In that sense I agree with you. He went in to get the ball, it was wet and slippery and Lenny copped it. Sounds similar to the Moloney incident, doesn't it? (We should clarify that Moloney didn't even make contact!).

The problem here is, the AFL has said loud and clear that they are cracking down on head-high contact. The MRP looked at the incident, took the impact into account and handed out a 3 match ban (2 with early plea).

Port Adelaide went to the tribunal, who looked at it, and said "yeah look, the AFL are cracking down on head-high contact, but I guess it was wet and you didn't meant to hurt the player. Yeah you can get off".

My question here is, how can two bodied in the tribunal and the MRP, who are essentially dealing with the same thing, make such different decisions?

The tribunal could have given him 1 instead of 3, given it was wet and he did try to get the ball. But how can they reduce a 3 week sentence to no weeks? There is simply no cohesion between the two bodies, just like there is no cohesion between the games-rule committee and the umpires boss. Everyone does whatever the hell they like and the fans just stand there bemused.

Yep. Which links back to my first comment. The politician in charge will constantly deny that the game has a problem, then they will react in secret in a way which is illogical and in the best interests of money, not the game.

My question here is, how can two bodied in the tribunal and the MRP, who are essentially dealing with the same thing, make such different decisions?

The tribunal could have given him 1 instead of 3, given it was wet and he did try to get the ball. But how can they reduce a 3 week sentence to no weeks? There is simply no cohesion between the two bodies, just like there is no cohesion between the games-rule committee and the umpires boss. Everyone does whatever the hell they like and the fans just stand there bemused.

The Match Review Panel is a bunch of administrators looking for any possible negligent contact and desiring to penalise it, whereas the tribunal itself is now paneled by a bunch of blinkered ex-players who are sympathetic to the player's position and can't see the implications of the precedents they are setting.

I also tend to think the points system is a joke. It is over-formulaic, and I thought it was better when people had to take some responsibility for working out the negligence or guilt of a player for themselves, rather than matching the actions against a points table and doing complex mathemathical calculations to determine penalties.

I defer in the common sense of these matters to your fellow female ... my better half ... who thought Burgoyne's case was marginal in the field of play and under the conditions, but couldn't work out how Goodes didn't get suspended for at least a week for a dirty, forceful action that felled someone behind the play who wasn't expecting it.

i havnt seen the burgoyne incident so i cant comment. i will comment however on the tribunal. it is a joke, it is inconsistant, and i promise you as soon as we have a player reported they will challenge and get more weeks because they lose the early guilty plea.

however. i prefer to see players get off. was what burgoyne did that bad? it was in the play i believe and he made some head high contact, not severe but could of been avoided. the way i see that is its should be a over the shoulder free kick.

the trip by hodge should have gone for weeks. that was deliberate and dangerous. spitting on a player should get weeks. pushing an umpire should get weeks. if a player is bending over and you contact them with your hip that should be weeks. but little punches and pushes and soft bumps where a player gets up should be ignored. in fact even if a player doesnt get up as long as contact doesnt get made to the head (ie wheelan against ball) it should be play on. bumps are good for the game. pushing and shoving is, im afraid, part of it. its not netball, its not basketball. we dont need to be so soft.