football 'acts' are treated vastly differently and seemingly illogically so. I will admit that, while I don't think Peter Wright deserved the 4 weeks that he got, the comparison between him and Toby Greene does fall a bit flat. Wright has an extra 12cm and 20kgs~ on Greene and would realistically cause significantly more damage upon hitting a player - but it begs to ask the question, what does the player have to do in that situation? Go for the ball? Let the opposition player mark the ball? Potentially risk another injury on himself for not bracing?
This is the difficulty and the questions that the MRO/MRP should be asking when they do their findings. As it stands now, they're stuck in two minds (or three, perhaps) between keeping AFL as it is - a uniquely Australian sport that's high skill, high impact and highly entertaining to watch, or sacrifice that to try and prevent players having lasting, long term injuries. It's by no means an easy job to have, and as it stands I think they're losing both of those battles.
2 weeks ago, when Crouch got rubbed out for a nearly identical bump that Zak Butters got off with begs to ask the question - how different were the two incidents actually? From my perspective, as an "attempted" impartial, they looked considerably similar, but the only different I could tell was between the players. I don't think that Matt Crouch would ever be a chance to win a Brownlow, or a similar award to that this season, but Zak Butters is a favourite (probably, I tend to avoid thinking about gambling). Similar to the special drug taking groups that the AFL has, there's two types of players. The stars, and everyone else. The stars (Brownlow favourites, media lovechildren etc) all get treated vastly different than the players who'll just play their game, not starring, not tearing it apart, just playing their game.
It's extremely difficult for me to not be such a cynic over it all, but it's immensely frustrating to constantly see the AFL's justice not delivering on it's promises.
The inconsistent rulings and arbitrary findings that change week in-week out is extremely frustrating as a viewer, as similar football 'acts' are treated vastly differently and seemingly illogically so. I will admit that, while I don't think Peter Wright deserved the 4 weeks that he got, the comparison between him and Toby Greene does fall a bit flat. Wright has an extra 12cm and 20kgs~ on Greene and would realistically cause significantly more damage upon hitting a player - but it begs to ask the question, what does the player have to do in that situation? Go for the ball? Let the opposition player mark the ball? Potentially risk another injury on himself for not bracing?
This is the difficulty and the questions that the MRO/MRP should be asking when they do their findings. As it stands now, they're stuck in two minds (or three, perhaps) between keeping AFL as it is - a uniquely Australian sport that's high skill, high impact and highly entertaining to watch, or sacrifice that to try and prevent players having lasting, long term injuries. It's by no means an easy job to have, and as it stands I think they're losing both of those battles.
2 weeks ago, when Crouch got rubbed out for a nearly identical bump that Zak Butters got off with begs to ask the question - how different were the two incidents actually? From my perspective, as an "attempted" impartial, they looked considerably similar, but the only different I could tell was between the players. I don't think that Matt Crouch would ever be a chance to win a Brownlow, or a similar award to that this season, but Zak Butters is a favourite (probably, I tend to avoid thinking about gambling). Similar to the special drug taking groups that the AFL has, there's two types of players. The stars, and everyone else. The stars (Brownlow favourites, media lovechildren etc) all get treated vastly different than the players who'll just play their game, not starring, not tearing it apart, just playing their game.
It's extremely difficult for me to not be such a cynic over it all, but it's immensely frustrating to constantly see the AFL's justice not delivering on it's promises.
99.5% of footy enthusiasts/supporters would pretty much agree with everything he said.
Unfortunately it is run by the other .5%
Unfortunately it is run by the other .5%
This should probably be on the main board tbh
- Apr 25, 2011
- 2,225
- 4,737
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
What Spirit Level said, should be on the main board for more eyeballs to see. I'd go so far as to sticky it.
ReidBetweenTheLines
Debutant
- Apr 21, 2024
- 133
- 257
- AFL Club
- West Coast
He ALMOST nailed it.
We don’t have a MRP anymore. Instead we have a sole adjudicator which is Michael Christian. He is biased, he has agendas, and being one person is easily corrupted.
There should be at least 3-5 people deciding on incidents that can result in a suspension. Being left up to a flog that loves a power trip and is a passionate fan of an AFL club is completely flawed and gives us what we have today.
We don’t have a MRP anymore. Instead we have a sole adjudicator which is Michael Christian. He is biased, he has agendas, and being one person is easily corrupted.
