1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

You do know....

No logic allowed 

As much as we joke about there being no logic, it's actually true. 

If logic and standardisation were applied, then the MRP wouldn't be allowed to 'interpret' rules to get the big name players off. 

1 minute ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

As much as we joke about there being no logic, it's actually true. 

If logic and standardisation were applied, then the MRP wouldn't be allowed to 'interpret' rules to get the big name players off. 

Who was joking.... Ive seen absolutely none applied by the MRP. Talk about making it up on the fly !!

As to the suggestion there's blatant or unsurprising bias from the MRP...well...its a bloody horse designed by the AFL.

The MRP together with the idiosyncratic 'interpretive' umpiring is killing the real fairness of this game.

I'm fine with the Franklin one. Got shoulder, shouldn't even be fined. 

The Daisy Thomas one is staggering. You must be joking. 

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

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. 

Pains me as it does to defend any Carlscum player at the MRP, particularly after the totally unconscionable way they pumped up their players' "injuries" to our disadvantage, I thought that Daisy missed the ball but kept his eye on it and accidentally collided with whomever.

 

Allowing Selwood (or anyone) to clobber anyone in the back of the head, especially when their head is on the ground, ala Rance v Watts, is just asking for a Phil Hughes type of tragedy.  A bloody disgrace.

31 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

Gobsmacked at such nonsense and double talk.  But totally consistent with their inconsistent rubbish.

11 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Who was joking.... Ive seen absolutely none applied by the MRP. Talk about making it up on the fly !!

As to the suggestion there's blatant or unsurprising bias from the MRP...well...its a bloody horse designed by the AFL.

The MRP together with the idiosyncratic 'interpretive' umpiring is killing the real fairness of this game.

What fairness - the 'draw', the ground 'deals', the MRP????  Very little at the AFL.

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by monoccular

It all seems simple to me.

If you are a Melbourne player you get multiple weeks.

If you complete an offence against a Melbourne player you get off.

If you are about to,play Melbourne you get off.

If you are high in the Brownlow speculation you willl

 get off. 

If I was any of Bernie Vince, Jessie Hogan, Jordan Lewis or Christian Salem I would be writing a letter to the AFL about the MRP threatening to sue.

what they did was no worse than any of:

Thompson, Cotchin, Selwood, Shuey, Daisy and many more. Tom Hawkins getting one week when Hogan got two for much less was also a total joke.

Some players are getting the most bizarre bias from the MRP while others get hung out to dry. It makes the competition uneven and the Brownlow a joke. It's a disgrace and if i was a player that has been suspended I would be ropable.

No one wants what Selwood did in our game or anywhere for that matter. Inexcusable.

58 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

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

If he's not going to get a fine for that then the rule doesn't exist anymore. 

The Selwood one is clear bias, just as bad as Salems (and Rance from last year) but given a fine? Give me a spell. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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

"Pick up the Gun...."

2 hours ago, dieter said:

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.

 

Especially when considering Salem copped a week.

Just now, jnrmac said:

Especially when considering Salem copped a week.

Precisely. Apparently Salem committed an 'unfootb

all act'. 

2 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

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. 

Turn it up, if Reiwoldt got a week for that I'd dead set start watching Rugby.

 

You can't be serious surely?

They've lost the plot. Which is stupid on my behalf for believing there was a plot. 

No-one knows whats going on. Players, commentators and the public. They change weekly. One of the worst years ever for inconsistent decisions.

Scrap it, rip it up, start again.

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

Turn it up, if Reiwoldt got a week for that I'd dead set start watching Rugby.

 

You can't be serious surely?

Of all the cases discussed here, his is the only one where it is a clearly deliberate act.  He punched someone.  I don't care if it was to the ribs or the head, punching your opponent is nothing to do with the game.  There is no grey area in this.  It's not like he accidentally swung his fist while bracing for impact.  He chose to strike someone.  Striking should always be a suspension. 

