Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Bulldogs



Lucifer's Hero

One Man MRP

Recommended Posts

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/michael-christian-to-replace-afl-match-review-panel-under-new-judiciary-system-20171214-h04gp5.html

"In his role as the single decision-maker, Christian will liaise directly with Hocking, who will tick off on each incident".

So much for MRP independence if the AFL Hocking is involved in each case to tick it off. 

There are some good changes re the penalties so it will hopefully be better.  It certainly seems easier to get off or get a light(er) penalty - not sure if that is a good thing.

But to have one person adjudicate just opens it up to bias.  And I have little confidence in Hocking/AFL role to not just fudge it to get the outcome they want. I feel this is a backward step.  Far better to have a 3 person panel with a Chair and to have some legal experience on the panel.

 

Edit: This article summarises the changes a bit better http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-14/major-changes-to-afl-match-review-panel

Edited by Lucifer's Hero
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This model assumes Michael Christian never gets sick and never has a holiday. Nevertheless, I see the point about one person leading to better consistency. I'm glad to see Christian is giving up all his media roles (other than speaking to the media in his role as MRP Supremo). I thought it was never right having MRP members also working in the media.

And I really like the abolition of the "extra match" being risked if a player appeals. I always thought that was too tough.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier to lay blame for inconsistency at the feet of one person I guess?

Only time will tell if this system is better or worse. At least the AFL have acknowledged that the old system was broken. Hope we finally see the same ruling apply to stars of the game as well as lesser names, although I wont be holding my breath. That, and different interpretations running into finals than we saw in the regular season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look forward to the Pies and Cats doing very well in Reportable incidents now.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/michael-christian-to-replace-afl-match-review-panel-under-new-judiciary-system-20171214-h04gp5.html

"In his role as the single decision-maker, Christian will liaise directly with Hocking, who will tick off on each incident".

So much for MRP independence if the AFL Hocking is involved in each case to tick it off. 

There are some good changes re the penalties so it will hopefully be better.  It certainly seems easier to get off or get a light(er) penalty - not sure if that is a good thing.

But to have one person adjudicate just opens it up to bias.  And I have little confidence in Hocking/AFL role to not just fudge it to get the outcome they want. I feel this is a backward step.  Far better to have a 3 person panel with a Chair and to have some legal experience on the panel.

 

Edit: This article summarises the changes a bit better http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-14/major-changes-to-afl-match-review-panel

Should've got Barry Hall as the adjudicator, that way when Vincent, Salem,  Bugg, Lewis and Hogan play 'on the edge' -as it has been referred to - only purely stupid/callous brain fades that Barry can relate to will give us half a chance in maintaining our better players..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Look forward to the Pies and Cats doing very well in Reportable incidents now.

I think a lot of these changes have come about because the Cats have done poorly at the MRP and really they only have themselves to blame but owning ones mistakes doesn't seem to be in the Scott brothers coaching book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

for $10k a pop the rich clubs will appeal every suspension to the tribunal

Goes in the footy department cap doesn't it so they'll be prioritising other spending to do it. I'd like to see the system provide for successful and unsuccessful appeals. Maybe just give the Tribunal Chairman power to slap a monetary value on the strength of appeal. If they didn't even provide a good case then slug them 50k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really not a fan of it just being 1 guy. An ex pies player at that. Either the pies will get off everything or get the ultra tough treatment to show that he isnt biased but its a clear conflict of interest.

why not have 3 or so people but they share and only do games theyve no interest in?

Oh yeah. Sorry. Afl. Conflict of interest doesnt exist

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is potential for a lot of stink to come out of all of this but the media will love it. Every high profile decision will be scrutinised more than ever before. Mr Christian can only be one of two personas. Either an incorruptible saint or the polar opposite. I hope he keeps distance from colourful characters, certain club officials and eschews personal gifts and favours.

Edited by america de cali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't like this at all. 3 people deliberating on the tribunal doesn't inherently lead to inconsistency. If any of the three can make a decision then I could see how that leads to onconsistency but I assume they reach agreement on penalties or otherwise. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Don't like this at all. 3 people deliberating on the tribunal doesn't inherently lead to inconsistency. If any of the three can make a decision then I could see how that leads to onconsistency but I assume they reach agreement on penalties or otherwise. 

 

 

I agree. It wasn't the NUMBER of people on the MRP causing the issues. It was the people themselves applying rules inconsistently and often arbitrarily (some might also say corruptly if one was wearing a tin foil hat).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance, but wasn't the MRP composed of different members during the year.  If so, that is the source of the inconsitency (well one source).  Three permanent members seems best to me, preferably not ex-players but people who can judge bad behaviour without distortions coming from their own playing days and loyalties. 

Having ex-players on the MRP is like choosing supreme court judges from Pentridge.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If appropriate penalties were applied for disgraceful acts, then there would be sufficient deterrent to reduce the number of cases coming before the MRP / tribunal.

