Is it time for Michael Christian to go

[beerbandit]

A player was knocked out. He had a responsibility to send it to the tribunal to be adjudicated, to be found guilty or not. The fact he didn’t, and it’s obvious to the world why he didn’t, should mean he is stood down immediately.

So if he’s found not guilty at the tribunal then was Chrisso right?

 

[btdg]

It’s easy to sit there and pot Christian but let’s be real.

The MRO is the most thankless, easily critical role in the whole AFL Industry.

Is it that hard though? Sure, the AFL changes its interpretations and focus year on year, but by and large the MRO job means looking at a pretty simple matrix and applying a pretty simple formula.

By far the biggest issues with Michael Christian IMO is that perception that he is not impartial. That he a) carries bias towards particular clubs (and it is hard not to feel that way as a Carlton supporter, I have to admit, given the number of decisions we have appealed at the tribunal and had revoked) and b) that the decision making process is further compounded by 'flavour of the week' interpretations and the timing in the season that an incident occurs.

So now we have a situation in a final where the immediate reaction of fans is:

• Maynard is a Collingwood supporter, therefore he will get off
• Also, it is finals, so he will get off
• but if this were Toby Greene in week 6 the he would receive a 4 week ban

I am not saying that this is true - I don't necessarily think he is consciously (or even unconsciously) biased against Carlton, etc. The Maynard case is a really unusual one and very hard to separate out emotion (particularly because it was Brayshaw).

The problem with Christian is the perception is there amongst the public. For a job that really requires very little experience this is unforgiveable. He needs to be replaced simply for that reason.

The next person really needs to just be a pure robot who comes out and a) clarifies what makes somehting a reportable offence (eg: why is tackling someone into the ground reportable, but kneeing them in the head in a marking contest not - both are football actions?), and then b) rigidly applies the formula, in all circumstances, with clear equity (and lets the tribunal decide the nuances of the tricky cases).

 

[Cleavy]

The next person really needs to just be a pure robot who comes out and a) clarifies what makes somehting a reportable offence (eg: why is tackling someone into the ground reportable, but kneeing them in the head in a marking contest not - both are football actions?), and then b) rigidly applies the formula, in all circumstances, with clear equity (and lets the tribunal decide the nuances of the tricky cases).

so we're outsourcing the MRP to ChatGPT?

 

[boncer34]

Randoms on the internet who can’t seem to open the other eye claim MRO is making decisions based on the club player plays for. Ow the irony.

Something something irony.

 

[Stamos]

So if he’s found not guilty at the tribunal then was Chrisso right?

No, the right thing is to send the case to the tribunal.
The Tribunal should find Maynard not guilty, but it is still the correct process to have a case.

And there's nothing surer than if a Carlton player did the exact thing Maynard did, Christian would have sent it to the tribunal without even considering the prospect of letting them off.

 

[Stamos]

And the OP was right, Christian should have gone 2 years ago.
Hopefully Laura Kane sorts it out as soon as the season is over.

 

[Pablito]

Whoever is responsible fort his state of mind should be sent to the tribunal. The incident was obviously high, intentional and severe impact.

 

[bigblueboy]

Christian’s position is untenable.

 

[windyhill]

Can he charge dodoro with something ? Anything ?

 

[bigblueboy]

So if he’s found not guilty at the tribunal then was Chrisso right?

Maynard still calls him Chrisso, right?

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Time to get back into play-by-play commentery. Say what you will about him but he was one of the best callers in the business back in the channel 10 days.

Sorry you said this back in April, but he was a terrible commentator.

 

[Macca180]

If Maynard goes, Christian should too.

 

[hoss]

Yes, obviously but only about 10 years too late. Completely biased and inept moron.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Foucault1989]

I'll qualify this by clarifying that I don't think Maynard should get suspended.

But given the outcome of the action and the spotlight on concussion in sport/duty of care, this case absolutely needs to go to the tribunal. It would be unacceptable if there was not a thorough investigation of this incident and a decision made following careful analysis.

