Do Eagles players ever get suspended? Can't remember the last one.

Le Cras gets off with a fine because of 'low Impact'.  Because the player he collected to the head got up and played out the game it was classed as 'low impact'. Now, didn't the Hogan and Lewis 'victims' get up and play out the game? Problem was they were not wearing a blue and yellow jumper. Talk about inconsistent penalties.

10 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Do Eagles players ever get suspended? Can't remember the last one.

Le Cras gets off with a fine because of 'low Impact'.  Because the player he collected to the head got up and played out the game it was classed as 'low impact'. Now, didn't the Hogan and Lewis 'victims' get up and play out the game? Problem was they were not wearing a blue and yellow jumper. Talk about inconsistent penalties.

Nah, the problem was they weren't playing Carlton, so the opposition doctor didn't put in a report of delayed onset concussion.

They are using the consequence as a factor of determining impact.  I can see the logic in it, but it can lead to inconsistent, obviously bulldust outcomes, because it comes down to the word of the club doctors, who are going to exhibit varying degrees of conservatism (to give them the benefit of the doubt).

10 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Do Eagles players ever get suspended? Can't remember the last one.

Le Cras gets off with a fine because of 'low Impact'.  Because the player he collected to the head got up and played out the game it was classed as 'low impact'. Now, didn't the Hogan and Lewis 'victims' get up and play out the game? Problem was they were not wearing a blue and yellow jumper. Talk about inconsistent penalties.

Wet Toast are protected by AFL and their umpires

The use of 'consequences' in grading penalties is ridiculous.

I can see it now, police pull an erratic driver over, do the breath test.. "oh, you should probably be in hospital with that blood alcohol level, but everything is fine, you didn't hit anyone today".

Meanwhile, at the MRP - "Oh, you threw you weight into someone's head while they were looking the other way? No problem, they got up. We'll check again next time to see if you've killed anyone."

And up on the peninsular - "You launched a spread of nuclear missiles at Seoul and Tokyo? Oh, they all failed to detonate, so it's fine, just promise not to improve your fuses."

The system is an absolute farce! 

It has zero credibility and must be changed before next season.

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

The use of 'consequences' in grading penalties is ridiculous.

I can see it now, police pull an erratic driver over, do the breath test.. "oh, you should probably be in hospital with that blood alcohol level, but everything is fine, you didn't hit anyone today".

Meanwhile, at the MRP - "Oh, you threw you weight into someone's head while they were looking the other way? No problem, they got up. We'll check again next time to see if you've killed anyone."

And up on the peninsular - "You launched a spread of nuclear missiles at Seoul and Tokyo? Oh, they all failed to detonate, so it's fine, just promise not to improve your fuses."

You would expect to see differing penalties for:

• A drunk driver who doesn't crash or kill anyone
• A sober driver who crashes and kills someone
• A drunk driver who crashes and kills someone

Would you not?

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

You would expect to see differing penalties for:

• A drunk driver who doesn't crash or kill anyone
• A sober driver who crashes and kills someone
• A drunk driver who crashes and kills someone

Would you not?

If the MRP had any involvement, we'd eventually see someone penalised for being sober and not crashing/killing someone.

agree MRP is a joke

LeCras deserves min 1 wk

These medical report suspensions are clearly open to abuse. I can see this easily happening.

Club X plays Club Z in final round. Both have secured a finals spot. Superstar from club X whacks tagger from club Z who continues playing with no ill effects. Club X doctor says tagger has suffered from delayed concussion. Superstar misses finals games and impacts club Z'd chances. 

 

7 hours ago, Nasher said:

Nah, the problem was they weren't playing Carlton, so the opposition doctor didn't put in a report of delayed onset concussion.

They are using the consequence as a factor of determining impact.  I can see the logic in it, but it can lead to inconsistent, obviously bulldust outcomes, because it comes down to the word of the club doctors, who are going to exhibit varying degrees of conservatism (to give them the benefit of the doubt).

Not to mention the same impact to different players can have differing outcomes

Interesting to see what the Cats player who jumped up and elbowed Hodge in the head gets. If it's anything less than 4 weeks it's a joke in comparison to Lewis' penalty

The real problem with the system is the inability to hold it too account without being exposed to more pain.

In 2 weeks when a different player from another club does what LeCras did and gets a week his club will still take it on the chin instead of challenging it due to the possibility of an extra week suspension.

I simply can't see that being legal long term. At some point a desperate club is not only going to challenge a suspension but challenge the assertion that asking to represent your opinion opens you up to more sanctions. It'll happen in a Final and be dragged out for a month so said player can play in the Finals Series, and then force the AFL to review.

Its a miracle it hasn't happened yet.

The AFL are always going to favour the interstate clubs and the top 4 in Vic. Have for decades. Wont change unless you change those at the top at AFL level who can change their agenda.

Unless we become a top 4 Vic club!!

Edited April 18, 20178 yr by Rusty Nails

6 hours ago, Nasher said:

You would expect to see differing penalties for:

• A drunk driver who doesn't crash or kill anyone
• A sober driver who crashes and kills someone
• A drunk driver who crashes and kills someone

Would you not?

But you wouldn't want to see penalties for

- a sober driver, within the speed limit, driving safely, who crashes into someone after a bird flies into their open window.

While you would want to see penalties for

- a drunk, speeding driver doing their own imaginary slalom course during pick-up time at a primary school, who manages to miss everyone.

 

And yes, I do think penalties for drunk or dangerous driving need to be seriously boosted.

10 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Do Eagles players ever get suspended? Can't remember the last one.

Le Cras gets off with a fine because of 'low Impact'.  Because the player he collected to the head got up and played out the game it was classed as 'low impact'. Now, didn't the Hogan and Lewis 'victims' get up and play out the game? Problem was they were not wearing a blue and yellow jumper. Talk about inconsistent penalties.

I cannot find much to disagree with in that BM.

Spot on.

3 hours ago, america de cali said:

These medical report suspensions are clearly open to abuse. I can see this easily happening.

Club X plays Club Z in final round. Both have secured a finals spot. Superstar from club X whacks tagger from club Z who continues playing with no ill effects. Club X doctor says tagger has suffered from delayed concussion. Superstar misses finals games and impacts club Z'd chances. 

 

 

 

 Good point america but think the doctor who claimed delayed concussion should have been the club Y one not Club X. Am I right here?

Edited April 18, 20178 yr by Bobby McKenzie

My god, if we are going to rely on doctors so much, it needs some sort of objective system - an independent, AFL  doctor. 

 

Imagine if we played the Bombers in the last round, were facing them in the finals a week later and one of our players gave Daniher a well-deserved punch in the moustache - how "objective" would dear old Doc Reid be?    

Trusting the docs is a bit like self-reporting banks !!

Theory v Practice

50 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

But you wouldn't want to see penalties for

- a sober driver, within the speed limit, driving safely, who crashes into someone after a bird flies into their open window.

While you would want to see penalties for

- a drunk, speeding driver doing their own imaginary slalom course during pick-up time at a primary school, who manages to miss everyone.

 

And yes, I do think penalties for drunk or dangerous driving need to be seriously boosted.

I don't think that's an argument against using consequences as an input in to the penalty, which is the position you took (or at least, how I interpreted it). I think my examples show that the consequence is relevant and you appear to agree. I think both our arguments lend support to the idea that the weighting of the consequence should be significantly scaled down, but I'm yet to be convinced they should be discarded altogether. A cherry on top rather than the determining factor if you will.

By the way I completely agree with you that the outcomes at present are BS and are in need of reform. Just trying to flesh out the logic in where the process fails.