MRP / Trib. Umpiring, MRO, Tribunal, Rule Changes - 50m penalties for raising arms?

[Lore]

 

[Whispering_Jack]

They didn't bounce a single ball on Thursday and Friday nights. Did anyone notice? Doubt it.

 

[Beerfish]

They didn't bounce a single ball on Thursday and Friday nights. Did anyone notice? Doubt it.

I certainly noticed just about every bounce going to right of screen in our game though. Think only one was called back.

 

[Lore]

I certainly noticed just about every bounce going to right of screen in our game though. Think only one was called back.

At the start of our game it was bouncing really really high, straight up. And then it started doing what you said, I noticed that too. I kept saying 'oh that one will be called back'... and then it wasn't :S Like it was fully outside the circle.

 

[vast]

The HTB against Heppell in the first was probably the worst HTB call of the year and given thst the current interpretation of that rule has been nothing short of a disaster this year that was a new low.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

The HTB against Heppell in the first was probably the worst HTB call of the year and given thst the current interpretation of that rule has been nothing short of a disaster this year that was a new low.

From memory I'm not sure where prior opportunity was.....if it was incorrect disposal well maybe, but that happens all the time and not called.

 

[vast]

From memory I'm not sure where prior opportunity was.....if it was incorrect disposal well maybe, but that happens all the time and not called.

The only universe he would have had prior opp in would be if he was the flash.
******* hell they were eager on that call.

So going by the op why was this the case? Finals have historically been better umpired because they let the game go.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

From memory I'm not sure where prior opportunity was.....if it was incorrect disposal well maybe, but that happens all the time and not called.

Incorrect disposal is only a consideration after the players has had prior opportunity anyway. It was a shocking call.

 

[Maddogm]

At the start of our game it was bouncing really really high, straight up. And then it started doing what you said, I noticed that too. I kept saying 'oh that one will be called back'... and then it wasn't :S Like it was fully outside the circle.

I don't think the circle has anything to do with a bounce being called back, it's whether or not both rucks can contest it

 

[Lore]

I don't think the circle has anything to do with a bounce being called back, it's whether or not both rucks can contest it

Not the small circle (forgive my ignorance if there is clearer terminology), I mean the fall of the ball was outside of the larger circle. If both rucks were contesting it out there then that's pretty impressive (I probably should check the replay, but I'm fairly certain they weren't).

 

[Maddogm]

Not the small circle (forgive my ignorance if there is clearer terminology), I mean the fall of the ball was outside of the larger circle. If both rucks were contesting it out there then that's pretty impressive (I probably should check the replay, but I'm fairly certain they weren't).

it's the larger circle I'm talking about. It's less likely that both rucks can contest it which is where the misconception comes from

 

[Lore]

Did anyone catch the details of this?

 

[Bomberbuzz1]

Did anyone catch the details of this?

I'd also like to know more details on this.
I definitely agree that these two are the major focus points. I'd rather more leniency on prior opportunity, it seems you are more likely to get a free kick against if you attempt to dispose the ball which is wrong.

 

[DonsRule]

 

[yodellinhank]

Good. Rubbish whoever he/she was. Boo the next one.

 

[Vindicater]

Good. Rubbish whoever he/she was. Boo the next one.

Peter Schwab.

Good call to get rid of him. has been garbage everywhere he goes.

 

[Lore]

Heap of changes to the MRP, including;

• MRP is now one person (Michael Christian)
• MRP reports to the AFL directly (therefore no longer a 'nominally independent')
• Unsuccessful challenges to MRP decisions cop a 10k fine (included in the cap for the football department), instead of an automatic longer sentence
• If referred direct to Tribunal they'll get at least 3 weeks
• No more reduced suspension for an early plea
• Three strikes... you're fined (not suspended)
• Bad records don't automatically affect the outcome
• Staging gets a fine on a first offence
• Thursday and Friday night charges laid within 24 hours
• Fines have all gone up

Full article:

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".

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2017-12-14/mrp-changes

 

[quotemokc]

Wasn't someone referred to the tribunal this year and they got off their suspension completely?

 

[Lore]

Wasn't someone referred to the tribunal this year and they got off their suspension completely?

Thinking of Cotchin?

 

[yaco55]

My take is Christian must be well payed if he's foregone his media committments - AFL made the obvious change in making clubs make a deposit to go to the Tribunal.

 

[DERO]

Good changes.

Finally a system that makes sense that will speed up the process and hopefully avoid the inconsistency issues that plagued the last format. It is never going to be black and white but having one adjudicator makes a lot of sense.

 

[Beerfish]

My take is Christian must be well payed if he's foregone his media committments

That's your only take?

I think Chrisso is a brave, brave man to be taking a lone hand to this. He will be publicly hung, drawn and quartered if it doesn't go well. Having said that I wish him all the best.

Interesting that they take the time to mention staging despite nobody ever being pulled up for it (I think?) since Leroy, also despite there being many occurrences of it since. Maybe they are planning to call it out a bit more next year.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

Christian is on a hiding to nothing & I really fail to see how having one person make all decisions will somehow magically correct the lunacy that has dogged every incarnation of the MRP since day dot. The changes announced seem to make sense but if I read right the MRP has lost it's independence, so could/would/will now come under direct influence of the AFL & what they expect..good luck with that.

 

[yaco55]

That's your only take?

I think Chrisso is a brave, brave man to be taking a lone hand to this. He will be publicly hung, drawn and quartered if it doesn't go well. Having said that I wish him all the best.

Interesting that they take the time to mention staging despite nobody ever being pulled up for it (I think?) since Leroy, also despite there being many occurrences of it since. Maybe they are planning to call it out a bit more next year.

Forgot to mention, Christian also breeds rcehorses.

 

[Lore]

Thought this was an interesting explanation for how they define careless intent/medium impact:

"Based on the match day report and speaking to umpire Rob O’Gorman, who laid the report, the available video evidence and a medical report from the Essendon Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction," the AFL said in a statement.

Speaking later on Saturday on 3AW, Christian said Douglas had time to get the ball, but by choosing instead to bump, it to be fair.

"Watching the vision at different speeds, it was clear there was contact to Merrett’s head which is careless contact," he said.

"It would have been play on if he contacted the body."

Christian added that while Merrett missed the rest of the match, the fact he was able to run from the ground after the clash meant it was graded as medium contact.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-03-24/crow-cops-onematch-ban-for-zach-whack

Intent: he didn't set out to specifically make high contact, therefore it's careless, rather than deliberate. A deliberate bump is not illegal, so the intent is judged on whether he intended to make high contact, rather than whether he intended to bump.

Impact: Zac ran off the field after the hit, therefore 'medium impact' rather than high.

So I guess that means 'high impact' is reserved for limping or being stretchered off..?