The MRP continues to produce terrible decisions whilst it operates within a flawed system.

It gets said enough that the AFL should respond, but the focus is too much on the outcome of the act and not enough on the act.

Shuey elected to bump and made contact to the head. That act has the potential to severely injure a player and should warrant automatic suspension. It shouldn't matter that Dangerfield walked away.

The whole MRP system is flawed. It gives those on the panel too much power to manipulate the numbers to suit whatever outcome they want. Deliberate, careless, reckless, high impact, low impact... what a joke. 

You can't try to streamline actions into neat little boxes. If they want to fix this mess they need an independent body that reviews each case and makes a decision and then brings down the punishment accordingly. As in every actual justice system.

If you get king hit do you stand in front of a judge and plead reckless not intentional low impact?

How are ex players even allowed on? It's such a biased joke! 

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by Jaded

Selwoods act is a disgrace. Almost anyone else would have got 2 down to 1.

Why can't we adopt a rule that says ANY club not involved directly in a decision may challenge an MRP ruling with all involved parties going to the tribunal?

The MRP would automatically look at things from the perspective of the game, because having to publicly defend the Selwood or Rance decision would embarrass everyone.

This weeks rulings are nuts, and a multi billion dolllar industry deserves better.

I didn't think Selwood or Mitchell deserved weeks.

Sheuy one is borderline but not much force in it. 

Only one I don't agree with is Rosa. Stiff to get a week for that, the bloke ducked into it

11 minutes ago, Jaded said:

If you get king hit do you stand in front of a judge and plead reckless not intentional low impact?

How are ex players even allowed on? It's such a biased joke! 

It's worse than that.

Imagine if the law was run like the AFL MRP......

Judge 1: "Aw, he wouldn't have meant to rob that bank!"

Judge 2: "He only robbed it a little bit!"

Judge 3: "Listen fellas, I was in a gang with him last year and he's a real top bloke."

Judge 1: "That settles it. Twenty years hard with all twenty years wholly suspended, no conviction recorded, and costs awarded against the police."

48 minutes ago, Jaded said:

The whole MRP system is flawed. It gives those on the panel too much power to manipulate the numbers to suit whatever outcome they want. Deliberate, careless, reckless, high impact, low impact... what a joke. 

You can't try to streamline actions into neat little boxes. If they want to fix this mess they need an independent body that reviews each case and makes a decision and then brings down the punishment accordingly. As in every actual justice system.

If you get king hit do you stand in front of a judge and plead reckless not intentional low impact?

How are ex players even allowed on? It's such a biased joke! 

You had me at the MRP is flawed

46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You had me at the MRP is flawed

You lost me at MRP ...

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Gobsmacked and not surprised

Eagles players always get off. No real surprise with Shuey.

How is Selwood's elbow to Mitchell's noggen any different to Salem's elbow to ziebels noggen? Riddle me that MRP, blight on the game this MRP. Friggen Bartel pulling the strings to help his mate out disgrace.

The MRP time and time again illustrate that they have NFI. The system is not a joke, it's the one's adjudicating it.

Unless those that sit on the panel are completely impartial, it has to be scrapped. Have only a tribunal. When Burke admitted that the MRP always look to try and get players' off, he virtually admitted that they are biased right from the start.

A broken system, officiated by dumb@sses, for a corrupt league.

Seriously there must be some rule of law shakeup introduced with the MRP. Needs people that can actually apply the rules as written and intended rather than conflicted amateurs who obviously play favourites.

Edited June 19, 20178 yr by america de cali

6 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Seriously there must be some rule of law shakeup introduced with the MRP. Needs people that can actually apply the rules as written and intended rather than conflicted amateurs who obviously play favourites.

It needs to be a completely independent body. At the moment it's just mates looking after mates. They rarely suspend the big name players however justify their position by suspending the lesser known players. Yesterday's MRP is the perfect example of this.