Youd be better off with NO ex footy players on it at all.

The MRP  have me scratching my head. 

I believe that all the MFC suspensions have been warranted if they were looked at in isolation. Then you overlay other decisions (non decisions) and are left with  -WTF ??? How on earth can Shuey run past the contest and take out Dangerfield and get a fine ? How on earth can Selwood elbow Mitchell in the head whilst he is  face down on the ground and get a fine ?

WTF ?

 

7 minutes ago, nutbean said:

The MRP  have me scratching my head. 

I believe that all the MFC suspensions have been warranted if they were looked at in isolation. Then you overlay other decisions (non decisions) and are left with  -WTF ??? How on earth can Shuey run past the contest and take out Dangerfield and get a fine ? How on earth can Selwood elbow Mitchell in the head whilst he is  face down on the ground and get a fine ?

WTF ?

 

It would be a little bit awkward for Bartel to suspend Selwood then play golf with him during the week. 

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

15 hours 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!

 

Lethlean, the apologist (spin doctor ) for the MRP and the AFL said it was within five metres of the ball so it was OK and there was insufficient force. He said Danger jumped up and took his free kick. What he didnt say and what wasnt referred to was that the head was sacrosanct. If a Melbourne player had done it, it would be 2 down to 1. If Shuey does it again, no doubt they'll increase the fine to $1200. That'll teach him a valuable lesson.     FARCE

1 minute ago, pineapple dee said:

Lethlean, the apologist (spin doctor ) for the MRP and the AFL said it was within five metres of the ball so it was OK and there was insufficient force. He said Danger jumped up and took his free kick. What he didnt say and what wasnt referred to was that the head was sacrosanct. If a Melbourne player had done it, it would be 2 down to 1. If Shuey does it again, no doubt they'll increase the fine to $1200. That'll teach him a valuable lesson.     FARCE

Lethlean is an unmitigated idiot.

27 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Youd be better off with NO ex footy players on it at all.

Bingo. Sometimes I think you need people on it who don't even know who the players are. EG, which ones are the stars and which ones not. Shouldn't enter into it.

(It feels dumb typing "shouldn't enter into it" when it's so damn obvious to the whole football world except the AFL and the MRP.)

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

It would be a little bit awkward for Bartel to suspend Selwood then play golf with him during the week. 

Again . Make impartial. No players.

The other oddity from the MRP is the Jetta/Stringer decision. From the limited vision I have seen Jetta tackled Stronger, who didn't like it so started the wrestle, and then threw Jetta to the ground, bounced his full body weight and elbows into Jetta's ribs and was only stopped by ANB and Salem(?) coming in to drag him off. 

How both Stringer and Jetta get the same sanction (different amount due to first and second offence) is beyond me.

2 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

Lethlean, the apologist (spin doctor ) for the MRP and the AFL said it was within five metres of the ball so it was OK and there was insufficient force. He said Danger jumped up and took his free kick. What he didnt say and what wasnt referred to was that the head was sacrosanct. If a Melbourne player had done it, it would be 2 down to 1. If Shuey does it again, no doubt they'll increase the fine to $1200. That'll teach him a valuable lesson.     FARCE

Lethlean has a cheat sheet of excuses he can roll out.

"Head is sacrosanct ... let's see ... head ... sacrosanct ... ah! Here it is! Well, you see, it was within 5m of the ball."

He has one for every occasion.

7 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

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.

The AFL talks a good game on "integrity". Burke should have been sacked from the MRP 5 seconds after saying that. Any comp that cares about fairness and integrity would do it.

 

7 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

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

Ah! Now I see my mistake.

I'm curious as to how Bug developed the cut on his face from his encounter with The Doggies Captain, but the MRP process simply looks the other way... Did I miss something?

 

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by PaulRB

Rance was found to be staging but not "excessively" staging....what an effing joke

44 minutes ago, low flying Robbo said:

Rance was found to be staging but not "excessively" staging....what an effing joke

On the couch also accused bugg of diving in the two goal play.

...just after they said that need to stamp out cheap hits from behind

7 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

The AFL talks a good game on "integrity". Burke should have been sacked from the MRP 5 seconds after saying that. Any comp that cares about fairness and integrity would do it.

 

 

 Not just Burke but all of them. Perhaps MRP should be comprised of former umpires who are well compensated? They are less conflicted with supporting teams and after all umpires are the ones applying the rules on the field. 

