The new tribunal system: a Review

[The Hobo]

We're at the halfway point, and it's time to look at the new system. Is it working? What changes can be made? etc etc.

The bump
The longest sentence given out under the new system, also the first sentence, is the 6 week ban on Byron Pickett.

Since then, we've had a few more suspensions for heavy hits, with brad miller, Tyson Stenglien, Aaron Shattock etc.

After every single one of the hits from the bottom few, the player has been injured and had to go off the ground. After the pickett hit, Begley got up and was the least injured of the lot. Yet pickett got by far the harshest penatly... This seems to be a big error by the tribunal system.

The tripping issue.
Tripping will never be rated as "severe impact" because that would be kicking. It will always be "low contact" as you can't trip the stomach. So basically anyone who trips can get off with a reprimand. Not good enough.

Love taps
There's always a little bit of niggle in an AFL match. Players will get a few small punches and elbows to stomach ribs arms etc. They live with it, it's always been part of the game.

Now in the west coast eagles match, Quinten Lynch ran straight through the hawthorn player (campbell i believe) with not really looking at the ball. It seemed pre-meditated as well, because lynch had been ruffled up moments earlier.

In the same match, Adam Hunter punched Mark Williams in the groin. After one attempt, he missed, he tried again, which to me makes it intentional. He got off.

And again, in the same match, Phil matera gently tapped a hawk in the stomach and got one week.

Where is the justice?

Fraser Gehrig did something similar and got a week. This must be looked at.

Hit to the nuts
As outlined above, the mark williams incident. If the head is protected so much, the groin should also be protected imo. I believe there has been a few incidents, where a hit to the nuts have been let ofF? anyone?

Conclusion

This new system is by far worse than the old system. It enables the match review panel to say whatever they please. There is no basis for "severe impact" as opposed to "low impact", as they can decide whatever they please depending on who the player is and the stereo type going to them.

Pickett is renknown for his tough bumps, so his stereotype is what caused his 6 week suspension. If that was some other player, they would have got 3 weeks.

Gehrig is known for being hot-headed. He got suspended due to his stereotype and reputation. As a result, the AFL tribunal has had to continue, by suspending phil matera etc. to seem consistent.

They just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole with this one.

Something must be done.

 

[CatManDo]

Re: The new tribunal system

Sack the panel, and employ 5 bigfooty posters to dish out suspensions.

 

[sedders]

Re: The new tribunal system

all the fault outlined above are with the match review panel, not the new points system or the tribunal.

 

[rick James]

the MRP (Miller REview Panel) is horribly focused on getting Miller adn his teammates rubbed out, any other focus is secondary to the issue at hand, and that is to ensure Brad Miller is suspended for as many games as possible.

however there is a splinter faction (the PRP) whoa re focused on getting as many port players rubbed out as possible, being that this splinter faction is smaller in size, they simply hand out harsher sentences.

 

[pazza]

Let's talk up the positives.

The Match Review Panel seems to be handling itself in a fair and reasonable manner. It's not easy to review 8 full games and select incidents. The pressure brought to bare by media outlets and outraged fans in particular is a big problem. Perhaps a heap of no commenting on it until after the panel has done it's hjob, would certainly be helpful.

The Tribunal itself is also a problem. They picked a bunch of generally clean-skinned players to be on it and not "regular" visitors. Seems some of them are big-noting themselves.

 

[sedders]

Let's talk up the positives.

The Match Review Panel seems to be handling itself in a fair and reasonable manner. It's not easy to review 8 full games and select incidents. The pressure brought to bare by media outlets and outraged fans in particular is a big problem. Perhaps a heap of no commenting on it until after the panel has done it's hjob, would certainly be helpful.

The Tribunal itself is also a problem. They picked a bunch of generally clean-skinned players to be on it and not "regular" visitors. Seems some of them are big-noting themselves.

no its not, its quite easy to watch 8 games of football. I dont understand why they let the media dictate what needs to be looked at. it seems like they dont even review the games, they just review the media.

 

[EB&W Pieman]

My take.

The system is an excellent one, the major benefit being the reduction to almost zero of the pathetic sight of players and clubs trying to deny what our eyes can plainly see. Living in a non-AFL state it was humiliating to have to put up with the jeers of non-AFL supporters when the video would clearly show a player punching another player, and the plea would invariably be not guilty. And what made it worse was the fact that in about 40% of these ridiculous cases the player would be found not guilty. (eg ALynch)

This year the early plea discount has got rid of virtually all of these stupid cases.

Tripping still needs work. The case should, in the spirit of the other offences, be judged on
§ The speed that the tripped player is travelling at
§ The force of the trip
§ Deliberate or almost involuntary
§ By hand or by foot.

