MRP / Trib. So for a 2 week penalty in the AFL...

[leungtl]

You can either coward punch a guy off the ball...



Or execute a fair bump below the shoulders but accidentally clash heads:

 

[Nickos66]

POTY 2014.

/thread.

 

[Stronzo]

You'd cop it if there was some consistency, but what is fair and what isn't changes from week to week.

Having 'clamp downs' on particular things is a joke of a way to administer the rules of the game.

 

[freoextra]

Oh well at least the Carlton player got a penalty for the Crowley punch and it looks like Freo talked down the impact of the blow - good on us!.

Nothing for the Ballas incident, surprise surprise.

I am just happy they didn"t find a way to supend Crowley for breathing on Murphy.

 

[calaisking]

Fremantle management need to send a stern letter to the AFL for the joke of what they call the MRP. We've been getting shafted all year

Fyfey's accidental head clash given the same penalty as a bloke giving a blind sided king hit to the back of a players head

Ballantyne given a week for an off the ball hit to the gut, then two weeks later the Carlton captain does the exact same thing, possibly more impact which keeps our player down off the ball and it doesn't get a week?

Im fuming

 

[Clems Knee]

You can deliberately attempt to maim a player, and if you don't manage it, the MRP won't even look at the incident. Hell, if you are a favoured player, the MRP won't look at the incident whether you cause any damage or not. But if you are a targeted player, the slightest contact will result in the book being thrown at you. Ballantyne would not have been suspended at all this year, if he was someone else. Gibbs would have been suspended if he was someone else.
The MRP is so broken, it needs to be got rid of. The level of corruption and / or incompetence displayed by the MRP has compromised the integrity of the competition. Heads should roll.

 

[Unique Name]

You can either coward punch a guy off the ball...



Or execute a fair bump below the shoulders but accidentally clash heads:

Please repost this on the main board.
Remind everyone what a disgrace the MRP are.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

The carryover points are what killed Fyfe

Would have only been 1 had he had no points and he risked missing 3 weeks if the club challenged

Also the head-high rule is a farce in the sense that it only counts as a possible suspension if damage is done (or perceived damage i.e. blood)

 

[yoong]

I hate to revisit this again actually.

a punch, forearm, elbow and such is classified as a "strike", where a bump is classified as a "rough conduct".
The problem is, for the same grading, rough conduct is punished more severely than striking, for whatever reason.
So the irony is, should fyfe throw an elbow instead of the bump he'll probably get a week less.

 

[ImperialPurple]

The absolute frustration of this is indescribable in regular words - not only for me I'm sure...

 

[UFO Tatsu]

I hate to revisit this again actually.

a punch, forearm, elbow and such is classified as a "strike", where a bump is classified as a "rough conduct".
The problem is, for the same grading, rough conduct is punished more severely than striking, for whatever reason.
So the irony is, should fyfe throw an elbow instead of the bump he'll probably get a week less.

the form that MRP was in during that time ... he would of gotten 10 weeks

 

[electricfeel]

**** the MRP

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Seeing the Merritt incident confuses me even further. I thought the MRP was concerned about damage done?

So much inconsistency

 

[Admiral Byng]

Seeing the Merritt incident confuses me even further. I thought the MRP was concerned about damage done?

So much inconsistency

Me too. I'm confused. I thought that's what they had negligent and reckless categories for.

 

[pokerspiv]

It's not really that confusing. The Fyfe decision was an embarrassment for the AFL so they have put it behind them and are going to pretend it never happened.

 

[Freofalcon]

I love his reaction after he realised what he had done.



Should have got a months for that. It was a elbow to the back of the head. Not even sure you are allowed to do that in a cage fight let alone on the footy field.

 

[couldhavebeen]

It was stated that the AFL is reviewing the rules at a board meeting this week on players suspended during the season and as to what rules a player out of qualifying for the Brownlow for next year and beyond .
They are considering that if a minor infraction by a player occurs and the player is suspended then he can still win the medal .
They are trying to find a way of saving face when Fyfe has more Brownlow votes than anyone else and is ineligible .
This way they can say we have fixed the problem for the next and ongoing seasons .
Its a crazy thing to do because if they agree to change the rule everyone will be screaming from the rafters that the new rule should apply straight away .
TBH the whole MRP , tribunal and the rules committee have stuffed up the game with their own decisions as we have seen all year .
A first year legal uni student would have done a better job on writing the rules than the high paid idiots the AFL have used .

 

[Dockernut]

The absolute frustration of this is indescribable in regular words - not only for me I'm sure...

Wait til he wins the Chas.

 

[PapaJ]

It was stated that the AFL is reviewing the rules at a board meeting this week on players suspended during the season and as to what rules a player out of qualifying for the Brownlow for next year and beyond .
They are considering that if a minor infraction by a player occurs and the player is suspended then he can still win the medal .
They are trying to find a way of saving face when Fyfe has more Brownlow votes than anyone else and is ineligible .
This way they can say we have fixed the problem for the next and ongoing seasons .
Its a crazy thing to do because if they agree to change the rule everyone will be screaming from the rafters that the new rule should apply straight away .
TBH the whole MRP , tribunal and the rules committee have stuffed up the game with their own decisions as we have seen all year .
A first year legal uni student would have done a better job on writing the rules than the high paid idiots the AFL have used .

I'd be amazed if they announce anything significant before the season is done and dusted - it would be a PR disaster to do otherwise.

As for the MRP, I still maintain that the problem is not the rules (most of them), or the points system, but the poor way it's being used - and it's gotten to a terrible state this season where they're just making it up as they go instead of using precedent and the points system to guide them sensibly. I don't want to go back to the even worse situations we had a decade or so ago where there were essentially no standardised system at all and the inconsistencies were worse. They just need to tweak the system and have it driven properly by people who have a clue.

