54 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Can someone remind me: why does the MRP even exist? Why did the AFL move away from the old tribunal system where each party has to rock up on a Monday night and give their version of events?

I'm surprised that the AFL doesn't return to that model (with teleconferencing for interstate players).  Think of all the extra media attention the AFL would get. They would get a large audience to follow the proceedings live.

21 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

The AFL was supposedly also concerned that the old Tribunal system sometimes required players to travel across the country to give evidence. However, that is obviously now unnecessary given things called cameras and video links. The AFL's other concern was likely also to be the blatant dishonesty which went on with victims swearing blind that they never felt a thing.

Ah yes, the old 'player's code' - don't squeal to the screws what happened in the yard. 

But haven't we now seen the flip-side, whereby Carlton may (allegedly) have fudged medical reports to sway the decision making in these particular cases? Same kind of perversion, I reckon (allegedly)

Just now, sue said:

I'm surprised that the AFL doesn't return to that model (with teleconferencing for interstate players).  Think of all the extra media attention the AFL would get. They would get a large audience to follow the proceedings live.

True that, Sue. It could be like 'Judge Judy'

Suggestions to fix the MRP....

...tell players not to strike opposition players in the face?

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but if we took our biased opinions out of it, at the end of the day Vince, Hogan, Lewis all went too far.  Need to cop the penalty.

4 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Ah yes, the old 'player's code' - don't squeal to the screws what happened in the yard. 

But haven't we now seen the flip-side, whereby Carlton may (allegedly) have fudged medical reports to sway the decision making in these particular cases? Same kind of perversion, I reckon (allegedly)

I might be naive, but I suspect medical professionals "fudging" medical reports would be far less likely than players being dishonest.

18 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

Suggestions to fix the MRP....

...tell players not to strike opposition players in the face?

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but if we took our biased opinions out of it, at the end of the day Vince, Hogan, Lewis all went too far.  Need to cop the penalty.

Agreed but that actually isn't the point. The MRP is ridiculously inconsistent. Apparently you can elbow a bloke across the face while he is lying on his back and get less penalty than hitting bloke on the chin. Both wrong, both should be suspended, but the reason for the difference in suspensions is wrong and shows the systems is broken. 

The broken system is what is being discussed, not that our boys are innocent victims. 

21 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

Suggestions to fix the MRP....

...tell players not to strike opposition players in the face?

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but if we took our biased opinions out of it, at the end of the day Vince, Hogan, Lewis all went too far.  Need to cop the penalty.

umm, how many times is it necessary to point out that almost no one on here thinks the players did not go too far etc. and need to cop a penalty.  The issue is what is an appropriate penalty and the inconsistency and proceses of the MRP.

35 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I might be naive, but I suspect medical professionals "fudging" medical reports would be far less likely than players being dishonest.

why? - apart from black and white type evidence - last time i looked medicos are only human and have vested interests too.  i could dig up a few notable well publicised examples if necessary.. it is very easy to colour evidence whether deliberate or not. that's why it's always advisable to get a second opinion 

49 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I might be naive, but I suspect medical professionals "fudging" medical reports would be far less likely than players being dishonest.

There are a lot of dodgy medical professionals these days. Lots of perfectly able disabled pensioners around and not hard to find a Dr Howlong. More of a business these days than a noble calling. Still not as bad though as lawyers and financial products professionals. 

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

why? - apart from black and white type evidence - last time i looked medicos are only human and have vested interests too.  i could dig up a few notable well publicised examples if necessary.. it is very easy to colour evidence whether deliberate or not. that's why it's always advisable to get a second opinion 

You're probably right. I wasn't so much thinking of moral arguments or ethics but more about the consequences. Medical professionals (in theory) can lose the right to practice if they lie. Players don't lose the right to play. However, I suspect it's probably pretty difficult to de-register a medical professional, so I'm thinking my argument is a weak one.

