Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Hawthorn



Sign in to follow this  
dieter

Hodge and Christian

Recommended Posts

Just read Hodge's criticism of the Christian regime review system and I agree with him entirely. That it's inconsistent is indisputable - for example Oliver's invisible punch earlier in the season - and I can't help but see it as bias. That Parker got off with a fine after jumping off the ground and collecting a player's head is a seriously not funny joke.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the MRO can judge force is beyond me. Do they judge by a replay? lol. Always has been a farce.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As has been discussed, the only way to get consistency is to apply a total ban on ANY punches. You hit with a clenched fist, no matter the force, you get rubbed out.

This 'fines' methodology is puerile from the AFL particularly for players who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'd hate to be Michael Christian trying to make some sense of it. The poor bugger is on a hiding to nowhere.

The failure should be clearly placed on Hocking.

Edited by McQueen
grammar
  • Like 7
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian is complicit.

He said a week or two back, that they CAN'T crack down on punches, because there'd be "carnage".

(Does that mean that he assesses each week's matches with a view to how many charges are going to emerge? There's a fuzzy quota that can't be breached?)

Let there be carnage! It would last for a week. 2 weeks max. They'd be amazed at the speed with which players would adjust.

Funnily enough, the AFL was able to crack down on that scourge of the game, deliberate OOB with a "no tolerance" approach without any hand wringing.

Why not for punching?

Why not for throwing, dropping, in the back, etc etc? Is out of bounds the only rule in the rule book?

 

The AFL is expert at creating grey areas. And at creating something out of nothing. They let things go (eg punching) and when people wake up and ask, why is punching de facto allowed? the AFL wring their hands and exclaim they can't do anything about it! As if it's out of their control!

 

Christian gives Hocking cover and vice versa. Until they work out that the umpires' agenda should to ref according to rules of the game, they will continue to create these grey areas and then spend their time and energy wringing their hands and bleating.

Ref it to the rule book and see how the game cleans up. Take things from there if required. (And get rid of interchange!)

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slamming the AFL, umpires and the tribunal is perennially popular with supporters, but I think the MRO has been a vast improvement this year. No system is perfect but generally the decisions have been pretty solid, IMHO.

Plus the expansion of the system of fines has been a positive too, allowing for more shades of grey than we had before. The difference between getting nothing and being suspended was big in punishment but very small in action. A fine is a deterrent to encourage behaviour change without being a sledgehammer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Slamming the AFL, umpires and the tribunal is perennially popular with supporters, but I think the MRO has been a vast improvement this year. No system is perfect but generally the decisions have been pretty solid, IMHO.

Plus the expansion of the system of fines has been a positive too, allowing for more shades of grey than we had before. The difference between getting nothing and being suspended was big in punishment but very small in action. A fine is a deterrent to encourage behaviour change without being a sledgehammer.

OKay. But why the constant inconsistency???

Share this post


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

OKay. But why the constant inconsistency???

Because putting chaotic actions in a chaotic game into neat little boxes is a bloody hard thing to do. The evidence is the range of contrasting opinions across the football public about individual decisions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Because putting chaotic actions in a chaotic game into neat little boxes is a bloody hard thing to do. The evidence is the range of contrasting opinions across the football public about individual decisions.

Agree 'Bob'.

I always thought it amusing the experts view at the start of the season that having one man do the job would solve all the problems and provide consistency.

It's never going to happen.

Each new footy boss put's his spin on it and comes up short as Hocking has.

It's human nature...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This system was brought in to stop players from being suspended. Hocking has said as much.

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should take rotations off teams with infringers.  What about 3 rotations per $1000 fine, and 5 rotations per week suspended?  Would cut a huge amount of crap out of the game if it impacted the team next week.

as for carnage, Christiansen is weak as a diabetics [censored].

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

There should be more outrage about Parker not getting suspended.

Bernie Vince was let off for something very similar. 

The worst decisions all year have been the nasty bumps that don't cause much damage and only get 1 week. Steve May and Tex Walker both should've gone for 2-3 weeks.

