Match Review Panel Farce

[Deemented Are Go! 3,704]

And like clockwork , article up on afl.com arguing why there should be no penalty...

Nathan Schmook says it's a matter of reasonable or excessive force
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-30/analysis-danger-case-one-out-of-the-box

Edited July 30, 2017 by Deemented Are Go!

[daisycutter 29,934]

16 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

And like clockwork , article up on afl.com arguing why there should be no penalty...

Nathan Schmook says it's a matter of reasonable or excessive force
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-30/analysis-danger-case-one-out-of-the-box

interesting in the examples he quotes only those who got off and omits any comparison to those suspended such as mccarthy whose tackle had much in common

balanced, not 

[loges 6,767]

Kreuzer Wil probably get 1week

[Lucifers Hero 40,603]

Even if he gets 2 weeks down to 1 from the MRP Geelong will appeal knowing they have the media on their side and the blessing of the AFL. 

They will get the silk David Grace, QC who will argue 'insufficient force' as he did for Schofield vs Oliver. 

The Tribunal now knows it has to do the AFL's bidding and Ipso facto, Dangerfield gets off.

Dangerfield will not miss a game and is protected for the brownlow.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,704]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

interesting in the examples he quotes only those who got off and omits any comparison to those suspended such as mccarthy whose tackle had much in common

balanced, not 

I know, right? I guess we are reading AFL.COM which has no obligation to objectivity. But it's hard not to conclude it (the site/afl) seeks to influence MRP decision making. 

[daisycutter 29,934]

8 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

I know, right? I guess we are reading AFL.COM which has no obligation to objectivity. But it's hard not to conclude it (the site/afl) seeks to influence MRP decision making. 

and note that they don't allow reader comments on this piece

[jnrmac 20,310]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

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

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. 

And came back to kick 5 the next week....

[Lucifers Hero 40,603]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/patrick-dangerfield-says-tackle-on-matthew-kreuzer-was-fair-but-footy-greats-predict-dire-mrp-ruling/news-story/4c0d71f7efa87128bee12060cd4c653f

Fortunately, Bartel won't be on the MRP to adjudicate this case.

But since when do the AFL tick off the decision:  "The decision will also have to be ticked off by acting footy boss Andrew Dillon..." 

Independent MRP?  The farce continues!

[GoD's67 111]

MRP is as consistent as umpiring decisions!

[monoccular 17,701]

5 minutes ago, GoD's67 said:

MRP is as consistent as umpiring decisions!

Schmuk is so conflicted: prejudging and preempting the MRP as an AFL employee.  

Mark my words - Danger is in no danger.  

[What 18,810]

Fat chance they suspend Dangerfield.  Theres rules for players like him, and rules for everyone else.  Its all about the $$$ for the AFL.  Cant have Brownlow night ruined, can we?

[Willmoy1947 4,230]

I saw a Free Kick paid against Dangerfield about four weeks ago, i think......

[monoccular 17,701]

10 minutes ago, willmoy said:

I saw a Free Kick paid against Dangerfield about four weeks ago, i think......

Presumably the maggot involved was sent to Manangatang seconds the next week. 

[SFebes 4,884]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Schmuk is so conflicted: prejudging and preempting the MRP as an AFL employee.  

Mark my words - Danger is in no danger.  

Exactly my point! They're [censored] corrupt! I also have a theory that umps are being told to even up games to make Gil and the league look good. 

[SaberFang 7,151]

Another player could do the exact same thing as Dangerfield and get a different punishment. He'll get nothing because the AFL looks after its Brownlow prospects.

The MRP is corrupt, nobody should be surprised at this point. 

[brendan 3,452]

If your favorite for the Brownlow it would basically take a king hit behind play for the MRP to take notice 

[Demi Dee 578]

2 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Exactly my point! They're [censored] corrupt! I also have a theory that umps are being told to even up games to make Gil and the league look good. 

Are they part of that evil triumphant of the Rothschilds, the queen and colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes? 

 

[monoccular 17,701]

14 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Another player could do the exact same thing as Dangerfield and get a different punishment. He'll get nothing because the AFL looks after its **Brownlow prospects.

The MRP is corrupt, nobody should be surprised at this point. 

Bernie or Lewis (this year) would get 4-3

**and they also claim that they don't know the result in advance ???

Edited July 30, 2017 by monoccular

[Pates 9,691]

I'm predicting they'll let him walk, they will say he didn't know the ball was clear and didn't drive him into the ground the enough force. Which mostly I agree with. 

Problem is there are others who have been suspended for similar instances where they would've had no clue the ball was clear and they simply brought the player to ground with a bit of force. 

This will be a test of consistency, not what's necessarily fair. 

[monoccular 17,701]

19 minutes ago, brendan said:

If your favorite for the Brownlow it would basically take a king hit behind play for the MRP to take notice 

"What tape?  The camera failed?  No idea how or why."

[SaberFang 7,151]

If it was Bernie, he'd get 2.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

11 minutes ago, Pates said:

I'm predicting they'll let him walk, they will say he didn't know the ball was clear and didn't drive him into the ground the enough force. Which mostly I agree with. 

Problem is there are others who have been suspended for similar instances where they would've had no clue the ball was clear and they simply brought the player to ground with a bit of force. 

This will be a test of consistency, not what's necessarily fair. 

I don't understand the relevance of the ball being clear. Dangerfield did what he did, and whether it should have been holding the man to Kreuzer is not the point. As others have said, it seems that there is one law for some selected few, and another for everyone else.

[pineapple dee 2,892]

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Fat chance they suspend Dangerfield.  Theres rules for players like him, and rules for everyone else.  Its all about the $$$ for the AFL.  Cant have Brownlow night ruined, can we?

Agree it will totally ruin the Brownlow night if Danger is suspended and we can't have the nominal favourite and AFL "darling " suspended for such a trifling offence. The AFL is running like well oiled machine. Leth " lean on the MRP" has left the scene but sure enough, Andrew Dillon will swoop in and have a quiet word so that there will be an appropriate decision made in this important case. 

Perhaps common sense will reign and the incident won't even be referred to the MRP.

[In Harmes Way 7,852]

In a normal court of law, there's a defendant and the prosecutor. The overarching problem here is that there's a weak as [censored] set of guidelines forming the basis of the prosecution and a governing body accountable for upholding justice, however don't fight for what's fair and just. 

Bring in a decent defence counsel and the AFL will fold. I'm convinced he will ultimately walk. 

Our problem is we've just never stood up to the pricks.

[SaberFang 7,151]

1 minute ago, Ron Burgundy said:

And a fine for something completely innocuous and wholly unrelated to the incident in the same game.

"Offensive Facial Expression Towards Umpire" - $2,000 fine, suspended sentence.