Salem receiving a week is fair enough.

But the MRP is so far off consistent it is appalling. What a joke.

4 minutes ago, JV7 said:

Salem deserves a week but it's the fact Scott Thompson did an almost identical act earlier in the year and got a fine... There is no consistency whatsoever. Cotchin punches someone in the jaw & it's rated as careless not intentional so why's Salems intentional ? The AFL needs to do something at the end of this year, scrap the ticking the boxes & just look at an incident & say that deserves X about of weeks... Not rocket science

Cunnington should have got a week. 

Can't agree. The idea is sensible as it removes the farce of players giving evidence and it should lead to greater consistency. The AFL needs to work with whoever the MRP and Tribunal members are to ensure they have a system in place which works better and with greater consistency than the current one. If the problem is with the grading system, then fix it. For example, I can't understand how any "intentional" offence can be a fine rather than a suspension, irrespective of the impact on the victim.

Also, the members of the MRP (and the AFL Tribunal) should not also work in the media. That's a problem. 

Someone must act soon with the inconsistencies, the examples set for kids is poor. My son has been banned from the school oval for a fortnight for laying a tackle during a fun game of footy during his lunch break. Imagine the penalty if he grabbed a piece of his friends jumper and did a Cotchin.

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by Demon77

Easiest way to fix the MRP is to punish the intent, not the outcome.

Players can control intent, they can't control outcome.

How is a punch to the guts, forcing a player from the ground,  resulting in him dry reaching 'low impact' ?

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by w00dy

MRP are scum of the earth. Im at the gym and literally burst out laughing hearing this. 

Cunnington a fine? Wow..

 

If not an appeal id just love the club to at least grow some and give out a few 'veiled' comments directed directly at the league and its lackeys.

This is just utter bullshlt (again ) 

Putting the Cunnington [censored] weak penalty aside, I thought our players made a pledge not to do anything silly for the rest of the year that would see them on the sidelines.

Very silly and costly by Salem.

What a complete disgrace/joke 

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Easiest way to fix the MRP is to punish the intent, not the outcome.

Players can control intent, they can't control outcome.

The AFL have cracked down on deliberate rushed behinds and deliberate out of bounds.

(The only rule they have ever "cracked down" on for more than one week at a time.)

The no-tolerance tough-love approach has definitely altered players behaviour.

But punching players? Which is not even in the rules?

They could wipe it out in two weeks by applying the same standard. If it looks even halfway like a punch, you're suspended.

But they prefer chooklotto.

How is it that the ONLY incident that resulted in a free kick was the ONLY incident not assessed? Coincidentally, if it was assessed then the two punishments for the same player would have resulted in an automatic one match ban. I think that's a thing isn't it? Wasn't that how Melksham got a game?

 

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by mrtwister

Bring back the Tribunal, any sort of intentional strike should go straight to the tribunal this system clearly is a joke.

1 minute ago, mrtwister said:

How is it that the ONLY incident that resulted in a free kick was the ONLY incident not assessed? Coincidentally, if it was assessed then the two assessments for the same player would have resulted in an automatic one match ban. I think that's a thing isn't it?

 

Tsk tsk

Applying logic is an AFL no-no 

25 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/mrp-cunnington-escapes-with-fine-salem-suspended

Salem should get a week. Stupid unnecessary thing to do. How Cunnington and Higgins escape suspension after intentionally striking is beyond me. Higgins was offered a fine for 'intentionally striking to the head'. Not even in play, just intentionally hit someone in the head. How is that not suspension worthy? The AFL and MRP should be ashamed of themselves for the inconsistency and stupidity. According to their rules it's now ok to punch your opponent in the head, jumper grabbed or not. The precedent is set after letting multiple people off in the past fortnight. Hopefully our club got the memo and next week they try to break a few jaws. What a farce!

man just watching that footage makes me livid. those north pricks.

salems wasnt an elbow, he brushed his face with a forearm, Im surprised it was looked at, let alone a suspension

Just now, DubDee said:

man just watching that footage makes me livid. those north pricks.

salems wasnt an elbow, he brushed his face with a forearm, Im surprised it was looked at, let alone a suspension

Twas a nothing' deemed a something and 'dealt' with.

Mind boggles really

Just now, danielE288 said:

Bring back the Tribunal, any sort of intentional strike should go straight to the tribunal this system clearly is a joke.

Afraid to say that isn't the answer.

The tribunal was hours and hours of smartarse lawyers arguing til 2AM that the incident didn't even take place on the ground because it was on the sponsor's logo and it wasn't actually a game of football according to the Oxford dictionary definitions of "actually", "game" and "football".

And then the tribunal would rule that Cunnington can't be penalised because that particular rule was framed in the VFL days and he wasn't a registered player then.

Was worth a week for sure, the Cunnington decision is bollocks though. If you hit someone so hard in the stomach that they are vomiting that must be worth a week.

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

salems wasnt an elbow, he brushed his face with a forearm, Im surprised it was looked at, let alone a suspension

Well, the head is sacrosanct you see.

That's why Cotchin was suspended the week before.

(yes I know he wasn't suspended!)

Just now, Ted Fidge said:

Afraid to say that isn't the answer.

The tribunal was hours and hours of smartarse lawyers arguing til 2AM that the incident didn't even take place on the ground because it was on the sponsor's logo and it wasn't actually a game of football according to the Oxford dictionary definitions of "actually", "game" and "football".

And then the tribunal would rule that Cunnington can't be penalised because that particular rule was framed in the VFL days and he wasn't a registered player then.

Yeah it had it's flaws, Not saying the early 90's version of the Tribunal was perfect but some sort of arbitration type thing to come up with punishments that actually fit the offence.  The model ATM is take it or get wacked with another week, Hardly fair.

If the AFL cant dispense penalty in a fair and equal manner then to say it's ' fair enough ' that Salem cops a week is a crock.

 

 

23 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If not an appeal id just love the club to at least grow some and give out a few 'veiled' comments directed directly at the league and its lackeys.

This is just utter bullshlt (again ) 

I agree here bub, for the sake of the players, members and the club itself we need to come and out and slam the MRP.

Every Melbourne player involved in an incident this year is suspended, while other clubs players throw punches and get fines or are let off.

We copped disgraceful umpiring and have said nothing publicly.

Now this. I want my club to stand up on the field and off. 

I feel we are the AFL's [censored].

Call a press conference and say as a club we are just disgusted at the inconsistency of this body, then cop the fine and move on.

PS.Why is the word for a female dog, a b.tch censored.

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by Redleg

Cuntington's punch in the guts was a dog act. Cant wait to see Jesse and Lewy break his jaw in two places next time

35 minutes ago, JV7 said:

Salem deserves a week but it's the fact Scott Thompson did an almost identical act earlier in the year and got a fine... There is no consistency whatsoever. Cotchin punches someone in the jaw & it's rated as careless not intentional so why's Salems intentional ? The AFL needs to do something at the end of this year, scrap the ticking the boxes & just look at an incident & say that deserves X about of weeks... Not rocket science

Cunnington should have got a week. 

Thompson got a week in round 2 for a similar incident but probably with more force 

Unbelievable, just unbelievable

From the MFC website:

"CHRISTIAN Salem has been charged with striking North Melbourne’s Shaun Higgins.

The incident happened during the second quarter of Melbourne’s 14-point loss to the Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday.

In summary, Salem can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from North Melbourne, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head.

The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. Salem has no applicable record, which impacts the penalty.

An early plea enables Salem to accept a $1000 sanction."

Is the last sentence a mistake? 

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay