Moved Thread MRP Overhaul - More fines; allow precedent

[asanque]

To be announced by Hocking today at 2:15 p.m.

What I hope they do:

• More fines and less suspensions for lower level offences
• Remove the 'attempted striking' and 'potential to cause serious injury' rubbish
  
• Allow precedents
• Remove suspensions for 'careless' incidents

What I think they will do:

• Make the system even more complex and hard to understand
• Make all suspensions based on a secret AFL formula (similar to free agent compensation)

Other possibilities:

• Trial by combat
• Plugger35 head of MRP

Discuss

 

[TedDougChris]

They will promise to make it more transparent, but fail miserably to do so...

 

[Milanista28]

Enforce the Lingy "Good bloke" rule.

 

[asanque]

Mostly positive sounding changes
E.g. More fines and less suspensions for lower level incidents
More transparency

Also good to hear that they will be making (wrong) decisions more quickly

 

[Quivorir]

Finally you don't get penalised for challenging a bullshit decision you have no hope of over turning to begin with.

 

[Woody15]

One member review system? Not sure about that.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Football offences (hip and shoulder) and non-football offences (punching) should be distinguished.

 

[Xtreme]

Going to extreme lengths to ensure a brownlow medal favourite doesn't get rubbed out. This will only end in tears just like the AFLs integrity unit!

 

[gotheJUDD]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-14/major-changes-to-afl-match-review-panel

CHARGES from Thursday and Friday night games will be laid within 24 hours and players launching AFL Tribunal challenges will no longer risk automatic longer bans under sweeping changes to the Match Review Panel to take effect next season.

Long-time MRP member Michael Christian will become the sole match review official under the new system, replacing the panels of former players previously used.

Where the MRP has until now been notionally independent from the AFL, Christian will report directly to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking.

The AFL has also scrapped the one-match discount previously offered for early pleas, with clubs that elect to challenge MRP decisions now risking a $10,000 cost that will be included in their soft football department cap.

In other key changes:

• Three low-level offences in a season will no longer result in an automatic one-match suspension, with a fine now applicable for the third offence.
• Cases referred directly to the Tribunal will attract at least a three-week suspension save for exceptional circumstances.
• Staging will now attract a fine for a first offence.
• Automatic loading for players with bad records has been scrapped.
• Fines for low-level offences will increase from $2000 to $3000 for first offences, $3000 to $5000 for second offences and $5000 to $8000 for third offences.

Hocking said the MRP changes were primarily designed to ensure greater consistency with its decision-making.

"Through the recent 2017 season there was regular public uncertainty on the rationale for key decisions, with only a small number of incidents receiving an explanation or assessed via a full open examination at the AFL Tribunal, " Hocking said.

Christian will relinquish all of his media roles from 2018, but in his new role will regularly be made available to the media to discuss MRP decisions.

Hocking said the heavy focus on Thursday and Friday night matches required the AFL to review those games the following day, which would be done on a trial basis in 2017.

The AFL footy boss said the disincentive to challenge charges at the Tribunal because of the risk of longer suspensions and the impact of bad record loading on players had been among clubs' chief concerns about the previous system.

Hocking expects more Tribunal challenges under the new system, but believes the $10,000 cost for failed appeals will ensure there will be no repeat of the marathon Tribunal hearings that regularly occurred before the advent of the MRP.

It is also hoped the MRP changes will prompt players to show greater sportsmanship on the field, with Hocking saying some of the lower-level offences that had crept into the AFL in recent years were "a blight on the game".

 

[JackFlash]

A step in the right direction IMO. I hope Michael Christian has a thick skin?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Should be more transparency around who is a good bloke prior to them belting opponents. That way at least there's some fair warning

 

[TedDougChris]

Should be more transparency around who is a good bloke prior to them belting opponents. That way at least there's some fair warning

Each club should be able to nominate one 'good bloke' per match, who can then waltz around whacking people with impunity - and not face any further sanctions

 

[Franc de Borges]

With Christian in charge GAJ can basically do what he likes.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I would like to see the Act punished, not the consequences.

The force shouldn't be 100% dependent on the injury inflicted.

