MRP wrap up Round 16

[Mancey]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118297/default.aspx

Ottens a week.


NN reprimand, Goddard no case

And a heeeeeap of melee fines

Ottens

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from West Coast, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. A five-year good record reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 243.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 182.81 points and a one-match sanction.

Naitanui

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from Geelong, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

Goddard

Contact between St Kilda's Brendon Goddard and Port Adelaide's Cameron O'Shea from the third quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. Contact was made with Goddard's thigh and the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence, as a medical report from the Port Adelaide Football Club said player O'Shea was not treated for any injury for the contact. No further action was taken.

 

[ciaobella]

Otto was very lucky to get just a week. If it's decided by the MRP that the incident was intentional, a player's good history should not be taken into account. This is the worst part of this system. Why give a player who has deliberately gone out of his way to hit another player the benefit of a discount. Aren't the AFL wanting stamp this out of the game? Not sending a good message here.

On the matter of the fines for the melees, this is classic revenue raising by the AFL. It's the equivalent of a speed camera being set up at the bottom of a hill! The AFL know players are gonna go in and help out their team mates so it's a no brainer. Katching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$

MRP, tribunal and the AFL - a disgrace to aussie rules

 

[Brown n Gold]

Otto was very lucky to get just a week. If it's decided by the MRP that the incident was intentional, a player's good history should not be taken into account. This is the worst part of this system. Why give a player who has deliberately gone out of his way to hit another player the benefit of a discount. Aren't the AFL wanting stamp this out of the game? Not sending a good message here.

On the matter of the fines for the melees, this is classic revenue raising by the AFL. It's the equivalent of a speed camera being set up at the bottom of a hill! The AFL know players are gonna go in and help out their team mates so it's a no brainer. Katching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$

MRP, tribunal and the AFL - a disgrace to aussie rules

Great post!! I would say off the ball incidents should receive a loading also. 1.5 times for incidents that are more than 20m off the ball.

 

[fishardansin]

Great post!! I would say off the ball incidents should receive a loading also. 1.5 times for incidents that are more than 20m off the ball.

That is hard to distinguish though. I argued that what Hocking did with his elbow against Brisbane wasn't "off the ball". He was following Simon Black who was trying to make a lead for the bloke with the ball and Hocking elbowed the bloke who tried to block for Black in the head.

Some felt that it was "off the ball".

I agree that there should be no 25% discount for intentional. However, a player should be able to go to the tribunal and argue against the grading then what ever the outcome of the tribunal except their decision and still get the 25% discount for early guilty plea if he agrees with their judgement.

 

[Woodson]

Great post!! I would say off the ball incidents should receive a loading also. 1.5 times for incidents that are more than 20m off the ball.

I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps x2. How can a tackle (Trengrove, Kosi & Mumford) be severely dealt with yet a deliberate CHEAP SHOT SNIPER act only get one week??

Just tells everyone that playing DIRTY is less punishable than being generally aggressive with tackling. Just a whole bowl of wrong IMHO.

 

[Sw3Et]

Otto was very lucky to get just a week. If it's decided by the MRP that the incident was intentional, a player's good history should not be taken into account. This is the worst part of this system. Why give a player who has deliberately gone out of his way to hit another player the benefit of a discount. Aren't the AFL wanting stamp this out of the game? Not sending a good message here.

On the matter of the fines for the melees, this is classic revenue raising by the AFL. It's the equivalent of a speed camera being set up at the bottom of a hill! The AFL know players are gonna go in and help out their team mates so it's a no brainer. Katching!! $$$$$$$$$$$$

MRP, tribunal and the AFL - a disgrace to aussie rules

Truer words have never been spoken, great post

 

[Slattery_20]

That is hard to distinguish though. I argued that what Hocking did with his elbow against Brisbane wasn't "off the ball". He was following Simon Black who was trying to make a lead for the bloke with the ball and Hocking elbowed the bloke who tried to block for Black in the head.

Some felt that it was "off the ball".

I agree that there should be no 25% discount for intentional. However, a player should be able to go to the tribunal and argue against the grading then what ever the outcome of the tribunal except their decision and still get the 25% discount for early guilty plea if he agrees with their judgement.

Barry hall's lawyer???

It was way off the ball. Which, btw, made the initial shepherd illegal, but doesn't excuse Heath's reaction.