Jump to content

Match Review Panel Farce

Featured Replies

Posted

So Joel Selwood elbows Mitchell's head into the turf and gets a fine.

Two things. A, I wish he'd slugged him harder.

B; Surely this is the clearest act of bias yet seen. Especially if Bartel was on the panel.

There was talk of 'unfootball Acts'. What a joke. You elbow someone in the back of the head, slug his face into the turf and it's deemed by the likes of Bartel as a 'football act.'

It's not only a farce, it's also a bloody disgrace.

 

Edited by dieter

 

Are you from Melbourne..?

Why...yes :huh:

You get a week

Why :mellow:

Make that two !! 

 

All of the MRP's decisions this week look ok, except for the Selwood one. What a crock. Intentional, behind play, forceful enough to make Mitchell respond (he rarely does), and clear cut on video from multiple angles. One of these days, a player is going to take the MRP  to court and we will have another Sylvio Foccini farce played out in the media. The umps or someone should appeal the decision. Is there a mechanism for appealing against light sentences in the AFL? 


Im more annoyed with Shuey getting off. he ignored the ball and collected Dangerfield in the head. it is bloody rubbish that it all hangs on how the player comes up. It was a dangerous act and he should not be playing against us this week. He gets off, but because Carltons medical staff talk crap that Cripps and Rowe were hurt we lost Lewis and Hogan for weeks. MRP extremely inconsistent and do not make our code look smart.

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The Shuey decision is a disgrace.

The Shuey one looks like the head contact was slight. Contact, yes, but most of it was body. A fine would have been enough for me. 

 

Reiwoldt should have been given a week. 

Selwood 1-2 weeks. 

I have no problem with Franklin getting off, he didn't hit the head. 

Daisy I'm torn on.  Not much in it, but the MRP admitted that he ran past the ball.  They've always said if you run past the ball and hit someone high they'd suspend you. 

Didn't see the Shuey one. 

36 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

Protected species,  as is Sam Mitchell and Buddy 

And Luke Shuey, he ran passed the ball and hit Dangerfield in the head.

Lets hope he doesn't get delayed concussion like Rowe & Cripps


25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

"Pick up The Gun...."

 

 

"you saw him, he had a Gun..."

I don't want no trouble mister. I just came to town to get some hard rock candy for my kids and some gingham for my wife

26 minutes ago, demonmerv said:

Im more annoyed with Shuey getting off. he ignored the ball and collected Dangerfield in the head. it is bloody rubbish that it all hangs on how the player comes up. It was a dangerous act and he should not be playing against us this week. He gets off, but because Carltons medical staff talk crap that Cripps and Rowe were hurt we lost Lewis and Hogan for weeks. MRP extremely inconsistent and do not make our code look smart.

Yep the Shuey one [censored] me off too, especially cos we're playing them this week

So basically because Shuey ran past the ball and hit Dangerfield partly in the head this does not warrant a suspension?

If it wasn't Danger, they would have been carried off hence a difference result. Bring back the tribunal I say!

 

Nathan Burke who is on the MRP did say on ABC radio yesterday they try to get all players off in terms of suspensions. Guessing Zak Jones and Matt Rosa aren't on the special list. 

1 minute ago, Jibroni said:

So basically because Shuey ran past the ball and hit Dangerfield partly in the head this does not warrant a suspension?

If it wasn't Danger, they would have been carried off hence a difference result. Bring back the tribunal I say!

 

To be fair, Danger has a history of playing up head injuries.  If he didn't make a big song and dance about his heavy concussion, there was almost certainly nothing in it. 


41 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The Shuey decision is a disgrace.

Gobsmacked and not surprised

Rance also cleared of exaggerating contact. If he didn't exaggerate, I don't know what exaggerating is. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

Just now, Jibroni said:

So basically because Shuey ran past the ball and hit Dangerfield partly in the head this does not warrant a suspension?

If it wasn't Danger, they would have been carried off hence a difference result. Bring back the tribunal I say!

 

Isn't the whole idea of suspensions etc to prevent future issues/injuries. The fact that Danger was ok is completely irrelevant for mine. Basically it leads to split second decisions where a player won't think twice as nobody has been suspended for that action. If the contact leads to a broken neck the player has that on his conscience for the rest of his life when it should have been made quite clear by the MRP that the actions are unacceptable, regardless of the outcome.

The MRP and even AFL are seriously missing the point to all this. Does anyone working within the AFL actually have an education?

Shuey's hit would have been classified as "careless" and they will say he didn't mean to make contact with the head. Hence why he didn't receive a suspension.

