MRP / Trib. Taylor Walker

[Cap]

What I'm really looking for now, is how the club deals with it. In previous years many here including myself have been scathing of our softly softly approach when it comes to AFL edicts. Every other facet of the club seems to have had some concrete for breakfast; given the MRP inability to make a charge stick recently, other contentious tackles this weekend, and our coach's excellent manipulation of AFL opinion vis a vis Tippett last weekend, I'd like us to come out and challenge the assessment. Time for Trigg to join the rest of us?

the softly softly approach is what got Walker a bad record for an act that wouldn't get looked at this week anyway.

 

[MattyB_76]

I can live with the 2 weeks but the reasoning for the other two suspect tackles getting off given by the MRP panel is what erks me...."did not use excessive force"?

What shat me off was the explanation for Walker's tackle on the AFL video, The Verdict.

The guy (name escapes me) says that "Taylor was able to come back on, so the impact was classed as medium". So is the default force for and incident where someone goes off to get checked 'medium'?

 

[MarcusP2]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135752/default.aspx

MRP admits it went too hard on sliding, will cite less in future.

 

[King Elvis]

I had a feeling with Tex's carry over points he may get one game but never dreamt he would get 2. Then note to cite Lovell-Murray is just a double slap in the face. Proves yet again if you are not one of the afl's major drawcards or in an emerging market, they really couldn't give a flying f%% about you. In the AFL's eyes SA football who rate around the bottom in the order of importance.

Serioulsy, why do we bother.

I can live with Walker going for a week, but the justification for NLMurray getting off makes a mockery of Tex going;

Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.

So did Walker and Taylor

 

[Vader]

Katrina Gill said we risk three by challenging. By the way isn't that a bull**** concept? To threaten off teams from appealing stupid decisions by placing an additional punishment upon it?

There is no additional punishment. There is a 25% discount available as an incentive for pleading guilty, which is no longer available if a player chooses to contest the charge.

Yes, this is an incentive to plead guilty & not waste the tribunal's time unless the club genuinely thinks the player is innocent - as distinct from the old system where everyone contested their charges, wasting hours of the tribunals time every week with offences where the player was manifestly guilty.

Now the only time a case reaches the tribunal is where the club thinks the player is genuinely not guilty (as distinct from knowing they're guilty but trying in vain to get them off), or where they feel that the charge does not fit the crime.

 

[Crow-eater]

If we can get it down to one, it won't be so bad. My major gripe with all of this is the consistency of the MRP being non existent.

 

[spexau]

I don't understand how they think that NLM didn't use force to drive him into the ground. You can see him blatantly use his leg to trip and push Priddis toward the ground. If that isn't using force then I don't know what is.

 

[hunteyes]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135752/default.aspx

MRP admits it went too hard on sliding, will cite less in future.

This also has me fuming, if this is the case Walker's reprimand should be scrapped, therefore no carryover points, reducing this to one game with an early plea. Then we contest the impact ruling, and get this reduced to a reprimand instead of one week

 

[xamol]

Patrick Keane ‏ @AFL_PKeane Tribunal will not sit tonight after Taylor Walker and Joel Corey both accepted the sanctions imposed by the Match Review Panel.

 

[Elite Crow]

Soft, we only risked one game to possibly gain two.

 

[Dandy_GO]

oh **** off

 

[chicane]

I am so angry at the decision to not contest this inconsistent ruling by the MRP.. talk about double standards!

We should have challenged it, we needed Tex the next 2 weeks more than the next 3.. it would have been worth it to spotlight the unfairness!

Way to try to 'balance' the league hey AFL?

 

[SugarShane]

I really wish the AFL or the MRP were held accountable for their actions. As in i wish that there was a way we could get a direct answer as to why the other 2 more dangerous tackles were let off scott free while Walker gets made an example of.

 

[JP Sauce]

So we remain embarrassingly weak when it comes to dealing with the AFL.

 

[Hank93]

Phil Harper said that they thought the impact was "Low" and not "Medium". Clearly if they had of pleaded guilty to the other 2 classifications, but contested the impact rating, they would have risked 3 weeks.