 

1 minute ago, america de cali said:

There are a lot of dodgy medical professionals these days Lots of perfectly able disabled pensioners around and not hard to find a Dr Howlong. More of a business these days than a calling. Still not as bad though as lawyers and financial products professionals. 

Thanks.  perhaps credence to the old joke:

What's the difference between a laboratory rat and a Lawyer?

A................................. there are certain things a laboratory rat just won't do.

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You're probably right. I wasn't so much thinking of moral arguments or ethics but more about the consequences. Medical professionals (in theory) can lose the right to practice if they lie. Players don't lose the right to play. However, I suspect it's probably pretty difficult to de-register a medical professional, so I'm thinking my argument is a weak one.

 

Just as hard to prove a doctor lied as proving stock brokers do insider trading or footballers betting on their own games.

41 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

Suggestions to fix the MRP....

...tell players not to strike opposition players in the face?

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but if we took our biased opinions out of it, at the end of the day Vince, Hogan, Lewis all went too far.  Need to cop the penalty.

think most posters agree on the guilt, but think the mrp have been excessive and inconsistent in the grading and suspension duration 

3 hours ago, Chris said:

My thoughts.

Problems with the current system

- Reliant on reports from a doctor representing the aggrieved party. Not only are doctors varied in opinion, as is everyone, but they are also not immune from emotion playing a role in any report they write no matter how much they try and remove it, it is human nature.

- The consequence has far too great an impact on the sentence when in fact it is the action we should be condoning. Probelm with this is a little tap on the wrong part of the jaw could cause a fracture while a big hit on a different part will have no impact. Currently the big hit gets off or less of a punishment than the little unluckily placed tap.

- you realistically cant appeal

Solutions

- Each game should have an independent AFL paid for (of the irony of independence and the AFL) doctor present. This doctor should oversee the club doctors. During the game their role is to give final clearance for any concussion tests, or the need to do so. They over rule the club doctor but work with the club doctor in making a ruling. After each game the club is given 2 hours in which to make any medical reports of injuries sustained to the AFL doctor. If a report is made the AFl doctor will conduct their own assessment of the injured player and provide a report to the MRP if necessary. 

- Even penalties is a harder system to fix and make fair. I think degrees of actions must be the first step, something like hit to the head with little force = 1 week, hit to the head with medium force = 2 weeks, hit to the head with a lot of force = 3 weeks. Then you look at injuries, if no injury then no further punishment, injury where player will miss 1 or 2 weeks you add a week to the suspension, injury to the player of more than 2 weeks and you add 2 weeks to the suspension. You could set up this with lots of scenarios for kicks, bites, open handed hits, elbows, head high bumps etc etc etc. The only ambiguity is in determining the force of the impact. 

- I agree with not encouraging appeals as it drags the whole thing out, it has gone too far the other way. I like the idea of being able to appeal the sentence with no consequence. Take Jesse for instance, he should be able to appeal and say 'yes I am guilty but due to factors x,y,and z I think the penalty is too much. This at least gives him the chance to put his case forward. Appeals where you are looking to have a guilty changed to not guilty should stay with the extra week if you lose. I don't mind this as it is pretty rare you are found guilty when you aren't, it is far more common to be let off when you are guilty. 

Not sure that the highlighted paragraph should be restricted to MRP (and tribunal) outcomes.

It should actually be used in the interests of player safety and long term outcomes.  All too often a club employed doctor may be influenced by their employer's interests (e.g. Dr Reid at EFC) and particularly in the acute assessment of concussions NB to a 'star'player in a tight game, despite it being specifically contrary to medical ethic guidelines and AHPRA regulations.

10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Not sure that the highlighted paragraph should be restricted to MRP (and tribunal) outcomes.

It should actually be used in the interests of player safety and long term outcomes.  All too often a club employed doctor may be influenced by their employer's interests (e.g. Dr Reid at EFC) and particularly in the acute assessment of concussions NB to a 'star'player in a tight game, despite it being specifically contrary to medical ethic guidelines and AHPRA regulations.