To me it's easy, if you elect to hit someone off the ball and you make contact with the opposition players head, then you're out. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

9 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

So basically because Shuey ran past the ball and hit Dangerfield partly in the head this does not warrant a suspension?

If it wasn't Danger, they would have been carried off hence a difference result. Bring back the tribunal I say!

 

A complement to Jack Trengove's tackling technique if ever there was one.


42 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The Shuey one looks like the head contact was slight. Contact, yes, but most of it was body. A fine would have been enough for me. 

That is hardly the point.  If they want to eliminate these undisciplined acts from the game, then they need to act on the intent, not the outcome; and in Shuey's case, the intent was most definitely there. 

Even Brereton said, with regret in his voice, that Shuey had to go coz you can't run past the ball to give someone the business.

I note Salem got a week for less than what Selwood did,

If Rance wasn't staging, then what is staging?  Do you need a girl dressed up as Robin Hood creeping up behind you with the audience chanting "OH, YES HE IS!"

It's beyond a joke.

 

5 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Nathan Burke who is on the MRP did say on ABC radio yesterday they try to get all players off in terms of suspensions. Guessing Zak Jones and Matt Rosa aren't on the special list. 

WHAT!?!!!?!?!? Words fail. Sack him on the spot. Sack them all. The AFL is a corrupt comp.

If I hadn't foolishly invested years of nervous energy and emotion into the Demons I would have walked away some years back.

8 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Nathan Burke who is on the MRP did say on ABC radio yesterday they try to get all players off in terms of suspensions. Guessing Zak Jones and Matt Rosa aren't on the special list. 

Is this true??? 

 

It wouldn't  surprise me as me as it seems the AFL are pushing the 'brand' or 'entertainment' line and we don't want our stars missing etc etc and failing to understand what the tribunal was designed for 

 
6 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Shuey's hit would have been classified as "careless" and they will say he didn't mean to make contact with the head. Hence why he didn't receive a suspension.

To me it's easy, if you elect to hit someone off the ball and you make contact with the opposition players head, then you're out. 

You do know....

No logic allowed :unsure:

12 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Nathan Burke who is on the MRP did say on ABC radio yesterday they try to get all players off in terms of suspensions. Guessing Zak Jones and Matt Rosa aren't on the special list. 

They didn't try very [censored]e hard to get Salem off, or Hogan, or Lewis.

Do they understand what they are there for? Sounds like they're as [censored] up as the umps in knowing what they're actually supposed to do.


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • PREVIEW: North Melbourne

    Can you believe it? After a long period of years over which Melbourne has dominated in matches against North Melbourne, the Demons are looking down the barrel at two defeats at the hands of the Kangaroos in the same season. And if that eventuates, it will come hot on the heels of an identical result against the Gold Coast Suns. How have the might fallen? There is a slight difference in that North Melbourne are not yet in the same place as Gold Coast. Like Melbourne, they are currently situated in the lower half of the ladder and though they did achieve a significant upset when the teams met earlier in the season, their subsequent form has been equally unimpressive and inconsistent. 

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
  • REPORT: Adelaide

    The atmosphere at the Melbourne Football Club at the beginning of the season was aspirational following an injury-plagued year in 2024. Coach Simon Goodwin had lofty expectations with the return of key players, the anticipated improvement from a maturing group with a few years of experience under their belts, and some exceptional young talent also joining the ranks. All of that went by the wayside as the team failed to click into action early on. It rallied briefly with a new strategy but has fallen again with five more  consecutive defeats. 

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 0 replies
  • CASEY: Coburg

    The Casey Demons returned to their home ground which was once a graveyard for opposing teams but they managed to gift the four points on offer to Coburg with yet another of their trademark displays of inaccuracy in front of goals and some undisciplined football that earned the displeasure of the umpires late in the game. The home team was welcomed by a small crowd at Casey Fields and looked right at home as it dominated the first three quarters and led for all bar the last five minutes of the game. In the end, they came away with nothing, despite winning everywhere but on the scoreboard and the free kick count.

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: Rd 18 vs North Melbourne

    After four weeks on the road the Demons make their long awaited return to the MCG next Sunday to play in a classic late season dead rubber against the North Melbourne Kangaroos. Who comes in and who comes out?

      • Thanks
    • 163 replies
  • POSTGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

    The Demons were wasteful early before putting the foot down early in the 2nd quarter but they chased tail for the remainder of the match. They could not get their first use of the footy after half time and when they did poor skills, execution and decision making let them down.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 246 replies
  • PODCAST: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 7th July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Crows.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 28 replies