The 1,2,3 rating points system seems too simplistic, and this seems the main reason for so many cases being reduced on appeal. The powers that be can work out a more complex points system that reflects the intricacies of the game. I personally do not reckon they need to add the works deliberate, reckless etc. Just say Impact 1.8, intent, 2.4, etc….with a total points tally of 240 points or whatever

They could add stuff like an automatic 20 points for a jumper punch or a slap. These things are harmless enough on their own, but can trigger a response and ought to be penalised.

They could add the words “It is the responsibility of the player attempting to bump an opponent from the front to avoid contact to the head” which would explain the workings of that rule, and reduce the current confusion.

The Appeals board ought not to be able to make unilateral ridiculous decisions. They may not like the Gherig two-week suspension for striking Jason Cloke, but they really should not be able to say that the punch was not deliberate when it so obviously was. They can, if they wish, reduce the impact etc, but they must not have the ability to go around the system. If the 1,2,3 rating system doesn’t work, fix it, but don’t tell lies.

 

[pazza]

Just on the tripping rule, that was the focus of the hypen's article in the Herald-Sun today. Can't get it straight away, but, some interesting comments.

 

[SCARD]

Some of the review panel's decisions should earn these guys a gig at the Comedy Festival

 

[Russian]

Might dig up my post from a few weeks ago later but for now here's some stats on this year - fines and this week not included

44 MRP reports
41 players
10210 points offered by MRP (without discounts and additions but including points Pickett, Scotland and Fevola got when sent straight to the tribunal)
8960 points taken after tribunal (without discounts and additions)
50 weeks suspension

29/41 accepted
12/41 fought
- 7/12 reduced
- 2/12 cleared
- 3/12 thrown out
--- 1/3 appealed
----- 0/1 successful

of the 3 direct tribunal cases, 2 appeals, 2 failures

Most reports:
8 - Melbourne (1 cleared)
7 - Port Adelaide
5 - West Coast
4 - Carlton

Most players reported:
7 - Port Adelaide
7 - Melbourne (1 cleared)
5 - West Coast

Most points dished out (same conditions as above)
1985 - Port Adelaide
1275 - Melbourne
875 - Western Bulldogs

Least reports:
0 - Adelaide
1 - Brisbane
1 - Collingwood
1 - Essendon
1 - Fremantle
1 - Richmond

Least points dished out (as above)
0 - Adelaide
125 - Essendon
125 - St Kilda
225 - Brisbane

%age fought
BRIS - 100
GEEL - 33
HAW - 50
MELB - 25
PORT - 17
STK - 100
SYD - 50
WCE - 40
WB - 33
The Rest - 0

Cleared/Reduced/Dismissed
BRIS - 0/1/0
GEEL - 0/1/0
HAW - 0/1/0
MELB - 1/0/1
PORT - 0/1/1
STK - 1/1/0
SYD - 0/0/1
WCE - 0/2/0
WB - 0/1/0

 

[coasting]

I agree with most of what you say, except your whinge about pickett's hit. Sedders is correct, its the not the tribunal but the match review panel that is rooted and disgustingly media driven. When the head of the match review panel comes out and says Chris Judd is more heavily scrutinised because of his profile you know its in deep trouble.

 

[Machiavelli9]

I agree with Neale Daniher that the new system is far better.

YOu now know how the decision is arrived at unlike past years when you had no effing idea.

Sure it needs a few tweaks here and there but for freak's sake you have to expect some teething problems in the first year.

I have no complaints with any outcome.

 

[MeestaNob]

Problem A) The match review panel and the tribunal are NOT the same people. The MRP is too candy-arse to make a goddamn honest and correct decision, and the tribunal dont trust the MRP nor do they hand down suspensions that they should be dishing out.

Problem B) Both parties seem to go out of their way to find a way not to enforce the law of the game on players, especially noticable with 'star' players (notable recent examples: Wanganeen (tripping), Voss (wilfully causing incident with umpire)). The system is run by complete and utter softc*cks. DO YOUR DAMN JOB.
The Rugby league judiciary is perfect. Do something wrong, 8 weeks! What did you say? Did you look at me funny? 10 weeks! F**k you and the horse you rode in on... NEXT!

Problem C) The tribunal dont understand their own damn system. It's a good system, someone should explain to them how it works. All these tricky modifiers and discounts and free spins (or whatever) dont seem to click with the overpaid under-minimum-intelligence mongs at AFL house; get someone in who knows how the bloody thing works. One BF posters idea of getting forumites to run the show ISNT so stupid. The result couldnt be any worse.

Problem D) The public has no respect for the MRP. They release statements and pressreleases explaining their decisions as to why/why not someone will be charged, are almost always to everyones complete and utter dismay. Journalists must openly gape at the MRP PR guy as he reads out the verdicts, their decisions are just so mind bogglingly stupid and wrong that the temptation to attack the guy with the dictaphone and stuff him in the news van must be overwhelming.

Match review panel and Tribunal:
Complete arse up of comical proportions.