Tippett's 1 week is probably fine.

Franklin's 1 week is the latest instalment in the MRP getting it horribly wrong.

The changes made this year make things worse - there is now just 'careless' and 'intentional' and you can't be 'intentional' unless you intend to commit the offence. That's a pretty high bar to pass when it's rough conduct, which means almost every rough conduct charge is going to be 'careless', and that makes the penalties all smaller. Then, of course, there's the over-reliance on the actual impact that the act has. This is the exact kind of dangerous act the AFL continually talks about trying to get rid of, but focusing on the outcome means the worst acts which, by coincidence, don't cause injury, don't get punished, whilst innocent acts which cause freak injuries get massive punishments.

Another example of the system being just way, way off.

Edited June 29, 201510 yr by titan_uranus

If buddy knocked out edwards out cold he would have got more but because edwards came back on it was deemed not as bad. Franklin chose to run past the ball, looked at edwards and bumped in illegally. Should have at least been 2.

I can handle tippett getting 1. Firrito only copped a fine when he basically did the same thing a few weeks ago.

The goodes one. Im actually defending him. It was nothing. If you watched it live it was fine. Not sure why he chose to go in that position but it looked like there was no contact. The still shot someone took made it look a lot worse.

Frankenstein - 1 week for that attack on the head! Tippett - 1 week for that attack on the head! Thought that the head was sacrosanct....not for the "special clubs" it seems.

4 for Frankenstein, with his history of attacks to the head, and 3 for Tippett would seem far more appropriate.

Goodes' act was just plain low life -and he has the cheek to ask why he gets booed.

And as for then AFL in effect warning Mitchell, and any who may choose to follow him - what bloody blatant hypocrisy.

It seems that they regard drug experiments on a whole group of players, without records and without oversight far less significant than a simple harmless sledge.

Overall, just another evening of hypocrisy by a truly compromised arm of the AFL. Nothing new really.

That Franklin bump wasn't too far off the Long bump in the 2000 Grand Final which is one of the most cowardly acts I've seen on an AFL ground.

I've only seen it once and saw it for the first time last night. An absolutely disgusting act. Disgraceful he didn't get 4 or 5 weeks.

So he doesn't play against us I'm guessing.

Fair point... I must look at a fixture one day.

I'm p1ssed off only because I'm forced to trade out Lance in my DreanmTeam for one week, therefore getting rid of a trade coming into finals time. Franklin you Pr&$k!

That's crazy. He's only gone for 1 week. Put him on the bench and play a rookie for lower points or cop a zero. Don't use a trade though.

I thought that MRP stood for Most Respected Player and was going to suggest Nathan Jones. Wrong Thread! Sorry!

I personally reckon they both should have gotten a minumum three weeks. Both were dog acts!

This vision should be kept as a precedent for any future charge.

Franklin definitely looked up from the ball made the decision to run past the ball and make contact. He had time to gauge where the contact would occur and used his shoulder and arm to inflict the most damage.

Its a hard game and he got a week any less will get off

The MRP have the flexibility to refer a case direct to the tribunal where they think an incident is a bad fit to their simple algebraic formula

in the franklin case i think they should have referred

I'm not actually against the Franklin verdict if consistency on it remains

People have said that the player's height should be a factor, and I think with Buddy's height difference it was unavoidable to get Edwards in the head. I understand that it could be the AFL sucking up to Buddy and the Swans, but the bump really wasn't all that vicious and out of the spirit of the game

I'm not actually against the Franklin verdict if consistency on it remains

People have said that the player's height should be a factor, and I think with Buddy's height difference it was unavoidable to get Edwards in the head. I understand that it could be the AFL sucking up to Buddy and the Swans, but the bump really wasn't all that vicious and out of the spirit of the game

So if you're tall, you're allowed to size a player up in a conscious decision to bump (i.e. elect not to go for the loose ball that is right there next to you) and if you hit them in the head, we just say 'oh well, he's taller, it was 'unavoidable''?

If anything, the inherent height difference should have sounded a warning bell to Franklin to realise 'hey, I might get this bloke high' and instead, maybe he could have tried picking the ball up.

Edited June 30, 201510 yr by titan_uranus

The AFL is fair, consistent and above board. It shows no favour .

