Match Review Panel Farce

[The heart beats true 18,145]

At least the jumper punch is back.

Can't wait to watch North Melbourne dish out 4-5 on the weekend, only for Scott to remind everyone in his Presser that the AFL allow it.

HOW [censored] DUMB ARE THE AFL? If you're going to get rid of something, get rid of it!

[jnrmac 20,189]

Cotchin is a favoured child....

[pineapple dee 2,892]

And the AFL are favouring Richmond to keep them in the finals race ????? Why exactly ???? We  saw on the weekend what the Tigers have to offer. They are going nowhere. They have done as well as they can do this year. The cue is in the rack.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-24/lions-consider-challenge-to-zorko-ban

They simply HAVE to challenge this. Not only because it's fundamentally wrong in light of recent suspensions...But because it involves the bias Doctors at Carlton again!

When will the AFL allow itself the power to challenge that doesn't impact the club? Surely if the MRP is being grossly inconsistent then it shouldn't potentially damage a club, but it certainly damages the long term credibility of the competition. That's in the AFL interests.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Looks rubbish to me...Fractured ribs no doubt, will play next week tho.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Wadda We Sing

[Wells 11 5,424]

24 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-24/lions-consider-challenge-to-zorko-ban

They simply HAVE to challenge this. Not only because it's fundamentally wrong in light of recent suspensions...But because it involves the bias Doctors at Carlton again!

When will the AFL allow itself the power to challenge that doesn't impact the club? Surely if the MRP is being grossly inconsistent then it shouldn't potentially damage a club, but it certainly damages the long term credibility of the competition. That's in the AFL interests.

Agreed. How that was worse than Cotchins I have NO idea. Lions are just an easy club to make a statement with I think, sadly just the same as we are. And agree re Carltons doctors...a blight on the game. Can you suspend a doctor for a few weeks lol...I wish. 

[Jibroni 5,017]

2 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Agreed. How that was worse than Cotchins I have NO idea. Lions are just an easy club to make a statement with I think, sadly just the same as we are. And agree re Carltons doctors...a blight on the game. Can you suspend a doctor for a few weeks lol...I wish. 

I concur, absolutely disgraceful decision and the MRP is becoming farcical.

Cotchin wacks someone in the guts every week and gets nothing. How can you justify we are on a level playing field.

[beelzebub 23,383]

9 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

I concur, absolutely disgraceful decision and the MRP is becoming farcical.

Cotchin wacks someone in the guts every week and gets nothing. How can you justify we are on a level playing field.

The MRP needs a good kicking.

Someone needs to bring them back to the game ..( proper )

[sue 9,146]

26 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

I concur, absolutely disgraceful decision and the MRP is becoming farcical.
 

Tense error.

[Willmoy1947 4,146]

Getting to that  Stage, 5 weeks before Finals, if the AFL does not get the MRP and the whole Umpiring, mistake ridden, repetitive, changing rules during the course of the game, antics, someone is going to be seriously injured through lack of control in those inevitable tight situations.......

[jnrmac 20,189]

5 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-24/lions-consider-challenge-to-zorko-ban

They simply HAVE to challenge this. Not only because it's fundamentally wrong in light of recent suspensions...But because it involves the bias Doctors at Carlton again!

When will the AFL allow itself the power to challenge that doesn't impact the club? Surely if the MRP is being grossly inconsistent then it shouldn't potentially damage a club, but it certainly damages the long term credibility of the competition. That's in the AFL interests.

Can someone explain the difference between this and the Cunnington hit on Vince?

[Deestroy All 14,266]

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Can someone explain the difference between this and the Cunnington hit on Vince?

[RalphiusMaximus 6,095]

On 10/07/2017 at 6:46 PM, 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!

 

Actually, I think corruption is exactly the right word.  The MRP are paid by the AFL.  The AFL has a vested interest in keeping their drawcard players on the field.  It's a pretty simple equation.  Keep the big names playing, more people go to the games and watch on TV which means more money for the AFL, both in terms of gate receipts and in the ammunition they take to the next TV rights negotiation.  Add to his the betting markets that are impacted by suspending brownlow chances and you have another vested interest in the betting partners. 

It's been pretty obvious for a number of years that the MRP let the big names and the big clubs get away with murder and hit less well-protected players with disproportionate penalties to demonstrate how seriously they take punches/head-high contact/sling tackles.  It's a simple matter of following the money to see why. 

[deespicable me 1,498]

2 hours ago, willmoy said:

Getting to that  Stage, 5 weeks before Finals, if the AFL does not get the MRP and the whole Umpiring, mistake ridden, repetitive, changing rules during the course of the game, antics, someone is going to be seriously injured through lack of control in those inevitable tight situations.......

and that's just the supporters....

[bandicoot 1,395]

10 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-24/lions-consider-challenge-to-zorko-ban

They simply HAVE to challenge this. Not only because it's fundamentally wrong in light of recent suspensions...But because it involves the bias Doctors at Carlton again!

When will the AFL allow itself the power to challenge that doesn't impact the club? Surely if the MRP is being grossly inconsistent then it shouldn't potentially damage a club, but it certainly damages the long term credibility of the competition. That's in the AFL interests.

Smacked him in the ribs. Out for a week. Sounds right to me. 

Dont punch and you won't get suspended. Can't feel sorry for him 

the Afl have put players on notice for the last 6 weeks. Punch at your own peril 

[bandicoot 1,395]

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Can someone explain the difference between this and the Cunnington hit on Vince?

