Match Review Panel Farce

[brendan 3,421]

Afl won't appeal the houli case they have till 12 to make a decision 

[Chris 2,892]

35 minutes ago, brendan said:

Afl won't appeal the houli case they have till 12 to make a decision 

They are appealing the Houli case, but not the Schofield case. 

Elbows up boys!

[GM11 713]

Not a member of the legal fraternity, but it seems to me that the MRP, the tribunal & the AFL are digging a big hole for themselves.

Wonder if a club might head to the courts if a key player was rubbed out for a big final.

Should be able to find plenty of examples of inconsistent rulings to support a case for relief.

[dieter 3,325]

18 hours ago, willmoy said:

If i was Houli, and i was being held where he appeared to be being held, i would have belted the "quit" from Carlton much harder...

 With Oliver,I think MFC will look at this decision, probably can it, (they may fight it) and move on. The boys are one solid unit now. "Robbo" to his credit in my book, has spoken up about two important issues and put out there the way he feels. For him, and where he is, that takes courage. Good on him.

Schofield elbowed Oliver in the jaw, if this type of behavior continues i will personally put a fence up between WA and the rest of OZ and make them pay for it. The royalties should cover it.   

Like a rabbit proof fence?

[dieter 3,325]

9 hours ago, Chris said:

From The Age "As Woods pointed out to the tribunal, the AFL tribunal guidelines state that "intentional strikes with a raised forearm or elbow will usually not be classified as low impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved."

Interesting snippet. The the Tribunal not actually refer to the tribunal guidelines last night?

Well said.

[monoccular 16,604]

9 hours ago, SFebey said:

I just wrote an email to Gillon McLaughlin, regardless of Oliver acting or not, deliberate contact was made to a players head, if the AFL are serious they will stop this kind of rubbish. They squealed a couple of weeks ago yet sit on their arses for a deliberate hit? Come on! Time to make an example of all this BS. Schofield 1 week and Oliver gets questioned. Also wrote about Houli who should get 4 for knocking a bloke out. Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal is corrupt and its becoming for obvious by the week.

You sound surprised -- they are subsidiaries of the AFL so how could they not be?

[dieter 3,325]

8 hours ago, agent 99 said:

Sep Blatter would not look out of place on the AFL tribunal.

Or John Kerr.

[chook fowler 18,559]

Dangerous precedent set by saying one person is better than another and who you know is important. Breaks all the fundamentals of equity and justice.

Mother Theresa should have got 4 weeks for hat whack.

Edited June 28, 2017 by chook fowler

[Biffen 12,524]

16 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Dangerous precedent set by saying one person is better than another and who you know is important. Breaks all the fundamentals of equity and justice.

Mother Theresa should have got 4 weeks for hat whack.

Mother Theresa didn't have a Gold Logie winner and an uninformed Prime Minister in her corner.

She was only battling crippling endemic poverty and disease, nothing important or as difficult as Houlis rugged path to play afl,battling oppression,swimming through live sharks,saving children from burning buildings and all his other past times.

[dieter 3,325]

37 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Mother Theresa didn't have a Gold Logie winner and an uninformed Prime Minister in her corner.

She was only battling crippling endemic poverty and disease, nothing important or as difficult as Houlis rugged path to play afl,battling oppression,swimming through live sharks,saving children from burning buildings and all his other past times.

Not to mention that Houli was trying to win a game for Richmond, surely a much worthier cause than tending to god's unwashed. Mother Theresa wouldn't even get a kick in the AFL and if you believe Christopher H, she would have turned around and given young Jed Lamb a proper spanking with the belt she had dangling from her cassock. He would have deserved it too, he was man handling her!!!!!

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by dieter

[picket fence 15,738]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

Like a rabbit proof fence?

No Fence is Vermin proof ! The AFL are testimony to that 

PF !

[JTR 2,691]

So are we happy Zak Jones was cleared of the bump on Hannan?  

Its contentious I guess as he made contact with the ball at about the same time, but the head is supposed to be protected and Hannan copped a decent whack

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,213]

I would have thought it was more a collision than a bump and Hannan was and is fine.  Viney had no case to answer against West Coast either so while the head is protected, accidents happen.

[low flying Robbo 979]

My problem with Jones' one was they claimed he braced for impact.. look to me like he leant into it.. Doesn't make a difference than he happened to get the ball with his feet at the same time.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,000]

4 hours ago, JTR said:

So are we happy Zak Jones was cleared of the bump on Hannan?  

