Liam Jones had been offered 2 weeks for his bump, I thought it was worth 4 personally. Severe reckless high contact

Worlds worse than what viney did

Essentially it was a three week ban but with the early it was downgraded to two.

Fair call I reckon.

I know the general consensus is that some reform of the MRP/Tribunal/Appeal system is necessary. Some want wholesale changes and others just want some tweaking. I favour the latter.

But there is one specific change I'd like to see. I'd like any penalties to start with the victim's team. So taking Liam Jones from this week's MRP as an example, he would be offered 2 weeks, of which one would be the next game his team (whether it's the Bulldogs or another team should he move) plays Melbourne. As the system currently stands, the primary victim, in this case the Melbourne Football Club, receives no compensation or reparation (or, if you like, revenge) for the crime perpetrated against it. This would rectify that. And there's no reason why more heinous crimes that receive, say, 4 weeks penalty might not see two of those games be the next two against the victim's club.

I appreciate that players in their last season may gain an inadvertent benefit as the penalty may never apply - but that's no different to a player playing their last game in a Grand Final or in a final in which their team is eliminated. And, frankly, I don't think that matters much.

Essentially it was a three week ban but with the early it was downgraded to two.

Fair call I reckon.

Agreed.

I was shocked Roughhead only got 1 week for his bump - extremely reckless bump IMO.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Wormburner

I know the general consensus is that some reform of the MRP/Tribunal/Appeal system is necessary. Some want wholesale changes and others just want some tweaking. I favour the latter.

But there is one specific change I'd like to see. I'd like any penalties to start with the victim's team. So taking Liam Jones from this week's MRP as an example, he would be offered 2 weeks, of which one would be the next game his team (whether it's the Bulldogs or another team should he move) plays Melbourne. As the system currently stands, the primary victim, in this case the Melbourne Football Club, receives no compensation or reparation (or, if you like, revenge) for the crime perpetrated against it. This would rectify that. And there's no reason why more heinous crimes that receive, say, 4 weeks penalty might not see two of those games be the next two against the victim's club.

I appreciate that players in their last season may gain an inadvertent benefit as the penalty may never apply - but that's no different to a player playing their last game in a Grand Final or in a final in which their team is eliminated. And, frankly, I don't think that matters much.

I agree, I have advocated for this for years. The added disincentive for top teams playing each other is that the penalty could be a Grand Final!

I would argue that the game situation should be a factor, close tight contest, melbourne have an extra rotation and the sub to come in later and a player gets knocked out, now i am certain jones didn't do that on purpose, but his reckless high contact may well have effected the end result, knocked a player out cold and out of the game and it certainly didn't look accidental to me.

i would have liked to see 4 weeks, not too upset with 3 but 2 seems a little soft.

Frre kick and 50m penalty would have been more useful to us..

I was shocked Roughhead only got 1 week for his bump - extremely reckless bump IMO.

Not really, it wasn't as though it was off the ball and he's attempted to lower his arm. 1 week was all it deserved and I'm glad that's what it got because this bump business is getting a bit crazy. Viney was (hopefully) the pinnacle of how manic it has gotten.

I know the general consensus is that some reform of the MRP/Tribunal/Appeal system is necessary. Some want wholesale changes and others just want some tweaking. I favour the latter.

But there is one specific change I'd like to see. I'd like any penalties to start with the victim's team. So taking Liam Jones from this week's MRP as an example, he would be offered 2 weeks, of which one would be the next game his team (whether it's the Bulldogs or another team should he move) plays Melbourne. As the system currently stands, the primary victim, in this case the Melbourne Football Club, receives no compensation or reparation (or, if you like, revenge) for the crime perpetrated against it. This would rectify that. And there's no reason why more heinous crimes that receive, say, 4 weeks penalty might not see two of those games be the next two against the victim's club.

I appreciate that players in their last season may gain an inadvertent benefit as the penalty may never apply - but that's no different to a player playing their last game in a Grand Final or in a final in which their team is eliminated. And, frankly, I don't think that matters much.

The justice system is not a revenge system. Compensation is not owed; only disensentivisation and re-education of the guilty party is necessary.

Edited May 12, 201411 yr by Chook

Just tweak the system so Jones gets 3 instead of 2 with the early plea. We'd all be happy with that. Same with Roughy getting the straight 1 (was a minor bump).

Let's not all get our knickers in a knot. Roughy style bumps are minor. LeCras and Duffield are a bit more serious (2 weeks). Jones is a 2 week bump with an extra for the concussion.

All is not broken, it just needs small changes.

Essentially it was a three week ban but with the early it was downgraded to two.

Fair call I reckon.

I feel that that was about right, 3 weeks is what I would give it and the MRP with all it's bells and whistles downgraded it to 2 weeks.

After all the controversy of last week I wonder whether there are people still in the dark about all this. I reckon just about all the penalties this week fit and the justification works, the election to bump was clear for Jones and it's got him in trouble.

The Doggies caused a lot of Professional Free Kicks.

Which stopped us numerous times from taking advantage of getting the ball moving.

Professional fouls should be penalised like in basketball.

Crameri grabbing Dunn around the neck as McDonald was about to set off.

Garland getting his leg held and not being paid free kick down field but Grimes given free kick further back.

They did a lot of man handling which got passed the umps eyes.

It was a disgrace.

The Doggies caused a lot of Professional Free Kicks.

Which stopped us numerous times from taking advantage of getting the ball moving.

Professional fouls should be penalised like in basketball.

