How does a pea-heart assess what is intentional or reckless

[The Jet From Poowong]

Fraser is the epitome of the failed footballer, failed umpire and a general failure in life. Seriously, what the * has he done during his life in football that warrants him deciding the fate of players so disastrously. Or is there more at play with the sentences handed down.

 

[el toado]

Fraser is the epitome of the failed footballer, failed umpire and a general failure in life. Seriously, what the **** has he done during his life in football that warrants him deciding the fate of players so disastrously. Or is there more at play with the sentences handed down.

Amazing overeaction right here.

Even though he didnt have a stellar career in either field, he did experience both at the highest level and I think that would qualify him to sit on the MRP more than most. Who else are we going to put on there? Someone has got to do it and no doubt when they make a decision that everyone doesnt agree with someone will deem them not worthy of the job.

Why was there a need to call him a failure at life? Have you had personal dealings with the man or are you making a baseless assumption hiding behind your computer screen?

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

He's more then a failure at life, he's just plain s**t at life.

 

[Pat_Footy]

His explanations are astounding.
Most actions on the football field are going to be intentional unless they are accidental. If you don't like the phrasing of the words, change them. Don't make the fans sit through your explanation of what is intentional/reckless when the action is clearly labelled incorrectly.

 

[andypie]

Fraser is the epitome of the failed footballer, failed umpire and a general failure in life. Seriously, what the **** has he done during his life in football that warrants him deciding the fate of players so disastrously. Or is there more at play with the sentences handed down.

Failure in life?
I guess we cant all be Big Footy experts like yourself. Maybe if Mark works really hard, he can one day post in here aswell.

 

[sherb]

Failure in life?
I guess we cant all be Big Footy experts like yourself. Maybe if Mark works really hard, he can one day post in here aswell.

If he did he'd at least learn the correct meaning of the word "intentional".

Because at the moment he seems to have nfi.

 

[andypie]

If he did he'd at least learn the correct meaning of the word "intentional".

Because at the moment he seems to have nfi.

That type of collision is never deemed as intentional. Geez, even some striking offences have been rated as reckless, not intentional. (I remember Daniel Kerr whacking sam mitchell in the nuts and it being rated as reckless). The whole system is up the s**t, so I wouldnt blame just one person. Hell, you can even split a guys eye open with your elbow and have it deemed to be insufficient force, and then go on to win the brownlow, so go figure.
To me, the grading of the incident was spot on, (5 weeks), its the two week reduction that caused the problem. 5 down to 4 would have been about right.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Failure in life?
I guess we cant all be Big Footy experts like yourself. Maybe if Mark works really hard, he can one day post in here aswell.

He is the sole reason the mrp sucks. No leadership and no nous. Muppet of the highest order. What does he actually do during the week?

 

[Slax]

He is the sole reason the mrp sucks. No leadership and no nous. Muppet of the highest order. What does he actually do during the week?

The whole reason the MRP is a failure is that they look at injuries caused rather than the action involved.

As an example Wellingham broke Simpson's jaw, but the exact same contact with a different play may of only left them a bit dazed but ok to play on.

Another example is Gary Rohan's broken leg. I still fail to see how going in feet first in AFL is not illegal and severely punished as all it will ever do is lead to broken legs. Everyone was screaming that the player should be punished for the incident because a player got a broken leg, yet two weeks later the same people complain when someone gets suspended for going in feet first.

If you want the MRP fixed then set up so it is completely independent of the AFL. That means that the appointments are made by the Commission not Demitriou and Anderson and their performance is review solely by the Commission. The other thing to improve the MRP is remove any statement of injury from the proceedings. What the decision should be based on is everything up until the point of impact, what happens after that is of no relevance to the penalty that is handed out.

 

[liz]

To me, the grading of the incident was spot on, (5 weeks), its the two week reduction that caused the problem. 5 down to 4 would have been about right.

I suspect most people have no problem with the concept of a player with a long-standing good record getting some kind of break in terms of suspension - eg such that a one week transgression just attracts carry forward points rather than a one week suspension. And the concept of a discount for an early plea also makes sense for an administrative point of view as it prevents time being spent at the tribunal arguing cases that are relatively cut and dried.

But maybe the discounts available should be denominated in terms of fixed point discounts, rather than percentages - say 25 point discount for each of an early plea or a good record. That would still bring relatively minor offences down from a one week suspension to a reprimand, and two week bans down to one. But it means a player could never get more than a week chopped off the base suspension.