MRP / Trib. Match Review Panel rd 11 Chook Lotto results: Scooter reprimand, Darling cleared

[larrikin]

The AFL clearly state they don't use precedents in their tribunal decisions. I cannot see how you can make a fair system if that is the case. We were very lucky this week, perhaps last year both would have gone.

Darling would've lost no sleep over that one - was never a risk.

The MRP may be all over the place with what they hand out (not their fault, the points), but their baseline is extremely consistent

 

[September_Glory]

The MRP may be all over the place with what they hand out (not their fault, the points), but their baseline is extremely consistent

Their baseline is idiotic and devoid of common sense.

 

[larrikin]

Their baseline is idiotic and devoid of common sense.

No, it's not.

The line they run on "insufficient force for a report" is consistent, and well run.

 

[CursoryMercenary]

Glad all players were cleared even Swallow. Selwood was extremely lucky though, very selfish act.

 

[Quinz]

Darling was never a chance to go.

Selwood got the right punishment.

 

[wcesam]

Glad to see the AFL did the smart thing and spared two of the rising star candidates, Scooter is lucky but similar thing happened to Nicoski earlier in the year and a suspension wasn't involved.

 

[ITS ME]

Darling free to play

Match review panel in its wisdom decided to drop the case against Jack Darling. We were at the game and thought the only person who thought it was reportable was the umpire. I was thinking that not only was it a free kick but also got a 50m penalty which resulted in a goal. The penalty for a report should be a free kick not an extra 50m as this creates a false scoring opportunity which is not overturned by the match review panel if the report does not go through . Just my thoughts

 

[bigburger]

Re: Darling free to play

In other news Queensland was flooded.

 

[tesseract]

wow, Vic media is going to go apeshit over Selwood getting off...

Scooter's GF isn't. She just won herself a warm, sticky prize from the raffle.

 

[BradWCE]

Re: Darling free to play

Match review panel in its wisdom decided to drop the case against Jack Darling. We were at the game and thought the only person who thought it was reportable was the umpire. I was thinking that not only was it a free kick but also got a 50m penalty which resulted in a goal. The penalty for a report should be a free kick not an extra 50m as this creates a false scoring opportunity which is not overturned by the match review panel if the report does not go through . Just my thoughts

It wasn't a free kick as the mark to Campbell Brown was paid meaning the late contact instead of being a free kick was a 50 metre penalty. The penalty for a report is always a free kick unless circumstances occur such as on the weekend where the mark was taken and thus a 50 metre penalty was awarded for the late contact.

 

[lmach]

Thats good Scooter's still eligible for the Brownlow..

 

[ziad]

Re: Darling free to play

I was left with two strong impressions:

• Umpiring lacked a feel for the game - a consistant problem
• If anything Darling lifted his game after the incident showing a level of mental strength and maturity that is good to see.

 

[AnyDanger]

Thanks.

Apparently flooring someone is considered low impact. In a boxing ring, it's considered a devastating punch and an effective weapon but on an AFL field it's low impact.

Makes sense.

Chooks Lotto baby! Yeeeeeehaw

If Selwood threw that in a boxing ring his opponent would be floored with laughter, we all know gabletts a pussy

 

[Truckosaurus]

No, it's not.

The line they run on "insufficient force for a report" is consistent, and well run.

I could be incorrectly recalling things here, but wasn't Judd's elbow on Pavlich last year deemed insufficient force for a report?

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

Not much of a chook lottery about this - the only mistakes are made when they incorrectly (subjective term there) formulate the charge.

Scooter drew enough points for a one week holiday - which is fair - and his lack of record meant that he only gets a reprimand this time - which is also fair.

If he tries it again he will get two weeks off. I think that would be sensible.