3 minutes ago, Skuit said:

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. 

it's not the judge who gives a discount for pleading guilty though

it's the prosecution doing a deal to either drop charges, lower the severity of a charge or recommend a certain punishment, in exchange for a guilty plea or to provide information in a separate case. 

there is a separation of prosecution, defence and judgement. wheras in the afl sysetm the prosecution and judge are the same and in the case of the mrp, there is not any defence. it is a system where you are first found guilty (or innocent) without a defence  and by a prosecutor acting as a judge, which is very different to the criminal justice system 

Just now, daisycutter said:

it's not the judge who gives a discount for pleading guilty though

it's the prosecution doing a deal to either drop charges, lower the severity of a charge or recommend a certain punishment, in exchange for a guilty plea or to provide information in a separate case. 

there is a separation of prosecution, defence and judgement. wheras in the afl sysetm the prosecution and judge are the same and in the case of the mrp, there is not any defence. it is a system where you are first found guilty (or innocent) without a defence  and by a prosecutor acting as a judge, which is very different to the criminal justice system 

Believe me, it is.

The MRP acts as the prosecution in the sense of your first example (proposing an agreed deal outside of the judiciary) but if the case is challenged on appeal they then revert to an ordinary prosecutorial role before a panel of judges. As far as I understand.

Anyways, I'm against the system of discounts. But I don't have any suggestions to fix it. Maybe not even mention discounts in the initial offer and clubs can risk a proper judiciary potentially determining a greater punishment (a la an appellent court)?

On 5/16/2016 at 4:28 PM, P-man said:

What a farce. Franklin doing the same act would've been laughed out of the room.

Thanks for the dramatics by the way Bont. This year's Logies are done and dusted but there's always next year.

Any vision of the Jetta incident? If it's as explained (a punch to the stomach) those have been let off time and again over the last few seasons.

EDIT: Just watched, yeah he got him high but it was not intentional, was clearly reckless/careless if anything. Surely with Jetta's history of concussion there would be enough to say he saw someone come from the side and acted instinctively to defend himself and get it downgraded to a warning or fine. I guess they figure would rather just sit him out for the Lions game than risk an extra week and miss Port but really sometimes you have to stand by your principles.

17 hours ago, Skuit said:

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. 

Sorry, but there is no comparison.  Your analogy is just wrong

On 5/16/2016 at 5:52 PM, waynewussell said:

I knew Vince would get off the first time I watched the replay! Vince knew he would get off as soon as he was reported and he told the ump as much. Vince tried to avoid forceful contact to the head. He was moving through at pace and then checked himself when he made contact to Wallis' upper shoulder so that he wouldn't crunch him on the jaw... only incidental, accidental contact that was inconsequential and the adjudicators got it right. Several Demonlanders hung Vince before the trial!

I couldn't believe it was even a free kick - I thought you'd actually have to, you know, hit someone above the shoulder to be given a free kick against.