On 24/06/2013 at 04:41, biggestred said:

spencer 3.

simpkin 2.

That's fair.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:29, Clint Bizkit said:

That's fair.

[censored] off it is.

The MRP system is a good idea being damaged by inanity. Mark Evans is reportedly going to make changes to the MRP system. I hope he keeps the basic premise of a points system but recalibrates the points to make more sense.

(Note: I haven't seen the Spencer case. My argument is about the scheme in general, not specific cases)

No need to bump anymore. If you wanna be physical, throw a roundhouse behind play! Absolute joke. Spencer probably deserves 2-3 yes, as clumsiness is not an excuse. Nor being a giraffe. That said, simpkin and embley getting 2 for off the ball low acts are just completely ridiculous. The system is a joke and I'm not surprised players are confused and caught in 2 minds.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:32, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The MRP system is a good idea being damaged by inanity. Mark Evans is reportedly going to make changes to the MRP system. I hope he keeps the basic premise of a points system but recalibrates the points to make more sense.

(Note: I haven't seen the Spencer case. My argument is about the scheme in general, not specific cases)

This was low impact due to the medical report. Therefore any punch that was enough to not be insufficient force -ie. very gentle love tap is classed exactly the same as this.

This was ruled as intentional. So if Dawes was looking at him and had his arms up to fight him it would've been the same thing. No difference between hitting a guy who isn't looking and hitting a guy about to hit you.

Pretty much what I'm saying is I agree with you 100%. To many incidents draw the same punishment despite fundamental differences.

Oh and Simpkins 93 carryovers made this 2 otherwise it would've been a one weeker with the early plea

What a joke.

As dumb as the morons on bigfoooty claiming dawes dived.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:07, titan_uranus said:

Another problem:

Simpkin's was intentional (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is six points, which led to a 'Level Two offence' and 225 points.

Spencer's was negligent (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is also six points, but it led to a 'Level Four offence' and 400 points.

Why? Because the AFL views Spencer's charge, 'Making Forceful Contact from Front-On' as worse than Simpkin's charge, which was striking.

In other words, the same consequence is considered worse by the AFL if you cause it by bumping as compared to punching.

What a joke.

Indeed, absolute joke.

Why do they bother with a point tally system if they're going to apply different weighting to the end scores depending on the type of incident?

Also I think common sense dictates that intent should be more heavily scrutinised than accidental/negligent contact.

Hope Jamar's available next week

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:29, pm24 said:

A world where a negligent act gets penalised more harshly than an intentional act, regardless of the outcome, is one that is truly backwards in my view.

I agree 100%, but the MRP judged Spencers actions as intentional as well. That is absolute [censored]. It was in play and Spencer was trying at the last minute to avoid contact but it was too late. There is no accounting for the fact he is 7 feet tall which has been an out for big guys in terms of collecting opponents high.

Simpkins' action act behind the play was simply 'dog-like' and that should always attract the harshest penalty and not be simply interpreted on a grading system of impact, intention and height/severity.

  On 22/06/2013 at 16:53, jnrmac said:

Spencer was actually stationary when McEvoy hit him. Thats the line I would take.

Looked ugly (liked most of spencers actions) and if it was Collingwood he would get off. BUt as its Melbourne 3 weeks.

McEvoy actually head butted Spencer!!!

  On 22/06/2013 at 22:56, Vagg said:

That hit on Dawes was one of the most blatant acts of violence on the footy field in a long time. Just common assault. Akin to the nonsense seen in the Thugby State of Origin match a couple of weeks back.

There is no place for that in our great game, and the Match Review Committee should throw the book at that thug. Six weeks as a minimum. Fair Dinkum. I can't believe how little has so far been made of this incident!

Time to get real, folks!

Malicious - should be a new level of classification. Inexcusable. Put the big man down. 4 weeks minimum (should be - wont).

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:01, titan_uranus said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-24/mrp-full-statement-round-13

The MRP system is a joke. Simpkin intentionally hits Dawes in the head, and gets two weeks. Embley intentionally drops his knees into a defenceless player on the ground and gets one week. Spencer negligently (i.e. not even recklessly) bumps McEvoy in the head and he gets three weeks.

Why? All incidents were assessed using the medical reports. MRP once again using the effect instead of the cause.

The system is a farce.

Challenge. Hodge said he couldn't avoid contact. Spencer due to his size and clumsiness is in the same position.

I am reminded of the jawbreaker to Sylvia by Kennedy, where he got off. Broken jaw off the ball no penalty.

Spencer deserved 3 weeks for not supporting Dawes at half time.

Dead set, I thought the only thing the coaches like about him is that he is strong and aggressive. So Dawes confronts about 4 Saints at half time on his own.

Where is Jake?! That's what you are in the side for mate. Pathetic.