The AFC aren't stupid.

 

[chicane]

Need an ombudsman for the AFL.. or take it to the courts! Problem is you need the AFC to oppose the sanction. Without that, you're stuffed!

I would really like to know the rationale of the AFC to accept the ruling.

 

[Alby_Green]

Note to Sando. In future take a leaf out of Brett Ratten's book when questioned about potential MRP incidents with a "there was nothing in it" response.

Has worked to Carlton's advantage in the past.

 

[cmndstab]

Disappointed we chose not to challenge it, though I guess it's hardly surprising. I doubt the tribunal would have accepted an argument along the lines of "you gave the other guy low, so we should too", even though it's correct.

Would have liked to see us flex our muscles a bit, but oh well. Bring on Lynch I suppose!

 

[macca23]

This whole report and suspension of Walker for absolute fk-all gives me the shits.

You just know deep down that if he was wearing a Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond guernsey when wearing that tackle that nothing would have come of it at all.

Emotionally, I wanted the club to appeal what I think is an injustice, but they obviously are pretty certain that an appeal would be unsuccessful, or they would have. They want Walker to play as much as we do.

It's up to the rest of the boys to cover for him now.

 

[Brasher]

The real kicker for me is the MRP panel coming out and saying that "no two cases are the same".

In real world language that jut means "we give ourselves a free pass for our lack of consistency".

 

[Hank93]

This whole report and suspension of Walker for absolute fk-all gives me the shits.

Agreed

You just know deep down that if he was wearing a Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond guernsey when wearing that tackle that nothing would have come of it at all.

Disagree

Emotionally, I wanted the club to appeal what I think is an injustice, but they obviously are pretty certain that an appeal would be unsuccessful, or they would have. They want Walker to play as much as we do.

Agreed

It's up to the rest of the boys to cover for him now.

Agreed

While I think the decision to suspend him for 2 games is beyond stupid, the AFC would have done a lot of homework on this case, and decided that their argument wouldn't have reduced the penalty, and therefore he would miss 3 games (4 weeks due to the bye).

There is zero possibility the MRP gave him 2 weeks simply because he plays for an interstate team. That is a ridiculous suggestion IMO.

We already know the MRP are extremely inconsistent and un-reliable and that is the reason he gets two and NLM gets none.

 

[Brasher]

I would really like to know the rationale of the AFC to accept the ruling.

Simple. If you get screwed over by a governing body that lacks integrity and transparency in its arbitration then what reasoning is there to suggest you ain't going to cop the same outcome on appeal?

The fact players get offered less for early pleads rather than challenging basically means you are now guilty unless proven otherwise.

 

[Crowfoot]

Once again the Adelaide Football Club have become the MRP's whipping boy.

When are they gonna grow a pair?

 

[Vader]

There is zero possibility the MRP gave him 2 weeks simply because he plays for an interstate team. That is a ridiculous suggestion.

We already know the MRP are extremely inconsistent and un-reliable and that is the reason he gets two and NLM gets none.

Nobody says that he got 2 weeks simply because he plays for an interstate team. All that is being said is that he wouldn't have received any penalty if he played for Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon or Richmond. Big difference.

 

[cmndstab]

The only thing I'd really like now would be for the MRP to explain how they think Walker should have applied that tackle.

Should he have just stood there and hoped he was strong enough to prevent Taylor from getting an arm free and disposing of the ball, which is what has happened to us ad nauseum for the last decade?

Perhaps he should have dropped to his knees after applying the tackle and brought Taylor down that way, offering less force but risking the trip?


Walker came in from the side/behind, wrapped the guy up and made sure he wasn't going to dispose of the ball, He didn't lift the guy more than a couple of inches off the ground, the tackle occurred in a single motion, and the contact to the head came only because the arms were pinned in the tackle and Harry was unable to defend himself, not because Walker speared the head in to the ground himself.

I can't think of any alternative way that tackle could have been applied without risking a turnover.