If Christian didn't want to send this to the tribunal and was overruled, his position is untenable. No question

 

[Eshay187]

He should be independently investigated. I want to see all correspondence between the incident and now.

Not only should he be relieved of his duties, he should be in hand cuffs.

 

[Doro]

Next time around I think a Sydney or Brisbane based MRO would be a good thing for the league.

 

[Sainter1873]

He should be independently investigated. I want to see all correspondence between the incident and now.

Not only should he be relieved of his duties, he should be in hand cuffs.

Should we also sharpen the guillotine? Steady on.

 

[beerbandit]

Maynard still calls him Chrisso, right?

There it is…


So it’s because he played for Collingwood ?

 

[beerbandit]

Whoever is responsible fort his state of mind should be sent to the tribunal. The incident was obviously high, intentional and severe impact.

How exactly was it intentional?

 

[demondavey]

He should be independently investigated. I want to see all correspondence between the incident and now.

Not only should he be relieved of his duties, he should be in hand cuffs.

Jail time?

 

[PieLebo87]

Jail time?

I’m still trying to figure out what he is guilty of

 

[Truckosaurus]

Should we also sharpen the guillotine? Steady on.

Nah, doesn't matter if it's a little bit blunt. There's no spine to cut through.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You only have to look at the inconsistencies.
JVR incident:
Runs past the footy, takes eyes off footy, looks at McStay, raises elbow and gets him clean in the jaw.
Obvious strike. Obvious intent.
Gets cited for rough conduct instead of striking and graded careless instead of intentional.
Now the conduct that he was cited for probably doesn't matter much at the end of the day, because it doesn't change the gradings or penalties, but it shows the inconsistency in applying the rules if you can't even define the conduct properly.

Then look at Martin.
I'll start by saying that I'm more annoyed at Martin for putting himself in a position to be suspended, than I am at the tribunal for doing their job.
Bias aside (no, really), I think Martin's was just a poorly executed/timed attempt to spoil the handball. Yes, he got him high with a fist to the face and should/will cop his whack, but that action is closer to rough conduct than the JVR one, but happy to call it a strike because of the arm motion, but it is obviously careless and not intentional (in the same way that Maynard's action was careless and not intentional - a poorly timed/executed spoil/smother).

Apply those to the 2 incidents and it looks much better.

JVR cited for striking (a much better look for the AFL to call a strike a strike and to be shown penalising it properly).
Graded intentional, high contact, medium impact = 2 weeks.
Demons can then appeal the medium impact and try to get it reduced to 1 week, but player definitely gets minimum 1 week for an intentional strike to the head.
Martin cited for strike or rough conduct.
Graded careless, high contact, medium impact = 1 week.
Blues can then appeal the impact grading and try to get it reduced to a fine, but player still gets some sort of penalty for a poorly executed football act that results in a head strike.

Both of those outcomes then look much better and more consistent with the guidelines.

Personally I think that the guidelines are too rigid and there's not enough scope for all incidents, but they also aren't hard to apply correctly, yet Chrisso seems to get it wrong a lot.
It's like he deliberately grades some things harsher because he wants a specific result and knows it will be appealed.
If he wants a player to cop 2 weeks, he'll grade it so that it gets 3 weeks, then gets appealed down to 2.
If it's graded correctly the first time, there will be less appeals, or at the very least, less successful appeals. Part of his perceived incompetence cones from the number of successful appeals against his results.

 

[bigblueboy]

There it is…


So it’s because he played for Collingwood ?

Laura Kane obviously thought so.

 

[Arr0w]

How exactly was it intentional?

He intentionally jumps, extends his arms to smother, intentionally retracts his arms down (had a choice not to), turns sideways and hits him. Could have not turned and pushed him in the chest

Personally I think he should get off, but it was an intentionally act, but I doubt he wanted to inflect a conclusion