Crameri grabbing Dunn around the neck as McDonald was about to set off.

Garland getting his leg held and not being paid free kick down field but Grimes given free kick further back.

They did a lot of man handling which got passed the umps eyes.

It was a disgrace.

Roosy himself has said that if the umpires don't pull the players up then it's fair game. e.g. Macaffer's questionable tactics in tagging Cotchin. If the umpires are allowing it, the response should be to fight fire with fire.

They might have man handled a lot more. They also came away with the W.

the problem with the tribunal system is that it does not really take into account intent, the tribunal uses the word reckless which is not really correct in a lot of situations where deliberate physical harm or damage was intended. intent should count for more in deciding the penalty and do away with this farcical reckless tag. The damage done should be the second factor in determining the penalty and lastly the players history.

The Doggies caused a lot of Professional Free Kicks.

Which stopped us numerous times from taking advantage of getting the ball moving.

Professional fouls should be penalised like in basketball.

Crameri grabbing Dunn around the neck as McDonald was about to set off.

Garland getting his leg held and not being paid free kick down field but Grimes given free kick further back.

They did a lot of man handling which got passed the umps eyes.

It was a disgrace.

110 tackles and lots of free kicks against definitely backs up the idea that they were doing a lot of scragging.

I know the general consensus is that some reform of the MRP/Tribunal/Appeal system is necessary. Some want wholesale changes and others just want some tweaking. I favour the latter.

But there is one specific change I'd like to see. I'd like any penalties to start with the victim's team. So taking Liam Jones from this week's MRP as an example, he would be offered 2 weeks, of which one would be the next game his team (whether it's the Bulldogs or another team should he move) plays Melbourne. As the system currently stands, the primary victim, in this case the Melbourne Football Club, receives no compensation or reparation (or, if you like, revenge) for the crime perpetrated against it. This would rectify that. And there's no reason why more heinous crimes that receive, say, 4 weeks penalty might not see two of those games be the next two against the victim's club.

I appreciate that players in their last season may gain an inadvertent benefit as the penalty may never apply - but that's no different to a player playing their last game in a Grand Final or in a final in which their team is eliminated. And, frankly, I don't think that matters much.

Liam Jones will know he has a break scheduled next time he is suppose to play us. The doggies would work his training load so he was due for a break anyway. I like the way you think though.

Although i would be pretty happy to have Liam Jones play against us.

the problem with the tribunal system is that it does not really accurate assess intent, the tribunal uses the word reckless which is not really correct in a lot of situations where deliberate physical harm or damage was intended. intent should count for more in deciding the penalty and do away with this farcical reckless tag. The damage done should be the second factor in determining the penalty and lastly the players history.

How many weeks did Chapman get?

Surely we should be deterring actions, not impacts. So sticking your elbow into a guys face should warrant a far harsher penalty than Viney's 'brace'. No?

Liam Jones will know he has a break scheduled next time he is suppose to play us. The doggies would work his training load so he was due for a break anyway. I like the way you think though.

Although i would be pretty happy to have Liam Jones play against us.

A perverse consequence I hadn't thought about.

The justice system is not a revenge system. Compensation is not owed; only disensentivisation and re-education of the guilty party is necessary.

But why shouldn't the justice system (and I mean AFL justice system) have an element of compensation? Punishment is its own reward, but I see no reason why the victim could not be a beneficiary. While I support the AFL justice system having the same standards of natural justice and procedural fairness as the the civil justice system, it doesn't automatically follow that the punishment (or sentencing) regime has to follow the same principles.

But why shouldn't the justice system (and I mean AFL justice system) have an element of compensation? Punishment is its own reward, but I see no reason why the victim could not be a beneficiary. While I support the AFL justice system having the same standards of natural justice and procedural fairness as the the civil justice system, it doesn't automatically follow that the punishment (or sentencing) regime has to follow the same principles.

One of the biggest reasons a "compensation" system of justice doesn't work is that often the victim or the perpetrator judges the punishment to be insufficient/unwarrented, which leads to a never-ending cycle of revenge and reprisals.

Just look at the indigenous communities in Central Australia, or in gang wars all over the world. The purpose of the justice system is to minimise "incorrect" behaviour and reduce the likelihood of unregulated mob justice. The best way to do this is to divorce the victim from the perpetrator, so as to eliminate hard feelings on the part of either party.

If Bob from the Eagles whacks Chris from the Dockers and is sentenced to miss his next Dockers game as a result, he or his team-mates might (consciously of subconsciously) feel slighted by the Dockers--which could in turn lead to further bad blood between the teams. Such a situation is not conducive to the maintenance of order in the AFL.

One of the biggest reasons a "compensation" system of justice doesn't work is that often the victim or the perpetrator judges the punishment to be insufficient/unwarrented, which leads to a never-ending cycle of revenge and reprisals.

Just look at the indigenous communities in Central Australia, or in gang wars all over the world. The purpose of the justice system is to minimise "incorrect" behaviour and reduce the likelihood of unregulated mob justice. The best way to do this is to divorce the victim from the perpetrator, so as to eliminate hard feelings on the part of either party.

If Bob from the Eagles whacks Chris from the Dockers and is sentenced to miss his next Dockers game as a result, he or his team-mates might (consciously of subconsciously) feel slighted by the Dockers--which could in turn lead to further bad blood between the teams. Such a situation is not conducive to the maintenance of order in the AFL.

Chook, I respect your opinion and appreciate your argument, but I still remain unconvinced by it in the setting of professional football.