The other flaw was the removal of the reprimand or some form of suspended sentence for borderline incidents. Plenty of players deserve to be on a warning that repeated actions will see them be suspended. That's exactly the kind of punishment Dev Smith deserves, not just a fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Christian is complicit.

He said a week or two back, that they CAN'T crack down on punches, because there'd be "carnage".

(Does that mean that he assesses each week's matches with a view to how many charges are going to emerge? There's a fuzzy quota that can't be breached?)

Let there be carnage! It would last for a week. 2 weeks max.

Exactly right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

There should be more outrage about Parker not getting suspended.

No-one is going to criticise a decision that favours one of the AFLs darlings (Swans or Giants).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Christian comes across as being a hypocrite. He did play for the filth though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Christian is not up to the job

Christians are supposed to be charitable and forgiving but this is, most of the time, ridiculous 

3 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

I think they should take rotations off teams with infringers.  What about 3 rotations per $1000 fine, and 5 rotations per week suspended?  Would cut a huge amount of crap out of the game if it impacted the team next week.

as for carnage, Christiansen is weak as a diabetics [censored].

Are you suggesting he is quite sweet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

I think they should take rotations off teams with infringers.  What about 3 rotations per $1000 fine, and 5 rotations per week suspended?  Would cut a huge amount of crap out of the game if it impacted the team next week.

as for carnage, Christiansen is weak as a diabetics [censored].

That helps next weeks opposition.

 

Sin-Bin,  bk_nkd.    5 Mins in the cooler. 10, or 15, depending on seriousness.  Plus an after game inquiry, to see if justice has been measured & served.

Edited by DV8
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DV8 said:

That helps next weeks opposition.

 

Sin-Bin,  bk_nkd.    5 Mins in the cooler. 10, or 15, depending on seriousness.  Plus an after game inquiry, to see if justice has been measured & served.

Just trying to find a way to make the sanctions meaningful.  Sin bins are not the tradition of the game, but a 2k fine to someone on 750k is not even a slap on the wrist.  How can appropriate pressure be applied that teams would hate to receive?  MC doesn’t want to cause carnage, so the league should not give him choice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Just trying to find a way to make the sanctions meaningful.  Sin bins are not the tradition of the game, but a 2k fine to someone on 750k is not even a slap on the wrist.  How can appropriate pressure be applied that teams would hate to receive?  MC doesn’t want to cause carnage, so the league should not give him choice 

I think M Crstn was brought in to manage and stop players from being suspended for minor infractions.

A Sin-Bin would work, as long as it doesn't interfere, with say the Brownlow, for instance.   You serve minor abuses in the Bin.

If after the game, it appears the action was worse then just the sin-binning sanction, then another suspension may be added, and that should impact on the best and fairest.

 

Yellow cards, and Red cards are just too inciteful, & then too heavy generally, and are too soccer. 

Not Aussie Rules culturally, and not suited a to a heavy contact sport.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Sin bins are not the tradition of the game, but a 2k fine to someone on 750k is not even a slap on the wrist.  

However a $2000 fine to a rookie on $71,000 pa is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

However a $2000 fine to a rookie on $71,000 pa is enormous.

Pretty easy to set the fine at a percentage of income. (It could even have a floor or ceiling if you like, or be a progressive 'tax', but I wouldn't bother). Trivial to implement if the AFL has access to salaries, which they do.

eg. A 0.005% fine instead of a $2000 fine. It equates to $1500 for a player on $300K, $5000 for a player earning $1M, and $355 for a rookie on $71K.

Might be a little tricky for Average Joe to get his head around a 0.005% fine, but it's pretty easy to implement.

Edited by Rogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regardless of how much money you make, going home to explain to the wife that you’ve been fined for doing something stupid is never a nice experience!

Lewis joking said as much a couple of months ago, that his wife was less than impressed about his last indiscretion 

 

Edited by davejemmolly

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
Sign in to follow this  

×