  On 24/06/2013 at 04:54, jazza said:

not bemused STUNNED and AMAZED

the player turning his hip and shoulder is penalised for something every footy player learns in under 10s

I understand people not wanting big hits taking place , but approaching the AREA with hip and shoulder ready is not reportable,marc murphy escaped being reported in my mind, he blatantly exposed himself front on going,instead of turning the shoulder. 4 weeks suspension for stupidity.

as for simpkin 1 week for hitting dawes

6 weeks for being a pure COWARD

when will they penalise players for hurting themselves? such as stress fractures of the foot, for kicking too many footy's? or running too much?

  On 24/06/2013 at 04:55, JJJ said:

3 with an early plea.

Challenge.

Stevie J had more intent, Simpkins flat our whacked a bloke and Embley kneed a guy on the ground. All of them got less than Spencil.

I am outraged.

Change the Demonland banner to, 'Save Jake'.

agreed, thats just plain stupidity, that penalty.

# edit: I've just seen a longer bit of vision, & he does scurry in fairly quickly to the contest. I thought he was largely stationary. But actually, only at the point of collision.

He probably will get something, but we should try to get it downgraded.

I believe the term low impact when a person who weights over 100kg gets punched like that and gets decked the force has to be greater than low impact. The fact that he was not injured should never be taken into account.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:51, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Hope Jamar's available next week

the vfl report said that they took Maxy gawn off at 3/4 time incase he was needed for next week, he had already won 32 hit outs

pretty sure the match review pannel just get on the crownies and slur out a number, two games for punching someone is just strange

The MRP couldn't find its arse with both hands and a torch.

We need to contest this. The MRP has made a habit of shafting the MFC at every opportunity. The club needs to put it's foot down and try to force them to do their job properly.

  On 24/06/2013 at 06:52, RalphiusMaximus said:

We need to contest this. The MRP has made a habit of shafting the MFC at every opportunity. The club needs to put it's foot down and try to force them to do their job properly.

You think the MRP is biased against Melbourne? Or deliberately sets out to ensure our players get screwed?

That just doesn't happen.

The MRP is just an inconsistent mess.

  On 24/06/2013 at 06:10, Redleg said:

Challenge. Hodge said he couldn't avoid contact. Spencer due to his size and clumsiness is in the same position.

If we challenge, I think our only hope is to argue that Spencer had no alternative. That's how Hodge got off last week. I can't see any other avenue.

Long term change is needed.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:55, diesel said:

I agree 100%, but the MRP judged Spencers actions as intentional as well. That is absolute [censored]. It was in play and Spencer was trying at the last minute to avoid contact but it was too late. There is no accounting for the fact he is 7 feet tall which has been an out for big guys in terms of collecting opponents high.

That's not correct, the MRP classed Spencer as negligent.

  On 24/06/2013 at 05:06, Robbie57 said:

Paul Gallen wants to play AFL now.

Aint that the truth...?!!! The AFL is effectively condoning common assault on the football field! An absolute disgrace!

I think the only real challenges lie in a downgrading of high Impact to medium impact, in that he walked off the ground and had no broken bones or lacerations and secondly, that Spencer had no alternative as he couldn't tackle. He can also argue that he did not run at McEvoy and McEvoy fumbled, when he would have been expected to pick the ball up and stand up, McEvoy also lowered his head just before impact. Spencer could also argue clumsiness and due to his size inability to avoid contact.

All that said, he would probably lose and cop the extra week.

I think the high to medium impact is the most likely. He was dazed but didn't look out cold. Combined with the other circumstances you described redleg, I hoe we do contest.

I think they are running the game with decisions like this. It's a genuine accident in a contact sport. Spencer couldn't have done anything else.

  On 24/06/2013 at 07:06, Redleg said:

I think the only real challenges lie in a downgrading of high Impact to medium impact, in that he walked off the ground and had no broken bones or lacerations and secondly, that Spencer had no alternative as he couldn't tackle. He can also argue that he did not run at McEvoy and McEvoy fumbled, when he would have been expected to pick the ball up and stand up, McEvoy also lowered his head just before impact. Spencer could also argue clumsiness and due to his size inability to avoid contact.

All that said, he would probably lose and cop the extra week.

Worth fighting just for fightings sake to say to our players we aren't run by the AFL (even though we are) and that we support them? What's one VFL game to Spencer? He dominates that level, he needs the opportunity right now to play AFL.

  On 24/06/2013 at 07:06, Redleg said:

I think the only real challenges lie in a downgrading of high Impact to medium impact, in that he walked off the ground and had no broken bones or lacerations and secondly, that Spencer had no alternative as he couldn't tackle. He can also argue that he did not run at McEvoy and McEvoy fumbled, when he would have been expected to pick the ball up and stand up, McEvoy also lowered his head just before impact. Spencer could also argue clumsiness and due to his size inability to avoid contact.

All that said, he would probably lose and cop the extra week.

I doubt he has a chance on impact, Redleg. He got concussed and was subbed off. The AFL is hyper about concussion.

For mine, he has to use Hodge as a precedent. If Hodge was deemed to have had no alternative, then surely Spencer was no different.