So if you're tall, you're allowed to size a player up in a conscious decision to bump (i.e. elect not to go for the loose ball that is right there next to you) and if you hit them in the head, we just say 'oh well, he's taller, it was 'unavoidable''?

If anything, the inherent height difference should have sounded a warning bell to Franklin to realise 'hey, I might get this bloke high' and instead, maybe he could have tried picking the ball up.

Have a look at Edwards though. He slowed up, he wasn't going for the ball and was just waiting to tackle Buddy. Buddy has every right to bump him out of the way in that situation.

However the AFL is still to blame. The 'contact below the knees' joke of a rule has made players stop going low and hard and made players like Edwards sitting ducks in these contests

Edited June 30, 201510 yr by Je Roos Salem

Knew Buddy and Tippsy would get minimal. MRP predictably inconsistent.

How the [censored] do you predict the inconsistent Moonie?

Buddy and Tippsy sound like your jazz ballet friends.

Get a grip on yourself!!

Although you probably already do.

Have a look at Edwards though. He slowed up, he wasn't going for the ball and was just waiting to tackle Buddy. Buddy has every right to bump him out of the way in that situation.

However the AFL is still to blame. The 'contact below the knees' joke of a rule has made players stop going low and hard and made players like Edwards sitting ducks in these contests

It's got nothing to do with what Edwards did or didn't do. It's about Franklin and what he did. He could have decided to go for the ball, but he made the clear, conscious decision to bump instead. When you have that choice, and you choose to bump, fine, but if you hit the player in the head then you deserve to be suspended for weeks because you elected to do something which carries a high risk of causing serious head injury.

He doesn't get the right to knock players out because, if he picks the ball up instead, he might get tackled. He chose to bump, he hit him in the head (that outcome should have been obvious to him at the time). The fact Edwards didn't get knocked out, or worse, is a blessing, but not a reason to give him just 1 week instead of 4.

JeRosSalem, you do realise the front on bump (shirtfront) is now illegal, don't you?

from http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/

A shirt front, which is a front on bump and usually quite aggressive, is a reportable offence and considered illegal.

It's got nothing to do with what Edwards did or didn't do. It's about Franklin and what he did. He could have decided to go for the ball, but he made the clear, conscious decision to bump instead. When you have that choice, and you choose to bump, fine, but if you hit the player in the head then you deserve to be suspended for weeks because you elected to do something which carries a high risk of causing serious head injury.

He doesn't get the right to knock players out because, if he picks the ball up instead, he might get tackled. He chose to bump, he hit him in the head (that outcome should have been obvious to him at the time). The fact Edwards didn't get knocked out, or worse, is a blessing, but not a reason to give him just 1 week instead of 4.

I don't think the risk of Edwards being knocked out was very high. I just think there's a difference in many of the malicious whacks into the head (most that involve a guy jumping up with a high elbow/or a clenched fist) and bumping a guy out the way who has left himself open. Happens a lot even in junior footy. I know the 'choosing to bump' thing is what the AFL's banged on about, so obviously it'd be interesting to see the verdict if a list-clogging ruckman was in Buddy's situation, but objectively, I'm not outraged that Buddy only got a week.

Haven't been reading the papers

Was Stevie J. cited for his double pike bellyflop that resulted in the first goal of the game at Geelong?

Nat Fyfe gets away with just a fine again, big name = protected species.

Nat Fyfe gets away with just a fine again, big name = protected species.

Mate, he has been rubbed out the past few years.

Mate, he has been rubbed out the past few years.

I'm not talking about "the last few years ".

Saw the Fyfe incident on TV. Penalty about right. Mitchell is more interesting. Deserves 3.

Selwood 1 week!?

Mitchell just a fine after a second kneeing incident WTF??

Vickery just 2 weeks.. give me a spell!

And Fyfe just a fine?

Fk there are some protected species that live amongst this so called great game.

Selwood 1 week!?

Mitchell just a fine after a second kneeing incident WTF??

Vickery just 2 weeks.. give me a spell!

And Fyfe just a fine?

Fk there are some protected species that live amongst this so called great game.

The Mitchell incidence is amazing. I had a look again today and you just can't do that. What everytime I run into a contest I put my knee into the opposing players thigh at full pace? I did that once as a player instinctively, knew I did the wrong thing and copped heaps from the opposition for it. The MRP got this wrong big time.