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by america de cali

How did Bugg get the two cuts on his face?

14 minutes ago, DaveyJones'sLocker said:

On the couch also accused bugg of diving in the two goal play.

...just after they said that need to stamp out cheap hits from behind

Not that I like that kind of stuff, but Bugg knew exactly what he was doing and sucked Easton Wood into it big time...

23 hours 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. 

Absolute disgrace these muppets should not be allowed to sit in judgement of their former colleagues. Nathan Burke in particular is a moron for anyone who had read his Inside Football column.

23 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

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

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

Its beyond belief. As Robbo said last night I guess the "if you elect to bump and get the head you're out" interpretation is now a thing if the past - until the next time they feel the need to subjectively make an example of someone, probably a Melbourne player.

33 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Its beyond belief. As Robbo said last night I guess the "if you elect to bump and get the head you're out" interpretation is now a thing if the past - until the next time they feel the need to subjectively make an example of someone, probably a Melbourne player.

I couldn't believe it at the time when the commentators were talking it down. 

It was absolutely everything we've been told you should not do. 

Just farcical. 

If Lewis did that he'd be asked to retire. 

Just saw this, by Sam McClure in The Age. Seems to confirm a lot of what has been said here ... you really couldn't make this up. Notice that Lethlean walks in in the middle of it --- sounds really impartial.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sam-mcclure-goes-behind-the-closed-doors-of-the-afl-match-review-panel-20170620-gwuvf4.html

MRP offers zero consistency.

It's a joke, and needs a complete restructure going into next season.

2 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Just saw this, by Sam McClure in The Age. Seems to confirm a lot of what has been said here ... you really couldn't make this up. Notice that Lethlean walks in in the middle of it --- sounds really impartial.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sam-mcclure-goes-behind-the-closed-doors-of-the-afl-match-review-panel-20170620-gwuvf4.html

Significantly, there's no mention of the Friggin Selwood atrocity. So we, or kids who are about who play the game at junior levels, are supposed to believe it's okay to do what Selwood did?

Yet... what Salem did was not okay?

I am starting to not believe. That means I will start to not care. When that sense of incredulity spreads the game is in danger. 

Why is it spreading though?

Because the game is now corrupt. Pure and simple. It is no longer sport, it is politics. 

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by dieter

2 minutes ago, dieter said:

Significantly, there's no mention of the Friggin Selwood atrocity. So we, kids who are about who play the game at junior levels are going to reckon it's okay to do what Selwood did?

Wondering about that one. Easily the most controversial non suspension of this weeks MRP meeting and the most newsworthy. 

Edited June 20, 20178 yr by america de cali

1 hour ago, dieter said:

I am starting to not believe. That means I will start to not care. When that sense of incredulity spreads the game is in danger.

I already do not care about the umpiring.

I expect it to be outrageous and inexplicable, every match, regardless of which teams are playing.

Someone on here, I can't recall who, gave the idea that the umpiring should be treated not as part of the operating of the game, but as a hazard like in video games. Maybe you pick up bags of gold coins or maybe a blimp will drop a bomb on you.

You have to negotiate the hazards to win the game. It's not fair or even meant to be, it's just there.

Watch any match and the number of frees let go is ludicrous. Whatever yardstick the umps are reffing to, it isn't the rule book. Their own rules, virtually disregarded. And then they pick a free out of nowhere.

And this thing with the runners. Does anything show the ineptness of the AFL better than this? They're supposed to be on the ground only to pass messages, then get off. On, then off. Mostly off. But it's the opposite! They stay on the ground all the time and only go off to get instructions from the coach, then back on again.

The AFL have allowed this to  creep in. Their rules are being abused and perverted. Do they care? Seems not. Only when there's an uproar. What do they do then? Probably nothing except let it die down, then resume normal programming.

Does it affect revenue? No? Non-issue then.
Does it affect ratings? No? Non-issue then.

The AFL are corrupt and they don't care.

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

Wondering about that one. Easily the most controversial non suspension of this weeks MRP meeting and the most newsworthy. 

And there's Bartel, his recent teammate, on the panel deciding whether to hang him out to dry or not!

And Lethlean, overseeing the "independent" judiciary, strolls in to stick his oar in.

But poor old Simpleton McClure wouldn't recognise conflict of interest if it took his newshound pencil and jammed it up his nostril.