 

[Admiral Byng]

As for the MRP, I still maintain that the problem is not the rules (most of them), or the points system, but the poor way it's being used - and it's gotten to a terrible state this season where they're just making it up as they go instead of using precedent and the points system to guide them sensibly. I don't want to go back to the even worse situations we had a decade or so ago where there were essentially no standardised system at all and the inconsistencies were worse. They just need to tweak the system and have it driven properly by people who have a clue.

It is the points system IMHO. It throws up results that don't seem to fit our intuitive assessment of an incident. Therefore the MRP are constantly fudging the parameters so they fit what ought to be the outcome. Thus we lose any sense of precedent or consistency.

For example, in today's MRP video piece on the AFL website, they talked about the Conca penalty, discussing the medium impact versus low impact finding. The classification of the other parameters - intentional, striking, high contact - was not in dispute. But the way the points system is drawn up - that combination plus low impact (probably the correct assessment) was two weeks down to one. The AFL guy said that the MRP felt this outcome was insufficient, so they changed the impact grading to medium to return a penalty they felt more appropriate. To me this seems like the points table is broken and needs fixing.

 

[Bulldocker]

One of the biggest problems for MRP is that they don't even have the same people viewing the incidents from week to week. The other more obvious problem...... those morons are ex-players and they all come with allegiances ingrained. So the "make an example" syndrome always begins with a player from a non-Victorian club. That way they don't have to deal with grief when they wander into their local AFL social club bar!

w***ers all!!!

 

[pokerspiv]

The biggest problem with the MRP is continually experiementing with new rules. The Fyfe rule was shocking and it quickly became apparent that they would need to be suspending dozens of people each week to be consistent. So it was quietly done away with after about round 5. Fyfe should be retroactively pardoned and compensation paid to Fremantle football club/points returned for the H/A match we lost while Fyfe was wrongfully suspended.

 

[yoong]

Actually, the principle is sound. This system have a better chance of coming up with a consistent result than a guy sitting there going..."that looked like 2 weeks..."
The problem is the way MRP feed the parameters. Or more specifically, the assessment of the impact.

High/body - pretty easy to determine and no wiggle room.

Intention - they actually have a reasonable guideline what is what. E.g. If you swing your arm dangerously and hit someone behind you, that's a "reckless". If you ran towards a fellow and clobber him, that's an obvious "intentional". While it doesn't cover all situations and there is still wiggle room for negligent/reckless, it's still hard to end up somewhere way off.

Impact - this is THE problem. Similar hits, different results as there is NO written guideline how to determine the impact. Buddy's bump is "insufficient force" but Fyfe's medium. Why? Can't answer.
I'll say, create a simple checklist and they'll get it 80% right. They rest of the special cases refer to tribunal.

Player knocked off feet - at least a low impact.
Player got concussion - at least a high.
Player got broken bones - automate sever.
Player knocked unconscious - at least a medium
......

if they make the MRP this straight forward, it will be very consistent. If they think the rules got it wrong, they don't fudge the parameters, they send it to the tribunal for assessment (like they do now anyway)

 

[Allikat]

The biggest problem with the MRP is continually experiementing with new rules. The Fyfe rule was shocking and it quickly became apparent that they would need to be suspending dozens of people each week to be consistent. So it was quietly done away with after about round 5. Fyfe should be retroactively pardoned and compensation paid to Fremantle football club/points returned for the H/A match we lost while Fyfe was wrongfully suspended.

Or alternatively go back through the footage of every game so far this year and make anyone who would be banned under the rule - as it was adjudicated at the start of the year - ineligible for the brownlow.

 

[PapaJ]

Actually, the principle is sound. This system have a better chance of coming up with a consistent result than a guy sitting there going..."that looked like 2 weeks..."
The problem is the way MRP feed the parameters. Or more specifically, the assessment of the impact.

High/body - pretty easy to determine and no wiggle room.

Intention - they actually have a reasonable guideline what is what. E.g. If you swing your arm dangerously and hit someone behind you, that's a "reckless". If you ran towards a fellow and clobber him, that's an obvious "intentional". While it doesn't cover all situations and there is still wiggle room for negligent/reckless, it's still hard to end up somewhere way off.

Impact - this is THE problem. Similar hits, different results as there is NO written guideline how to determine the impact. Buddy's bump is "insufficient force" but Fyfe's medium. Why? Can't answer.
I'll say, create a simple checklist and they'll get it 80% right. They rest of the special cases refer to tribunal.

Player knocked off feet - at least a low impact.
Player got concussion - at least a high.
Player got broken bones - automate sever.
Player knocked unconscious - at least a medium
......

if they make the MRP this straight forward, it will be very consistent. If they think the rules got it wrong, they don't fudge the parameters, they send it to the tribunal for assessment (like they do now anyway)

I agree, though not totally convinced with the impact assessment being based on physical outcome. People can stage being "knocked off feet". A pretty heavy hit to the head can do nothing, but a lesser one can concuss someone badly if in the wrong spot etc.

IMHO, I think the impact should be relatively low on the assessment in general. If you hit hard or soft is not always that relevant - though a degree of 'sufficient force' will always be needed of course and you want big hits weighted accordingly. But in general, I think the weighting should be heavily covered by the other categories - it's the behaviour that you want punished in a general sense, not the force as such ... if that makes sense.

In any case, if the MRP were a consistent body that applied the rules and guidelines with a natural reading that met precedent, then some people might be frustrated (e.g. Buddy would have picked up a suspension), but not to the degree that we are now.

And it's just snowballed through the season; since the Fyfe incident and a few others, they've become spooked and they're doing an even worse job.