Something doesn't make sense to me. Thomas was given a discount on his penalty because of his good record over the last 5 years. No issues there.

But our own Jack Trengove, was given no discount at all, purely because he "didn't have a good OR bad record" from the past 5 years. In other words, his clean record since he started playing meant nothing because he hasn't played 5 years yet. Is it just me or is that just plain ridiculous? Surely a clean record means a good record....

I do understand the AFL's argument would be that this might otherwise result in a debutant being treated the same as a 10 year player with a good record. However my opinion is that a clean record is a clean record, and both these cases effectively represent a first offence. Which in my opinion should be treated the same...

Thoughts?

Well, it's two weeks but can be reduced to 1 with an early plea... just like Trengoves could've been 2 weeks.

Good news for us at least.

I read it as being 2 weeks (225ish pts), reduced by 25% for 5 yrs good behaviour (168ish pts) and further reduced by 25% with an early plea (125ish pts)

So.... they can contest the charge and it will be still only be 1 week if they lose.

Pretty good timing to face the pies. Our best young midfielders all back in the side and gunning it, whilst 3 pies first choice mids are gone (Swan, Thomas, Beams). Potential for Gawn and Martin to do a job in the ruck too, as Wood isn't top notch and is a bit of a rake like Gawn. Stef can do a job on Leigh Brown (both in the ruck AND when Brown goes forward).

Agree with that, even as far as Gawn being #1 ruck if Wood does most of the ruckwork. Need to keep Martin matched up on Browne all day because he's the type of [censored] that always gets under our guard. It'll leave Rivers and Chip to cover Cloke and Daws and no need to bring back Warnock.

Agree with that, even as far as Gawn being #1 ruck if Wood does most of the ruckwork. Need to keep Martin matched up on Browne all day because he's the type of [censored] that always gets under our guard. It'll leave Rivers and Chip to cover Cloke and Daws and no need to bring back Warnock.

Yup, exactly.

The biggest highlight for me would be one of the young kids going at it with Sidebottom and winning the contest. That kid is a dead set gun and it would be a huge victory for one of our boys to beat him.

Agree with that, even as far as Gawn being #1 ruck if Wood does most of the ruckwork. Need to keep Martin matched up on Browne all day because he's the type of [censored] that always gets under our guard. It'll leave Rivers and Chip to cover Cloke and Daws and no need to bring back Warnock.

Brown's going to Arizona I think.

That's handy.

No Swan. No Thomas (hopefully). No Beams. No Jolly.

A little opening.

They are two seperate true statements, especially the latter.

The MRP IS flawed, and DOES NOT apply its so called justice even handedly.

The classic was Judd vs Pavlich last year - no case to answer!!!!

And maybe if you beleive in Santa and the Easter Bunny, you would also believe that nobody knows the Brownlow count progressively.

I think the classic example happened Carlton V Geelong. Laidler slung young Christensen exactly as Trengove did the week before. His head hit the ground hard.

Result Christenson out with concussion the following week. MRP review - did not rate a mention.

It's all very well having a consistent penalty system, but if the review system is fatally flawed then then the whole system is a failure.

I read it as being 2 weeks (225ish pts), reduced by 25% for 5 yrs good behaviour (168ish pts) and further reduced by 25% with an early plea (125ish pts)

So.... they can contest the charge and it will be still only be 1 week if they lose.

They will contest as Daisy is a Brownlow chance...

gone for 1 week with an early plea

got offered 2 but reduced to 1 with his good record

bloody awesome

That's handy.

No Swan. No Thomas (hopefully). No Beams. No Jolly.

A little opening.

and no Blair I think too

Brown's going to Arizona I think.

Swan, Jolly, Brown and Macaffer i think.

I think the classic example happened Carlton V Geelong. Laidler slung young Christensen exactly as Trengove did the week before. His head hit the ground hard.

Result Christenson out with concussion the following week. MRP review - did not rate a mention.

It's all very well having a consistent penalty system, but if the review system is fatally flawed then then the whole system is a failure.

Judd rule applied.

trengove $900 fine for ump contact. boooo

judd up for same thing - gets off for nothing because "umpired deviated and judd held his position" uhhhhhhhhhhhhh hello

and no Blair I think too

Just when I thought you had lost it DC!

Contact between Carlton's Chris Judd and an umpire from the third quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. The umpire had bounced the ball and was heading backwards when he deviated away on an angle, rather than move in a direct straight line. Player Judd held his position and it was the view of the panel that the change in path by the umpire had contributed to the contact. No further action was taken.

from http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115651/default.aspx

That's handy.

No Swan. No Thomas (hopefully). No Beams. No Jolly.

A little opening.

Yehhhh ummm, and what's handy for them is:

No Grimes, no Garland, no Jamar, no tagger (Bail), no Tapscott, no Aussie, and POTENTIALLY no Sylvia and/or Bartram...

They will also get to potentially front up against a team with 5-6 players who have played less than 5 games and around 8 who have played less than 20!

Our relative inexperience may show...

Contact between Carlton's Chris Judd and an umpire from the third quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. The umpire had bounced the ball and was heading backwards when he deviated away on an angle, rather than move in a direct straight line. Player Judd held his position and it was the view of the panel that the change in path by the umpire had contributed to the contact. No further action was taken.

from http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115651/default.aspx

Unfcnbelievable.

Brown's going to Arizona I think.

Nathan Brown is going I believe, not Leroy

Something doesn't make sense to me.

Thoughts?

Never try to make sense out of anything related to the MRP.

Contact between Carlton's Chris Judd and an umpire from the third quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. The umpire had bounced the ball and was heading backwards when he deviated away on an angle, rather than move in a direct straight line. Player Judd held his position and it was the view of the panel that the change in path by the umpire had contributed to the contact. No further action was taken.

from http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115651/default.aspx

So are they gonna fine the ump for making contact with His Juddship??

Yehhhh ummm, and what's handy for them is:

No Grimes, no Garland, no Jamar, no tagger (Bail), no Tapscott, no Aussie, and POTENTIALLY no Sylvia and/or Bartram...

+ Davey.

Their losses are still helpful for us.

Nathan Brown is going I believe, not Leroy

Oh, thanks.

So are they gonna fine the ump for making contact with His Juddship??

the umpires conduct was deemed high contact, high impact, intentional and accrues a total of 938.25 points, thus suspending the umpire in question for 9 weeks. in addition it was on chris judd, so the judd rule comes into effect adding an extra 3 weeks to the total sanction, bringing his suspension to a total of 12 weeks.

+ Davey.

Their losses are still helpful for us.

Agree.

From memory, Davey got 3 Brownlow votes in both games against the Pies last year? Given they choose never to tag him, I reckon he'll be a massive loss.

the umpires conduct was deemed high contact, high impact, intentional and accrues a total of 938.25 points, thus suspending the umpire in question for 9 weeks. in addition it was on chris judd, so the judd rule comes into effect adding an extra 3 weeks to the total sanction, bringing his suspension to a total of 12 weeks.

Have you seen the footage of both incindents?