MRP / Trib. Issues from today?

[Yidaki]

Young "should" be fine. He was going for the ball at the time of impact. However, this is the MRP and they may only see the bump on Chappy.

 

[docks]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-28/no-bans-for-gibson-young-

Young gets a reprimand if he pleads guilty, no other charges for Pies.

 

[Kilmo]

If we contest the charges against Young, and fail, meaning he spends 1 week on the sidelines does that mean he'll have no carry-over points? If so I believe it's a win-win if we contest the charge regardless of the outcome, as he'll likely benefit from the week off anyway with the knock to his leg, and this won't be able to come back and haunt us in the future.

If Youngy rates himself as fit to play this weekend there is no way he would risk suspension - the way the match committee are going and with our 22 flying he might find himself banished to the VFL until god knows when! Especially with other defenders coming back in.

Young has been a great asset for us this year. Take the reprimand to shut everyone up and watch him tear up the Bluus on Friday.

 

[suspect footskills]

Nice to see Frost wasnt cited. Young's eyes were on the ball and although cited wont be taking any time off. Good result.

 

[Wooljay]

I can understand your frustration, but why is it that he shouldn't have been cited? The MRP have adjudicated according to the rules in place. If you work back from the principle that the head is sacrosanct and take into account that Essendon have provided a medical report on Chapman (as is standard in these cases) you can't fault the MRP.

The blame lies with the AFL for instigating rules that don't enable any grey it is all black and white for lack of a better term...

The head SHOULD be sacrosanct, I don't disagree with the AFLs intention at all in that regard.

However, when you have two players contesting a football, with eyes firmly for the contest, then the onus is on the MRP to not rule it as 'negligent' but as 'incidental' or 'accidental'.

How was Young negligent? He did everything right in that contest and has been penalized.

 

[KJpie]

If Youngy rates himself as fit to play this weekend there is no way he would risk suspension Take the reprimand to shut everyone up and watch him tear up the Bluus on Friday.

Agreed however if he requires the week off to get right he may as well accept the week.

Your call Doc.

 

[Apex36]

I can understand your frustration, but why is it that he shouldn't have been cited? The MRP have adjudicated according to the rules in place. If you work back from the principle that the head is sacrosanct and take into account that Essendon have provided a medical report on Chapman (as is standard in these cases) you can't fault the MRP.

The blame lies with the AFL for instigating rules that don't enable any grey it is all black and white for lack of a better term...

Rubbish. If the contest had been replicated but Young had managed to take possession/mark the ball, he wouldn't have even been looked at, regardless of the high contact. The rules were made to protect players that have been targeted for contact, not to throw out sanctions for incidental contact in a contest.

Awful decision.

 

[KJpie]

Scodog10 said: ↑
I can understand your frustration, but why is it that he shouldn't have been cited? The MRP have adjudicated according to the rules in place. If you work back from the principle that the head is sacrosanct and take into account that Essendon have provided a medical report on Chapman (as is standard in these cases) you can't fault the MRP.

The head SHOULD be sacrosanct, I don't disagree with the AFLs intention at all in that regard.

However, when you have two players contesting a football, with eyes firmly for the contest, then the onus is on the MRP to not rule it as 'negligent' but as 'incidental' or 'accidental'.

How was Young negligent? He did everything right in that contest and has been penalized.

Agree with both points but surely the issue is the inconsistencies presented by the MRP?

The Glass bump was a disgrace, try comparing it to Young's case.

As supporters all we want is consistency in all aspects of the game.

 

[Scodog10]

Scodog10 said: ↑
I can understand your frustration, but why is it that he shouldn't have been cited? The MRP have adjudicated according to the rules in place. If you work back from the principle that the head is sacrosanct and take into account that Essendon have provided a medical report on Chapman (as is standard in these cases) you can't fault the MRP.

Agree with both points but surely the issue is the inconsistencies presented by the MRP?

The Glass bump was a disgrace, try comparing it to Young's case.

As supporters all we want is consistency in all aspects of the game.

Marking contest v general play.

They got it completely wrong with their application of the force in the Glass incident. That in isolation doesn't make their adjudications inconsistent when made in comparison to the other 30-40 incidents presented to them this season.

Rubbish. If the contest had been replicated but Young had managed to take possession/mark the ball, he wouldn't have even been looked at, regardless of the high contact. The rules were made to protect players that have been targeted for contact, not to throw out sanctions for incidental contact in a contest.

Awful decision.

He didn't though and in that instance the contact may have been completely different resulting in Chapman not receiving high contact.

As I stated only a few posts ago I understand that POV, but the MRP can only adjudicate as the cases appear. Blame the AFL they've allowed no wriggle room in regards to the rules.

 

[KJpie]

Marking contest v general play.

They got it completely wrong with their application of the force in the Glass incident. That in isolation doesn't make their adjudications inconsistent when made in comparison to the other 30-40 incidents presented to them this season.

Absolutely they got it wrong.

I very much doubt it is in isolation though, week in week out there are inconsistencies in most areas of the game review.

Also the referral system is farcical, furthermore no one understands the ruck rules and subsequent frees for and against.

Grundy had 8 paid against and Ryder and Daniher 6 for. Even the specialist commentators were guessing which way the free would go.

 

[Scodog10]

Absolutely they got it wrong.

I very much doubt it is in isolation though, week in week out there are inconsistencies in most areas of the game review.

Also the referral system is farcical, furthermore no one understands the ruck rules and subsequent frees for and against.

Grundy had 8 paid against and Ryder and Daniher 6 for. Even the specialist commentators were guessing which way the free would go.

None have really jumped out at me (Glass aside). I just think the MRP can be an easy target at times...

Merrett was the other penalty that didn't seem right, but unfortunately the guidelines mean that striking receives a lower penalty than rough conduct so their hands were tied.

If his report was a rough conduct charge and was again graded as intentional, high contact and medium impact instead of receiving 325 points (which can be discounted to two weeks) he gets 425 which gets discounted to three weeks.

 

[Smoky]

If Young isn't playing this week against Carlton... we must challenge and get him rubbed out for a week.

(That is if it's going to mean less carry over points... or even better - none)

If he can play this week... then play son!

 

[akneal]

Really suprised Frost got off scot free, I don't think he should've gone, but with some of the recent findings i was worried