10 hours ago, Gipsy Danger said:

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. 

That might be hard to administer given some players may have separate injuries or form concerns that keep them out longer than the affect of any blow received. However, I've often wondered whether suspending a guilty player specifically for games played against the club of the victim might be more equitable. For example, using Jordan Lewis as an example, would it be more appropriate if he were to be suspended for the next two games plus the next game against Carlton? (Or, perhaps, the next game and the next two games against Carlton).

11 hours ago, Gipsy Danger said:

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. 

The idea of suspensions as long as the injury comes up a bit but has some major failings. If you look at Lewis on the weekend, he threw a punch behind play, supposedly fractured the other players jaw, and was rightfully suspended, hitting someone behind play should be frowned upon and suspensions should be fairly hefty (Cripps may not miss a week so would Lewis serve any time?). Compare that to a player who clearly tries to bump, slips off the shoulder and collects the players head smashing their cheekbone. That would be a reportable offense, they probably should get time, but it was also unintentional and in play. The injured player may miss 10 weeks getting their face put back together. 

In this example you have someone taking a swipe behind play serving far less of a penalty that someone who simply made an accident in play. That wouldn't be to fair. What also happens if the person doesn't return from the injury, such as retiring from concussion?

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That might be hard to administer given some players may have separate injuries or form concerns that keep them out longer than the affect of any blow received. However, I've often wondered whether suspending a guilty player specifically for games played against the club of the victim might be more equitable. For example, using Jordan Lewis as an example, would it be more appropriate if he were to be suspended for the next two games plus the next game against Carlton? (Or, perhaps, the next game and the next two games against Carlton).

Imagine the clubs doctors medical reports if they were guaranteed to not have that player next time they play!

36 minutes ago, Chris said:

Imagine the clubs doctors medical reports if they were guaranteed to not have that player next time they play!

That's a good point. But I don't think injury reports should be used anyway. I'm in favour of changing the scheme from one of intent to one of outcome. In other words, did Player 1 intend to hit Player 2? If the answer is yes, then whether Player 2 sustained an injury or not should not matter.

11 hours ago, Chris said:

 

 

13 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

I guess my point is along the lines of if the severity of the report can be influenced by the medical report (low/med/high impact), then surely the punishment needs the same consideration.  Both Lewis and hoges incidents were deemed to be high impact because of the medical report yet both players they infringed are playing this week. If the medical reports were bad enough to maximise the penilties then how can either Rowe or Cripps be fit to play?

either the punishment needs to reflect the injury or medical reports should not be considered at all.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-04/mrp-gives-too-much-weight-to-medical-report-riewoldt

11 hours ago, Gipsy Danger said:

 

I guess my point is along the lines of if the severity of the report can be influenced by the medical report (low/med/high impact), then surely the punishment needs the same consideration.  Both Lewis and hoges incidents were deemed to be high impact because of the medical report yet both players they infringed are playing this week. If the medical reports were bad enough to maximise the penilties then how can either Rowe or Cripps be fit to play?

either the punishment needs to reflect the injury or medical reports should not be considered at all.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-04/mrp-gives-too-much-weight-to-medical-report-riewoldt

Very very good question. As I have said before, Carlton really need to be asked some serious questions about their concussion management. Neither of these players left the field for a concussion test, yet one apparently had delayed on set concussion after the game (how do they really know he didn't have it during the game, they didn't check!), and now that same concussed player is playing this week. 

Medical reports need to be independent, too much is at stake for the offending team for it not to be. The medical reports should also have less weight at the ARP than they do as well. 

How about a week for the reportable incident and additional weeks to match the time missed by the victim?

21 minutes ago, dpositive said:

How about a week for the reportable incident and additional weeks to match the time missed by the victim?

But there may be many other causes of the weeks missed by the victim, starting with a common cold.

Would still be a more relevant factor than the blues medical report .

But seriously we need an irony font

Get rid of the MRP and replace it with a dartboard.  Would be just as consistent.

17 minutes ago, Maple Demon said:

Get rid of the MRP and replace it with a dartboard.  Would be just as consistent.

"Mr Viney, we have viewed the footage and considered the doctors reports. Due to all the evidence showing no contact, and the fact that the doctors report no injury, we at the MRP are unanimous in our finding that the penalty should be ... A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY weeks!"

3 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

"Mr Viney, we have viewed the footage and considered the doctors reports. Due to all the evidence showing no contact, and the fact that the doctors report no injury, we at the MRP are unanimous in our finding that the penalty should be ... A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY weeks!"

The dartboard would have a max of 6 weeks, a range of fines, no case to answer....and cash prizes.

Cyanide capsules.

Anthrax? 