The difference is that the afl has clamped down on punches since the Cunnington situation. They have put out plenty of warnings saying that you punch at your own risk.

zorko punched a guy in the ribs. Out for a week. I dont feel sorry for him.

society clamps down on rules all the time. Police are stricter on long weekends and judges are swayed by public opinion and give more severe penalties at times. MRP are no different 

[The heart beats true 18,145]

8 hours ago, bandicoot said:

the Afl have put players on notice for the last 6 weeks. Punch at your own peril 

Unless you're Trent Cotchin, which is my point.

Edited July 25, 2017 by The heart beats true
Typo

[Lucifers Hero 40,374]

Will Dangerfield go for his sling tackle which drove Kruzer head first into the turf in the 3rd qtr?  Dangerfield pinned Kruzer's arms and he didn't go back on.

If Carlton club doctors are true to form they will put a damning report.  At least 'medium impact'.  Maybe 'high impact'.

Will be interesting to see how the MRP get their pin-up boy brownlow favourite off:  Maybe: '...the momentum of the tackle rotated Kruzer and he accidently landed on his head...  It was just an accident as evidenced by no free kick being paid...'

Anyone else would get 3 weeks. 

As an aside I thought there was an AFL ban on players/coaches talking about potential MRP incidents.  Scott and Dangerfield have gone to air with 'nothing to see here, move on'.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

18 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Will Dangerfield go for his sling tackle which drove Kruzer head first into the turf in the 3rd qtr?  Dangerfield pinned Kruzer's arms and he didn't go back on.

If Carlton club doctors are true to form they will put a damning report.  At least 'medium impact'.  Maybe 'high impact'.

Will be interesting to see how the MRP get their pin-up boy brownlow favourite off:  Maybe: '...the momentum of the tackle rotated Kruzer and he accidently landed on his head...  It was just an accident as evidenced by no free kick being paid...'

Anyone else would get 3 weeks. 

As an aside I thought there was an AFL ban on players/coaches talking about potential MRP incidents.  Scott and Dangerfield have gone to air with 'nothing to see here, move on'.

Straight after the sling tackle Kreuzer on the ground holds and nurses his wrist with no immediate indications that he is dazed. MRP will seize on that and entertain the possibility that the knock to the wrist could have caused the concussion and give Dangerfield the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by america de cali

[Redleg 41,582]

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Will Dangerfield go for his sling tackle which drove Kruzer head first into the turf in the 3rd qtr?  Dangerfield pinned Kruzer's arms and he didn't go back on.

If Carlton club doctors are true to form they will put a damning report.  At least 'medium impact'.  Maybe 'high impact'.

Will be interesting to see how the MRP get their pin-up boy brownlow favourite off:  Maybe: '...the momentum of the tackle rotated Kruzer and he accidently landed on his head...  It was just an accident as evidenced by no free kick being paid...'

Anyone else would get 3 weeks. 

As an aside I thought there was an AFL ban on players/coaches talking about potential MRP incidents.  Scott and Dangerfield have gone to air with 'nothing to see here, move on'.

 

More chance of me winning tattslotto next week, than Danger going out, now if it was Bernie.

[daisycutter 29,747]

the mrp should ask jack trengove what his opinion is, especially as he is well acquainted with dangermouse

goose....gander....3 weeks

[Ethan Tremblay 30,995]

I can't wait to hear the AFL's excuse for Dangerfield receiving a fine. 

The tackle was almost a carbon copy of McMarthy's tackle earlier this month for which he received two weeks suspension. 

This will show just how corrupt the AFL are.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Ethan Tremblay
Spelling

[daisycutter 29,747]

richo and darcy saying it's not right that fans should be deprived of watching big stars like dangerfield over something unintentional like that

fmd - one rule for the stars give them a fine, anyone else hit them hard to send a strong message

and when will the afl clamp down on coaches publicly coaching the mrp? wonder if jimmy bartel will sit on the mrp? no doubt he will, after all he is impartial.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Everytime Richo opens his mouth he only serves to provide proof that all are 'not ' created equally 

Dumb as dog ...

[monoccular 17,578]

On 25/07/2017 at 4:49 AM, bandicoot said:

Smacked him in the ribs. Out for a week. Sounds right to me. 

Dont punch and you won't get suspended. Can't feel sorry for him 

the Afl have put players on notice for the last 6 weeks. Punch at your own peril 

I think the complaint is not the penalty in Zorko's case but the blatant inconsistency and in fact favoritism by the MRP

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Will Dangerfield go for his sling tackle which drove Kruzer head first into the turf in the 3rd qtr?  Dangerfield pinned Kruzer's arms and he didn't go back on.

If Carlton club doctors are true to form they will put a damning report.  At least 'medium impact'.  Maybe 'high impact'.

Will be interesting to see how the MRP get their pin-up boy brownlow favourite off:  Maybe: '...the momentum of the tackle rotated Kruzer and he accidently landed on his head...  It was just an accident as evidenced by no free kick being paid...'

Anyone else would get 3 weeks.**

As an aside I thought there was an AFL ban on players/coaches talking about potential MRP incidents.  Scott and Dangerfield have gone to air with 'nothing to see here, move on'.

 

Ironic isn't it the Dangerfield was the "victim" in the AFL index case against Trengove**, and now is the assailant  who will get off either free or with a wet lettuce. 

**Three weeks for MFC's Jack Trengove as I recall. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by monoccular