Its contentious I guess as he made contact with the ball at about the same time, but the head is supposed to be protected and Hannan copped a decent whack

In 2012 Jack Ziebell got four weeks for collecting an opponenet's head while legitimately contesting the ball.  The MRP said, and the tribunal agreed, that while he was entitled to contest the ball, he also had a duty of care to ensure he did not injure an opponent while doing so.  The footage is remarkably similar to that of Jack Viney last week which was dismissed.  Now admittedly, that was five years ago, but it seems the whole notion of "duty of care" which was the justification for so many decisions, including the infamous Trengove ban, has been entirely discarded. 

 

 

[daisycutter 28,723]

11 minutes ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

In 2012 Jack Ziebell got four weeks for collecting an opponenet's head while legitimately contesting the ball.  The MRP said, and the tribunal agreed, that while he was entitled to contest the ball, he also had a duty of care to ensure he did not injure an opponent while doing so.  The footage is remarkably similar to that of Jack Viney last week which was dismissed.  Now admittedly, that was five years ago, but it seems the whole notion of "duty of care" which was the justification for so many decisions, including the infamous Trengove ban, has been entirely discarded. 

 

 

interesting, ralph, it does look similar, though i notice a subtle difference. ziebell seems more intent on the bump than any attempt at the ball. i admit it's a small difference and often these things are a fine line. but then maybe i'm subconsciously bias towards viney.

[CityDee 738]

thought Zac would have got 2 weeks for that . High contact , almost a full knock out chose to bump within the rules but hit the head . 

[monoccular 16,604]

3 hours ago, CityDee said:

thought Zac would have got 2 weeks for that . High contact , almost a full knock out chose to bump within the rules but hit the head . 

SYDNEY v Melbourne.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,643]

As expected Cotchin gets away with a fine for a 'low-impact' punch in the guts. What a crock of [censored] - the whole 'zero tolerance' of any form of punching. Only a select few are exempt as usual. 

[DaveyJones'sLocker 625]

I still can't believe membrey got 2 weeks. Contact can be graded as severe right? Was graded High contact, Do you need to kill someone to get severe?

[Wells 11 4,987]

10 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

As expected Cotchin gets away with a fine for a 'low-impact' punch in the guts. What a crock of [censored] - the whole 'zero tolerance' of any form of punching. Only a select few are exempt as usual. 

Agrreed!  I thought they were cracking down on that stuff. They probably are but waiting til someone less noteworthy gets pinged. They've basically just given the green light for the punch in the guts to go on for the rest of the year. He HAD to go for a week. 

[spirit of norm smith 13,578]

Taylor Walker deliberately pushing JJ into a post causing injury 

vs

Clayton Oliver verbal with spectator 

media focus is on the wrong area IMO

[beelzebub 22,707]

5 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Taylor Walker deliberately pushing JJ into a post causing injury 

vs

Clayton Oliver verbal with spectator 

media focus is on the wrong area IMO

Will be all the time. We're a soft target. We never really retort. 

Is very disappointing to this member.

[xarronn 380]

On 6/28/2017 at 10:25 AM, SFebey said:

I just wrote an email to Gillon McLaughlin, regardless of Oliver acting or not, deliberate contact was made to a players head, if the AFL are serious they will stop this kind of rubbish. They squealed a couple of weeks ago yet sit on their arses for a deliberate hit? Come on! Time to make an example of all this BS. Schofield 1 week and Oliver gets questioned. Also wrote about Houli who should get 4 for knocking a bloke out. Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal is corrupt and its becoming for obvious by the week.

Words mean things. It's important to use the right words. Are you sure you mean to say 'corruption'

Corruption: 'having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain'.

Who's paying them and what are they being paid to do? (Surely they aren't all being paid to get us, (MFC).

They are human and most of us tend to think that there is a tendency to be inconsistent, error prone, erratic - but corrupt - Nah!

 

[monoccular 16,604]

4 minutes ago, xarronn said:

Words mean things. It's important to use the right words. Are you sure you mean to say 'corruption'

Corruption: 'having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain'.

Who's paying them and what are they being paid to do? (Surely they aren't all being paid to get us, (MFC).

They are human and most of us tend to think that there is a tendency to be inconsistent, error prone, erratic - but corrupt - Nah!

 

Well, to be kind then, absolutely and totally inept.