That's right, a doctor working for a private non medical entity such as football club could be conflicted in certain situations by the interests of the employer as any other employee. Football is all about winning. In the heat of the game, anything can happen even on the sidelines.

47 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Just as hard to prove a doctor lied as proving stock brokers do insider trading or footballers betting on their own games.

Doesn't have to lie, just get the wrong info and come to the wrong conclusion.

I don't mind the way the points are established. Yes - contact was intentional. Yes - contact was high. Impact is the questionable factor only.

If both players have zero time off the ground, and play the next week; then I fail to see how the impact is "medium" rather than "low" or even negligible. And this is what is driving the 3 week ban.

5 minutes ago, small but forward said:

I don't mind the way the points are established. Yes - contact was intentional. Yes - contact was high. Impact is the questionable factor only.

Aw yeah, but did you see the way the guy went down like he'd been shot?

Obviously Hogan went for, and hit, a pressure point.

We know from past experience that going for a player's pressure point gets you 3 weeks.

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

Aw yeah, but did you see the way the guy went down like he'd been shot?

Obviously Hogan went for, and hit, a pressure point.

We know from past experience that going for a player's pressure point gets you 3 weeks.

Pressure point.  Really???  And a guy with no priors?

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Agreed but that actually isn't the point. The MRP is ridiculously inconsistent. Apparently you can elbow a bloke across the face while he is lying on his back and get less penalty than hitting bloke on the chin. Both wrong, both should be suspended, but the reason for the difference in suspensions is wrong and shows the systems is broken. 

The broken system is what is being discussed, not that our boys are innocent victims. 

 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

think most posters agree on the guilt, but think the mrp have been excessive and inconsistent in the grading and suspension duration 

I'm not sure why it's broken?  
Conduct was Intentional, medium impact, high contact = 3 matches.  It's pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Now as has been discussed, the only thing that could be argued is whether impact was low or not.  I'd say any contact that causes a broken jaw or concussion is quite substantial and to call it low is pretty tough to argue.  Either way, I understand the frustration/annoyance/grievances aired here.  

If they had decided to strike to the guts, this would have been avoided.  Still think it's a low act and there is no need for any of it.  But, it's not as if the rules and the criteria hasn't been around for a while.  

1 hour ago, demon-4-life said:

 

I'm not sure why it's broken?  
Conduct was Intentional, medium impact, high contact = 3 matches.  It's pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Now as has been discussed, the only thing that could be argued is whether impact was low or not.  I'd say any contact that causes a broken jaw or concussion is quite substantial and to call it low is pretty tough to argue.  Either way, I understand the frustration/annoyance/grievances aired here.  

If they had decided to strike to the guts, this would have been avoided.  Still think it's a low act and there is no need for any of it.  But, it's not as if the rules and the criteria hasn't been around for a while.  

Look at other results and you will see. Thompson intentionally elbowed a player in the face while he was lying down. He hit far harder than either of our players and with an elbow yet due to a different doctors report only got 1 week. The inconsistency is the issue as there is no way Thompson should be getting any less than our two players. There are heaps of other examples of this inconsistency. That is where the system is broken. 

3 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Pressure point.  Really???  And a guy with no priors?

I think you're missing the sarcasm, Iv'a.

3 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

Aw yeah, but did you see the way the guy went down like he'd been shot?

Obviously Hogan went for, and hit, a pressure point.

We know from past experience that going for a player's pressure point gets you 3 weeks.

Hogan shall now be known as Master Grasshopper Hogan.

11 hours ago, McQueen said:

I think you're missing the sarcasm, Iv'a.

Hopefully

Consistency is clearly the biggest issue. How that gets fixed is anyone's guess.

Punishments don't seem to fit the crimes.  Hogan and Lewis' incidents were stupid but they weren't exactly throwing haymakers. If Cripps and Rowe both play this week than Carltons medical reports need to seriously be looked at.

Maybe suspensions for directly injuring a player outside the rules of the game should coincide with the the length of time the injured player is out for?

There also needs to be something the systems that allows for incidental conctact.