The Report/MRP Thread

[BandF]

Bugger, I thought we got off that lightly

 

[CursoryMercenary]

So Thornton didn't get looked at ****ING PATHETIC

 

[Malifice]

So if he appeals the first offence, does that affect the points on the second one?

Im confused.

Looks like it would though.

 

[ioppolo]

Kinda expected him to get a couple weeks, was a bit worried on Schofield knowing what the MRP is like.

 

[Mancey]

So Thornton didn't get looked at ****ING PATHETIC

Reprimand. would have got a match off but like lynch has a good record

 

[eagles rule]

Not surprised lynch got a couple of weeks. Good news for Shoey though .

 

[The Passenger]

would we not be better accepting the striking and trying to defend the charging one??

if we accept the the striking that's 45 points with his reductions, and if he doesn't get off the charging he'll get 244 points (still gets the good record reduction), so he'll have 289 points and miss 2 games still anyway....

but if he gets off he'll end up with only 45 points and not miss a game.

the only problem with that is if he is far more likely to get off the striking charge.

 

[Makka]

With the look on the umpires face, I'm surprised he reported him at all! Looks like he's about to crap himself!

 

[Art OF war]

Have watched this game on replay. The striking charge hit him in the shoulder first and slid up. Would this do anything to reduce the impending ban? There was still some force in the forearm, but it did looked bad with the Mr Murphy somersault. Ling did get off off for punching Hayden Ballantyne

The charging report should not be contested and FYI Mr Murphy has my ok for that particular somersault

 

[Scooter#10]

haha that is a great picture. He looks petrified

 

[Scotland]

Surprised it took this long for this to happen.

He's not exactly a dirty player, but he's about as graceful as St Bernard.

 

[lmach]

Who would of thought at the start of the season that we would be this worried about the Q-Stick getting suspended

 

[Hornberger]

Lynch can challenge either of the two charges it will remain a two match ban if it is unsuccessful.

Their is no point challenging the strike. It has already been graded as negligent and low impact. The chance of getting the charge thrown out is pretty small.

The bump has been rated reckless and medium impact. They could challenge either of those ratings. If they challenge one successfully it will be a one match ban, if it fails it will remain at two weeks. There is no point challenging both, even if both are succesful it will stay as a one match ban but if only one is succesful it be a two match ban.

Will they have a stronger chance arguing that it was negligent or low impact?

 

[Ochre]

Here are the guidelines the AFL use, Page 6 has the stuff on recklessness/negligence.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...20Tribunal%20Booklet%202011-1.pdf&chrome=true

Does Lynchs bump count as a front on bump?

 

[Malifice]

Will they have a stronger chance arguing that it was negligent or low impact?

Good call.

Probably a better chance of downgrading the reckless to negligent.

He could argue he was going for the ball and slipped. It clearly wasnt intentional or malicious. Personally my inital view was that the contact was either incidental to the play, or negligent at worst. Having another look, he doesnt really look like he's going for the pill, more trying to initate body contact on a player with head over the ball, so I can see why the call of reckless was made.

It was a pretty heavy hit. He knew it too when he stood up and immediately apoligised. Not sure he could get away with a downgrading to low impact.

Although Murph played on without any ill effects.

Hate to have 100+ kilos of the Q stick slamming into my head at full pelt.

Would kill me!

 

[Jeeves]

So its 2 is it?

Charge-Level one strike against Marc Murphy
Sanction-Reptimand and 45 points with an early plea.

Charge-Level three engaging in rough conduct against Marc Murphy
Sanction- one match with an early plea.

"West Coast forward Quinten Lynch can accept a one-game suspension for engaging in rough conduct against Carlton's Marc Murphy. Lynch's good five-year record meant what was assessed as a three-game suspension can be reduced to one with an early plea.

Lynch was also charged with a striking offence against Murphy in a separate incident that earned him 45 demerit points."

Round 14 MRP afl.com.au

Seems pretty clear to me. Should accept the sanction and miss the Cats game.

 

[Hornberger]

Good call.

Probably a better chance of downgrading the reckless to negligent.

He could argue he was going for the ball and slipped. It clearly wasnt intentional or malicious. Personally my inital view was that the contact was either incidental to the play, or negligent at worst. Having another look, he doesnt really look like he's going for the pill, more trying to initate body contact on a player with head over the ball, so I can see why the call of reckless was made.

I agree that reckless to negligent the best bet. I would agrue that he was going for the ball when Murphy dived in front of him making contact unavoidable.

It was a pretty heavy hit. He knew it too when he stood up and immediately apoligised. Not sure he could get away with a downgrading to low impact.

Although Murph played on without any ill effects.

Hate to have 100+ kilos of the Q stick slamming into my head at full pelt.

Would kill me!

The problem with impact is that criteria used to assess it is so vague.

 

[Ochre]

Watching the replay, Murphy didnt have clean possesion of the ball when Lynchy hit him, so we might be able to argue he had no choice but to bump and therefore get it downgraded to negligent

 

[Quinz]

Would like to see us challenge the bump if it won't get add anything to his suspension.

 

[Malifice]

The problem with impact is that criteria used to assess it is so vague.

Yeah, but I did note reading it that it specified head high contact with the potential to do serious damage is rated higher.

He clocked him literally on top of the skull, and his head snapped back pretty hard as a result.

Untill I read that MRP stuff, i wouldve thought 'low impact' due to the fact Murph got up and played on, and looked unharmed.

But its the potential reasonably foressable injury they look at with hits like that, so I see the 'moderate' impact line they took.

Also reading that MRP stuff, how the hell did Judd get off for that elbow to Pavs face last year? How was that deemed negligble or incidental contact? He split him open FFS. We really dodged a bullet there.

Anyways, I shall leave you guys too it.

Im not sure I want you guys to win next week with you guys breathing down our necks. Although a Geelong loss opens up the top of the ladder as well.

Best of luck.

 

[Evelyn208]

Im not sure I want you guys to win next week with you guys breathing down our necks. Although a Geelong loss opens up the top of the ladder as well.

Best of luck.

Think if we chase down any top 4 spot it will be Hawthorn's.

 

[JordanWCE]

I'm confused.

On One Week At a Time they said Lynch can take 1 week with an early plea, are they wrong as well?

Edit: Just read Jeeves' post, they are correct.

 

[Eagle Ant]

Yeh typical......

Lynch gets 2 weeks for a bump/Graze..
Houlihan gets nothing for a clear cut intentional HEADBUTT to the Face of Naitanui....

AFL Your priorities are flipping WRONG

 

[BradWCE]

Houlihan gets nothing for a clear cut intentional HEADBUTT to the Face of Naitanui.

I get what you're saying but firstly it was Thornton and secondly he got a reprimand which essentially is nothing until he offends again.

 

[Avalor]

Lynch going for that is ridiculous - for anyone having played the game, it should just be a reprimand. The potential for injury claim is nonsense. As others have said, the MRP have got it all wrong. For what Thorton did, he should've got at least one week.