I'd contest it. Show them up for their lack of consistency. 

It's a joke 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

I'd contest it. Show them up for their lack of consistency. 

It's a joke 

I agree. I reckon they would at least downgrade it

From what I understand, several "key" people at the MFC are disillusioned by the grading of "intentional" considering the circumstances. Not sure if they'll challenge it, but they'll make their thoughts known, methinks.

Wasn't there someone recently who got a blatant hit that was originally graded "intentional" downgraded to "careless" because of the implication that they weren't the sort of player who would hit anyone intentionally and that it was an unfair smear on their character? Nev would have as much grounds as anybody in the AFL for that kind of challenge.

Or is that only valid if you're a Seventh Day Adventist or similar??

Mrp = mystery result protocol 

 

MRP= Melbourne's Ridiculous Penalties

Dunno why Bernie got off and dunno why Jetta didn't.

 

5 hours ago, Akum said:

Wasn't there someone recently who got a blatant hit that was originally graded "intentional" downgraded to "careless" because of the implication that they weren't the sort of player who would hit anyone intentionally and that it was an unfair smear on their character? Nev would have as much grounds as anybody in the AFL for that kind of challenge.

Or is that only valid if you're a Seventh Day Adventist or similar??

Jetta ain't an angel.

Been suspended twice I think.

Good week to lose Jetta with Brisbanes non existent forward line.

 

16 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

lol they spin a wheel down there and see what punishment comes up. Surely. 

Hadn't seen the duryea incident until just then. That really is a joke the two incidents are almost identical. They both deserve the same penalty or lack thereof.

9 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Hadn't seen the duryea incident until just then. That really is a joke the two incidents are almost identical. They both deserve the same penalty or lack thereof.

Its this year's precedent  for that type of incident come MRP reviews.  Its the reason to contest.

MFC >>>>>  MRP....exhibit "A"

 

thankyou and goodnight

Jetta has accepted.

29 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Jetta has accepted.

Proves the clubs have no faith in getting a fair hearing IMO.

 

2 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Proves the clubs have no faith in getting a fair hearing IMO.

 

Mahoney pretty much said that too when talking about looking at similar past reports.

 

Just now, GM11 said:

Proves the clubs have no faith in getting a fair hearing IMO.

 

or maybe given it's only the lions, took advantage of a week for neville to freshen up and come back stronger for the port game

It looked bad. Let's just call it a draw with Vince escaping and only playing Lions. 

20 hours ago, GM11 said:

Jetta gets smacked in the head weekly & can't buy a free kick

Well there you go, Jetta's week was the result of a demarcation issue.

3 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Hadn't seen the duryea incident until just then. That really is a joke the two incidents are almost identical. They both deserve the same penalty or lack thereof.

 

1 hour ago, GM11 said:

Proves the clubs have no faith in getting a fair hearing IMO.

 

The problem is that you are not allowed to cite other cases/penalties as a precedent when I firmly believe that is exactly what should be quoted to get consistency.

3 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Hadn't seen the duryea incident until just then. That really is a joke the two incidents are almost identical. They both deserve the same penalty or lack thereof.

I cannot believe he didnt get 2 weeks for that elbow - flush to the head.  to say that wasnt intentional but Jettas was is ridicuous

but then again, it was a Hawks player

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Good week to lose Jetta with Brisbanes non existent forward line.

 

An opportunity to bring back JT#9

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

The problem is that you are not allowed to cite other cases/penalties as a precedent when I firmly believe that is exactly what should be quoted to get consistency.

Obviously the AFL have no faith in our legal system if they rule out considering precedents.   Of course allowing precedents would make it harder to adjust decisions on the fly to ensure high-profile players didn't miss finals etc.

i'm quite sure precedents are taken into account by the members of the mrp (and tribunal) when they discuss among themselves a particular case.

as far as the mrp goes the accused is not allowed to cite anything (precedents or otherwise), in fact he or his representative aren't even present

the only chance you get to put up a defence or discussion is if you challenge it and it then goes to the tribunal, but then you have to risk, generally, an extra week, being the "bribe" you could have accepted for keeping your mouth shut and being a good little boy

Just now, daisycutter said:

i'm quite sure precedents are taken into account by the members of the mrp (and tribunal) when they discuss among themselves a particular case.

as far as the mrp goes the accused is not allowed to cite anything (precedents or otherwise), in fact he or his representative aren't even present

the only chance you get to put up a defence or discussion is if you challenge it and it then goes to the tribunal, but then you have to risk, generally, an extra week, being the "bribe" you could have accepted for keeping your mouth shut and being a good little boy

Precisely DC.  The person who is cited should at least be given a chance to respond to the charge.  Simple procedural fairness.  To impose a sanction, based on some questionable formula is a bad principle to begin with.  At least give the person an initial right of reply.  After all, we are talking about their livelihoods here.

I missed the Vince incident, what did he do?

42 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Precisely DC.  The person who is cited should at least be given a chance to respond to the charge.  Simple procedural fairness.  To impose a sanction, based on some questionable formula is a bad principle to begin with.  At least give the person an initial right of reply.  After all, we are talking about their livelihoods here.

They are given a chance to respond to the charge. By conceding guilt or challenging the verdict. It's the same principle that operates in the adversarial criminal justice system whereby an accused pleading guilty receives a discount on sentencing. To me, it's utter shite - someone is culpable or not. But whereas the criminal justice system probably operates this way on some archaic Abrahamic notion of confession/repentance, the $$$ AFL's MRP does it avoid extra scrutiny/save cash.