MRP / Trib. MRP 2017

[Kenny_01]

How was it any different to Ollie Wines last week? Looked less sinister if anything. Would love to see a side by side replay of both.

 

[Lach72]

How was it any different to Ollie Wines last week? Looked less sinister if anything. Would love to see a side by side replay of both.

Elbow out, almost a strike

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Intentional? Seriously? Darcy looked shattered he'd done it, and apologised straight afterwards!

MRP probably saw that as remorse and remorse=guilt/intent or something along those lines for their argument. Rubbish call by the MRP either way

 

[gaskin]

Challenge it.

 

[Kram]

Challenge it.

You want him to miss round 1 next year?

 

[Allikat]

Compare that to Bernie "Sniper" Vince's punch to the face that got a fine

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-08-20/clash-with-bernie-sends-beams-to-bench

 

[Unique Name]

He didn't mean to do it, it was a reflex. But if Nankervis did that to one of our players we'd all be calling for a week.

 

[Taylor]

Can't have the impact lessened. He is a beast. There is no low impact.

 

[wild side]

You want him to miss round 1 next year?

We'll have Sandi then, and he'll get injured after 1 round the way we are going.
Challenge it

 

[Frank J Moose]

If he got two weeks and could only serve one how would it affect WAFL finals?

 

[go_the_dockers]

Can't have the impact lessened. He is a beast. There is no low impact.

It was low impact.

 

[G Mus]

If he got two weeks and could only serve one how would it affect WAFL finals?

He will miss them all

 

[PapaJ]

Yeah, it wasn't mean spirited. It was clumsy as and, in fairness, the penalty isn't far off. You've got to have players controlling their elbows in such circumstances.

Having said that, it's still not an out for the system overall. It's a joke. Given what else has gone on this year, the MRP system is stuffed and, relatively speaking, a reasonable fine for first offence probably should be the go here - 1 week down to fine.

 

[332docker]

Challenge it.

Its worth the risk I reckon, given how inconsistent the MRP have been. If we lose he misses next week and 1st week of WAFL finals I guess, so should then be able to play finals for PEEL still following that and not miss next year...It should have graded as careless, high contact, low impact - so a fine, I think , rather than weeks.

 

[Taylor]

I think he is banned from the level he was banned in, so two games would mean he has to miss two games of AFL, but the ban stands for all levels below until served.

 

[332docker]

I think he is banned from the level he was banned in, so two games would mean he has to miss two games of AFL, but the ban stands for all levels below until served.

Be good if the west could clear that one up, I thought a ban at AFL meant you couldn't play WAFL or the other way around, but assumed if he could play for PEEL - he's eligible for PEEL's final's campaign then - he could count missing 1 WAFL game as serving time - I reckon it's important he plays finals for PEEL to continue his development so I hope they fight it - the action should have only resulted in a fine.

 

[Taylor]

Be good if the west could clear that one up, I thought a ban at AFL meant you couldn't play WAFL or the other way around, but assumed if he could play for PEEL - he's eligible for PEEL's final's campaign then - he could count missing 1 WAFL game as serving time - I reckon it's important he plays finals for PEEL to continue his development so I hope they fight it - the action should have only resulted in a fine.

A good example of this is when players were banned from NAB cup matches because they weren't able to play round 1, that rule was recently relaxed but it took a special decision to do it.

It is fairly standard practice across most major codes that if you are banned at any level you are banned for all levels but you ban is served in the level you received it.

 

[332docker]

A good example of this is when players were banned from NAB cup matches because they weren't able to play round 1, that rule was recently relaxed but it took a special decision to do it.

It is fairly standard practice across most major codes that if you are banned at any level you are banned for all levels but you ban is served in the level you received it.

He doesn't deserve to miss a finals campaign with PEEL for that action - I hope they challenge it - I guess we'll know in next hour or so...

 

[G Mus]

He doesn't deserve to miss a finals campaign with PEEL for that action - I hope they challenge it - I guess we'll know in next hour or so...

Challenging it will cause him to miss Peel finals if unsuccessful, with the potential gain of playing this week for us in another loss...might as well rest up for a big final series

 

[332docker]

Challenging it will cause him to miss Peel finals if unsuccessful, with the potential gain of playing this week for us in another loss...might as well rest up for a big final series

Yeah I guess, he'll just cope a bad MRP decision - if he accepts he just misses this week and Griff can get a game, Peel have nothing to play for anyway this week...

Still think it was wrongly graded and he should have just copped a fine

 

[Okinakashi]

Looks like Mr Darcy is having a week off.

Stupid system.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

He's played 8 or 9 games iirc so can still get an RS nom next year

The system is stupid - I agree. I remember Zac Dawson doing something similar to Selwood I think and got off. He didn't raise his elbow though - just jumped up at a loopy, high handball and cleaned him up. Might have even been the final at the cattery. Anyone else remember that one?