Allowing players to get away with a week's holiday for punching an opponent in the head is why there are so many cases to review, and hence the opportunity is there for inconsistency. Provide proper deterrents, and the number of cases to review will drop markedly.

Ultimately I don't care who is on the MRP, if they are capable of making fair, rational decisions. However I doubt that Michael Christian is the answer given his history. I would like to know what made him the best person for the job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

Should've got Barry Hall as the adjudicator, that way when Vincent, Salem,  Bugg, Lewis and Hogan play 'on the edge' -as it has been referred to - only purely stupid/callous brain fades that Barry can relate to will give us half a chance in maintaining our better players..

Whist amusing, this really has some merit for highly motivated players and supporters (and I guess FD people) who see 'on the edge' play as being an essential commitment to team outcomes and the unnerving of opponents.

When the going gets tough .... someone has to get it all going and the tough nutz are the ones to do this 'valuable work' on behalf of those who could be considered 'indisposed' of this potential trait.

Rather than media sensationalism, football patron cant or any other loudly spoken criticism, an understanding of appropriate, contained aggression - for want of a better word - may well be presented by someone like Barry Hall to be active in this adjudication process. There are many suitable ex-players from all clubs who might be sound practitioners in this role. Football is not all gentle athleticism and equal physicality;  it is this a series of continuous risk-taking within limits and then, the siren sounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/michael-christian-to-replace-afl-match-review-panel-under-new-judiciary-system-20171214-h04gp5.html

"In his role as the single decision-maker, Christian will liaise directly with Hocking, who will tick off on each incident".

So much for MRP independence if the AFL Hocking is involved in each case to tick it off. 

There are some good changes re the penalties so it will hopefully be better.  It certainly seems easier to get off or get a light(er) penalty - not sure if that is a good thing.

But to have one person adjudicate just opens it up to bias.  And I have little confidence in Hocking/AFL role to not just fudge it to get the outcome they want. I feel this is a backward step.  Far better to have a 3 person panel with a Chair and to have some legal experience on the panel.

 

Edit: This article summarises the changes a bit better http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-12-14/major-changes-to-afl-match-review-panel

Agreed Lucifer..

Having one person may make it administratively easier for the AFL and simplify decision making, but it will not make it any more objective or fairer. There will still be dissenting views from the media, clubs and supporters, indeed Christian and the AFL will be bigger targets for criticism.  

I think a panel is fine as long as the panel members are competent and not selected because they are ex-players.  Panel members need to be intelligent. They need to have good listening skills and communication skills, and be able to absorb and analyze information. They need to have logical incisive minds and loads of common sense. They don't need to be lawyers but legal training and experience can be an advantage or at least experience in quasi-judicial matters, such as administrative tribunals.

I am not sure that Christian necessarily qualifies on any of these grounds. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect differentiating between what is reckless and what is deliberate is the hardest part. The impact and location should be fairly easy to adjudicate. Panel or no panel doesn't matter if there is consistency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Staging will now attract a fine for a first offence. "

Funny.  They've never had the guts to charge someone under the existing staging rules.  Is this change to encourage reports as it's a less significant penalty than previously? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll still constantly screw us over and then let thugs like Cotchin and Ellis off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll withhold judgement on this and see how it pans out.

It couldn't be any worse than the total [censored] up that previously existed

................ could it?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A review process of any kind administered by a panel of 1, is just plain stupid. 

Criticism or allegations of any biases of the individual can be levelled without any viable basis for a defence. 

Here we are in the 21st century and to quash the noises of the mob created by freedom of speech we impose an adjudication process governed solely by one interpretation of the laws. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Hot as Hell said:

A review process of any kind administered by a panel of 1, is just plain stupid. 

Criticism or allegations of any biases of the individual can be levelled without any viable basis for a defence. 

Here we are in the 21st century and to quash the noises of the mob created by freedom of speech we impose an adjudication process governed solely by one interpretation of the laws. 

An ex E Coli Wobbler to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was an opportunity missed. Having Hocking, and Christian speaks to old boys and club favouritism.  Would have been a perfect role for an independent, non football person.  Provide them with expert advisors (one medical, two from the game who have either played or coached at more than one club, and have no media commitments).  They submit their review to the tribunal who hand out the penalties against a known and logical schedule.  No penalty of the week.  No playing favourites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bring back Neil Busse, march 'em in on Monday night and one-by-one . . . Bang. See ya in three weeks Son. Worked much better than the silly cr*p we've been delivered for the last 20 years. 

Edited by Queanbeyan Demon
fixed for typos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I'd bring back Neil Busse, match 'em in on Monday night and one-by-one . . . Bang. See ya in three weeks mate. Worked much better than the silly cr*p we've been delivered for the last 20 years. 

Yep. Good old Harrison House!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×