There should be at least 3-5 people deciding on incidents that can result in a suspension. Being left up to a flog that loves a power trip and is a passionate fan of an AFL club is completely flawed and gives us what we have today.
- Jun 6, 2012
- 4,679
- 5,831
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Well der.
We all know the outcome dictates the punishment. The AFL system is set up to determine the punishment based on the outcome.
What's new here?
We all know the outcome dictates the punishment. The AFL system is set up to determine the punishment based on the outcome.
What's new here?
AFL Tribunal / MRP playing favourites, who would have thunk.
The “good bloke reference”, is total crap. They do it, they do the time.
All we ask for is consistency with MRP findings. They set a “standard” with one type of action, then rule it differently next game.
The “good bloke reference”, is total crap. They do it, they do the time.
All we ask for is consistency with MRP findings. They set a “standard” with one type of action, then rule it differently next game.
sherb
Hall of Famer
It didn't with the incident involving Hamish's brother.
- Thread starter
- #20
But that’s exactly the issue. Outcome dictates (or influences) the penalty only sometimes and not consistently. If it’s an outcome based system then it should be consistent, with no penalty if there is no outcome. If it’s an act/intent based system then a dangerous act is a dangerous act irrespective of consequence.
Look at the Hogan decision to let him off. How can you possibly get off without a penalty from an attempted head punch behind the play in an environment where the head is supposed to be ‘sacrosanct’? A slightly different angle, or position and the punch strikes and Lewis could have been severely injured or worse.
It’s become a joke.
- Feb 4, 2021
- 496
- 1,241
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If they want outcome to affect the penalty it should be added as a multiplier. No outcome, no additional penalty, concussion/serious injury double penalty etc.
- Jun 9, 2008
- 11,042
- 9,051
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We're in an awkward transition period to a sport that has very little to no physical contact.
Unless the AFL creates a sport that is safe to play at all levels they'll continue losing kids to other sports and it's entire future will be at risk. Purists won't like it.. but I genuinely don't think the AFL has any other choice.
We already have recruiters concerned about the lack of talent in pipeline to support the current system let alone a 19th team. Reality is participation rates are WAY down at all junior levels and many parents do not want their kids playing AFL.
My son has had his 5th concussion yesterday in just over a season of under 9's footy. Five kids left the game yesterday with concussions. I know for a fact that more than half of his team won't go on to under 12's.
And at the same time the AFL is up to its eyeballs in lawsuits from former players dealing with post career brain trauma thats likely to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of compensation payments.
Change is coming. Many won't like the new product - but there's no viable future for the AFL unless it evolves.
Unless the AFL creates a sport that is safe to play at all levels they'll continue losing kids to other sports and it's entire future will be at risk. Purists won't like it.. but I genuinely don't think the AFL has any other choice.
We already have recruiters concerned about the lack of talent in pipeline to support the current system let alone a 19th team. Reality is participation rates are WAY down at all junior levels and many parents do not want their kids playing AFL.
My son has had his 5th concussion yesterday in just over a season of under 9's footy. Five kids left the game yesterday with concussions. I know for a fact that more than half of his team won't go on to under 12's.
And at the same time the AFL is up to its eyeballs in lawsuits from former players dealing with post career brain trauma thats likely to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of compensation payments.
Change is coming. Many won't like the new product - but there's no viable future for the AFL unless it evolves.
Last edited:
- Jun 2, 2010
- 5,548
- 6,179
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Completely, totally and utterly agree. There is zero consistency and they change the rules whenever it suits.
- Thread starter
- #24
Where the hell is your son playing? Both my boys have played since they were 6 and are now adults playing at state league level. One concussion between the 2 of them. I have coached for 11 seasons and for memory have had 6 concussions total across that period. My younger brother is coaching under 9’s in WA and I just texted him ‘how many concussions have you had this season?’ His response was: ‘LOL none, it’s under 9s FFS’
I agree that concussion protection is important, but it sounds like something is seriously, seriously wrong in your junior competition if you are having that volume of concussions at under 9s.
RandB
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 9, 2007
- 16,703
- 12,912
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- MUFC Norwood
Add to that, we're not satisfied with the result of the tribunal but we aren't going to appeal.
Not a good look when they pick and choose appealing (what they think are) poor decisions based on which way the wind is blowing.
Not a good look when they pick and choose appealing (what they think are) poor decisions based on which way the wind is blowing.
Similar threads