 

[Oxirane]

Was there any reason given why they scrapped the automatic one match ban after 3 low-level offences? Or if it would change to a different number of offences?

 

[Goggin Our Best]

1. I think the changes look good - especially the Michael Christian sole responsibility bit

There is a decent precedent their - when John Quayle ( brilliant administrator ) ran the NRL years ago - he was solely responsible for the citings and the penalties - he got 99.9% of them spot - with a common sense approach

He took no shiit from anyone - especially coaches - i can remember he called Warren Ryan ( a multi premiership coach ) a peanut - and said he was full of rubbish and nonsense . He certainly wasnt in awe of them and didnt suck to them like Gil does

 

[Nobby]

Was there any reason given why they scrapped the automatic one match ban after 3 low-level offences? Or if it would change to a different number of offences?

Surely becuase it has the chance to rub you out of a final and that is not what we want to see.

 

[Taylor]

Was there any reason given why they scrapped the automatic one match ban after 3 low-level offences? Or if it would change to a different number of offences?

I'm curious about this too, they brought it in to stamp out the gut punches and went to water as soon as the three strikes got someone.

Overall it's a softening on match related penalties and an increase on the wallet.

 

[Aramis]

First impression: this will end well.

1 person handing down judgments is interesting, MIGHT be more consistent.
Hopefully they use precedent/similar acts now in assessing charges.

 

[Sentinel]

With the extra loadings for bad records and for failed challenges gone plus no more automatic 3rd strike suspensions, does Jack Redpath retrospectively get his ridiculous three match ban scrapped and he can play in round 1 again? Under the new system he wouldn't miss a single match, let alone 3.

 

[liz]

Was there any reason given why they scrapped the automatic one match ban after 3 low-level offences? Or if it would change to a different number of offences?

That's not really been explained, has it.

What these changes mean is that the deliberate tummy taps are here to stay, as players can no longer get suspended for them, even if they rack up a number throughout the season.

That disappoints me as they're irritating to watch and completely unnecessary.

 

[Phone]

The one man panel reporting directly to Hocking will end in tears (or at least many horrible, paranoid posts).

It's good that we won't have MRP panel members also appearing in media roles though. If only we could get board members stopped from being commentators...

Not a fan of mandatory sentencing for cases that go straight to the Tribunal (They say "save for exceptional circumstances" but anything that goes straight to the Tribunal is an exceptional case)

I'd rather the 10K appeal go into the TPP rather than the Footy Department cap.

Removing the early plea and loading for bad records is a mistake, although once they got rid of carry-over points the early plea probably should have gone too so really the mistake was getting rid of carry-over points. Carry over-points neatly solved the issue of repeated lower level offences (which they're now encouraging with the removal of the 3rd offence = suspension!)

Lastly,

It is also hoped the MRP changes will prompt players to show greater sportsmanship on the field, with Hocking saying some of the lower-level offences that had crept into the AFL in recent years were "a blight on the game".

LOL good luck with that.

I would like to see the Act punished, not the consequences.

The force shouldn't be 100% dependent on the injury inflicted.

Ok...but it's already like that. you can kill the bloke but if the action isn't a reportable offence, you won't get suspended. From there, it's complete insanity to not have the consequence play a part in the ultimate sentence.

Football offences (hip and shoulder) and non-football offences (punching) should be distinguished.

This was a Jimmy Bartel brainwave and frankly I don't understand why it received any positive feedback. I'd say "careless" and "intentional" offences essentially does that anyway. Intentionally committing a reportable offence is basically a non-football offence, no? (bumps, for example, never fall under intentional except for f bumps that take place way off the ball)

 

[Speck]

Should have kept the 3 offenses = suspension with a reset of them at around round 18. Means you won't get rubbed out in the finals for early season offences and if you're dumb enough to have 3 new offences post round 18 (including finals) then you deserve to miss a final.

 

[Moshie The Mook]

As long as the Cotchin Rule remains in place during finals.

 

[Fluro Boots]

Was there any reason given why they scrapped the automatic one match ban after 3 low-level offences? Or if it would change to a different number of offences?

Trent Cotchin rule.