MRP

[mike91]

I know it helps us out but Thompson getting the same penalty for basically making Cloke earn a mark is hopelessly unbalanced. Two weeks for Glass would have had him missing the Derby though, as if we would ever get so lucky.

That's exactly why he didn't get two weeks

 

[DivideandMultiply]

that might have been his saving grace. but because of that, do you think he deserved to be sighted at all since he didn't hit him high?

Leaving the ground was probably not good, however I think it was a pretty soft report.

Fyfe shouldn't have gone for his bump. Wingard escaped injury free from the Glass bump, in what wasn't a serious incident even at the time. Personally, whilst Wingard is a tough little hombre I also think he is a bit of a showman, as evidence by his reaction to ankle contact that he recovered from instantly.

My own position, is that I wouldn't like to see players rubbed out for what Glass did, I can accept it though .

 

[ep2018]

Just because they ****ed up with Fyfe doesn't mean Glass should cop it too.

in saying that I think he is very lucky, was expecting three weeks. :/

 

[UFO Tatsu]

Just because they ****** up with Fyfe doesn't mean Glass should cop it too.

in saying that I think he is very lucky, was expecting three weeks. :/

that fact that wingard went to the hospital for a "chest" checkup might have saved him from more ... IMO

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Just because they ****** up with Fyfe doesn't mean Glass should cop it too.

in saying that I think he is very lucky, was expecting three weeks. :/

I was too. If they were consistent that is exactly what he would have copped.

 

[ep2018]

that fact that wingard went to the hospital for a "chest" checkup might have saved him from more ... IMO

Ah yes the 'what happens on the field stays on the field' unspoken rule.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I was too. If they were consistent that is exactly what he would have copped.

Why?

Do you have another example of a bump to the body, with no injury caused, leading to a 3 week suspension.

 

[cp3_jr]

The low impact aspect for the Glass hit was a joke...should've been 2/3

 

[Jimbos1]

Can some explain to me how Fyfe gets 2 weeks for a head cut on Rischitelli, while Glass puts Wingard in hospital and gets a week?

As it happened I thought glass better get 2 weeks.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Jimbos1]

Just because they ****** up with Fyfe doesn't mean Glass should cop it too.

in saying that I think he is very lucky, was expecting three weeks. :/

Well no.. They need to be consistent. They gave fyfe 2 weeks now they need to exercise the same authority for similar incidents, atleast until season end.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Freo88]

Well no.. They need to be consistent. They gave fyfe 2 weeks now they need to exercise the same authority for similar incidents, atleast until season end.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Precedent is not used in MRP findings. This is why you'll find that charges are so inconsistent from one to the next.

When the MRP came in, they were of the view that the points system removes all uncertainty of inconsistency and thus precedent was thrown out the window.

Going back to the tribunal days i think precedent was used however.

 

[Docker82]

Why?

Do you have another example of a bump to the body, with no injury caused, leading to a 3 week suspension.

We'll see what Douglas gets tomorrow(??) and then we'll have the example. Only two differences.
1. Glass left the ground
2. Ward feel over hitting his head on the ground

As bad as both looked neither is worthy of a suspension. This is afl. There is no use banning 5 players every week to fix something that is never going to go away. This is not to mention that there is no consistency or intelligence whatsoever in anything the MRP does.

 

[Jimbos1]

Precedent is not used in MRP findings. This is why you'll find that charges are so inconsistent from one to the next.

When the MRP came in, they were of the view that the points system removes all uncertainty of inconsistency and thus precedent was thrown out the window.

Going back to the tribunal days i think precedent was used however.

Hmm interesting. Legal systems around the world remain consistent becauase they acknowledge verdicts from previous cases, I think we should follow this process.

Orrrr we could keep it simple and suspend players for striking, spear tackling etc etc... haha

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[UFO Tatsu]

Hmm interesting. Legal systems around the world remain consistent becauase they acknowledge verdicts from previous cases, I think we should follow this process.

Orrrr we could keep it simple and suspend players for striking, spear tackling etc etc... haha

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

i agree you in heart because we got shafted with fyfe but the MRP is not a legal system and never will be ... afl can do whatever they want to change rules and we as clubs will just have to cop it. any "precedence" will make it difficult for them to do this.

 

[Clive Diablo]

Glass was ruled to have made body contact, not head contact. I didn't think he hit him high on the first look, but I haven't watched it again.

That was the only difference. Otherwise he would have gotten the same penalty, with similar carryover points to Fyfe from previous years would have seen him get 2 weeks.

No Fyfe was medium I pact and Glass low.

 

[Rob]

that fact that wingard went to the hospital for a "chest" checkup might have saved him from more ... IMO

That's probably true - looking at it it's incredibly hard to see how Glass could not have got him in the head given he jumped about a foot off the ground before delivering the bump.

But reckless not intentional? Low impact? You have got to be ****ing kidding.

 

[lmach]

I can't see how putting Wingard into hospital is a bad thing.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

That's probably true - looking at it it's incredibly hard to see how Glass could not have got him in the head given he jumped about a foot off the ground before delivering the bump.

But reckless not intentional? Low impact? You have got to be ******* kidding.

i can kinda get reckless ... but that did not look low impact and TBH rischitelli's cut was rather superficial IMO

 

[UFO Tatsu]

I can't see how putting Wingard into hospital is a bad thing.

glass was probably looking after his mate swift ... give him all the practice he needs

 

[Bulldocker]

And the other question - how was the very similar front on bump Glass put on Schulz ignored? The ball was gone, Glass once again in full flight off the ground sending Schulz onto his back. Intentional/medium impact........ ah, just sweep that one under the mat!

 

[freoextra]

And the other question - how was the very similar front on bump Glass put on Schulz ignored? The ball was gone, Glass once again in full flight off the ground sending Schulz onto his back. Intentional/medium impact........ ah, just sweep that one under the mat!

Didn't see the game but I did see that part of Schultz's lip that had been torn from his face. Massive impact, did that come from his own player because if it was an opposition player it would be weeks.

 

[Purple_Snapper]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spoken4]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is more like it

 

[Spoken4]

Do yourself a favour, just forget comparing anything to the Fyfe incident. That is universally recognised as being a complete flog of a decision based on an absolutely terribly written rule. It just has to go out of your head, or you will end up going quite literally insane.

I just got over the Michael Johnson four match suspension from 2007. Wonder if it will take 8 years to get over the Fyfe one?

 

[Mudd]

even if glass had missed 2 weeks, it's not as though west coast need him, we don't have a forward line at the moment!