Paddy Ryder and a north player, suggested as Turner, put blokes down behind the play.  

Both apparently strikes to the head. 

We will see.

On 08/04/2017 at 4:25 PM, Maple Demon said:

Get rid of the MRP and replace it with a dartboard.  Would be just as consistent.

It's probably already been considered but decided against because of the OH&S risk. They might miss the dartboard and hit [insert name of 'favourite' journo] instead.

On 06/04/2017 at 9:52 PM, Gipsy Danger said:

 

I guess my point is along the lines of if the severity of the report can be influenced by the medical report (low/med/high impact), then surely the punishment needs the same consideration.  Both Lewis and hoges incidents were deemed to be high impact because of the medical report yet both players they infringed are playing this week. If the medical reports were bad enough to maximise the penilties then how can either Rowe or Cripps be fit to play?

either the punishment needs to reflect the injury or medical reports should not be considered at all.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-04/mrp-gives-too-much-weight-to-medical-report-riewoldt

Already players who have had their careers prematurely ended, due to a series of concussion issues, have been paid compensation by the AFL.  In terms of the amount of compensation?  We will never know, as the terms are subject to confidentiality.  However, there is sure to come a day where a civil action for damages will be initiated, with the fall out being substantial.

Whether Rowe had "delayed" concussion or not, if he has had any concussion related symptoms at all, he should not have been permitted to play.  The Carlton/Essendon game was a hard slog in the wet and with so many bone jarring hits, he could have suffered again.  In this case it beggars belief.

In the case of Cripps, there have been reports that he received a 'hit' prior to the Lewis incident, which could have resulted in the hairline fracture of the jaw.

As things stand now, the entire MRP process is fraught and certainly not consistent. 

On 2017-4-6 at 9:52 PM, Gipsy Danger said:

 

I guess my point is along the lines of if the severity of the report can be influenced by the medical report (low/med/high impact), then surely the punishment needs the same consideration.  Both Lewis and hoges incidents were deemed to be high impact because of the medical report yet both players they infringed are playing this week. If the medical reports were bad enough to maximise the penilties then how can either Rowe or Cripps be fit to play?

either the punishment needs to reflect the injury or medical reports should not be considered at all.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-04-04/mrp-gives-too-much-weight-to-medical-report-riewoldt

and just a small correction. in both cases it was deemed medium impact not high impact

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and just a small correction. in both cases it was deemed medium impact not high impact

I am waiting for the Doctor's report from the Crows to have the pretty ugly Paddy Ryder hit from behind to a Crow's jaw, declared no impact, or low impact and one week at worst. 

The Crows won't dob Ryder in. 

We now have a system where you can attempt to smash a bloke's head in, but if the Doctor says the victim is fine, the penalty is minor. 

That is a joke. 

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I am waiting for the Doctor's report from the Crows to have the pretty ugly Paddy Ryder hit from behind to a Crow's jaw, declared no impact, or low impact and one week at worst. 

The Crows won't dob Ryder in. 

We now have a system where you can attempt to smash a bloke's head in, but if the Doctor says the victim is fine, the penalty is minor. 

That is a joke. 

It's just a tick the box system.... there is almost no discretion for the MRP.

Impact now decided by outcome.

If not the club doctor specifying the outcome who do you suggest. No way would clubs want or allow their players to undergo independent examination merely for the tribunal.

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It's just a tick the box system.... there is almost no discretion for the MRP.

Impact now decided by outcome.

If not the club doctor specifying the outcome who do you suggest. No way would clubs want or allow their players to undergo independent examination merely for the tribunal.

What about for a fair and equitable outcome?

29 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It's just a tick the box system.... there is almost no discretion for the MRP.

Impact now decided by outcome.

If not the club doctor specifying the outcome who do you suggest. No way would clubs want or allow their players to undergo independent examination merely for the tribunal.

The system is now a joke. 

There are so many faults it is laughable. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I am waiting for the Doctor's report from the Crows to have the pretty ugly Paddy Ryder hit from behind to a Crow's jaw, declared no impact, or low impact and one week at worst. 

The Crows won't dob Ryder in. 

We now have a system where you can attempt to smash a bloke's head in, but if the Doctor says the victim is fine, the penalty is minor. 

That is a joke. 

The AFL can save money by abolishing the MRP and putting up a web page where the club doctors can enter in how many weeks the oppo assailant gets.

http://m.hawthornfc.com.au/video/2017-04-09/r3-lyons-takes-out-shiels

 

Same thing as hogan

No "delayed onset  concussion "

$1000 fine

 

im livid

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

The system is now a joke. 

There are so many faults it is laughable. 

Ryder 1 week !  Low impact because the crows wouldnt even dog their cross town rivals.  Just a little more class than carlscum......