4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well maybe not wasting $4 million on consultancies, to simply appoint the 2IC in the office next door and paying millions and millions on Executive salaries, could provide plenty of money to fix some of their problems, which as you say are ruining our great game.

I know the game has moved on, but years ago one guy and a couple of secretaries ran the game and everyone knew the rules and what to expect. One umpire on the ground, worked better than 4 umpires now, overruling each other from 200 metres away, seems to do now. 

I know there has to be progress, but it should lead to everything being better, not worse.

Just a little monday rant.

Monday rant supported @Redleg. I reckon most of the issues stem from increased media attention and proximity in as commercialised a market as we’ve lived through. Which is a mighty double-edged sword. On the plus side, we get a screen spectacle like never before. It’s fantastic. Not like being there of course, but as close to that as possible. The downside is that everything is subject to scrutiny, on and off field. Umpires are hopelessly prone to second-guessing, and adjudicating according to expectations from too many quarters, media/TV particularly. They’ll never be perfect of course, but ludicrously, they still aren’t full-time professionals, so obviously struggle to maintain consistency, within and between themselves, across games and through the season. The corporate-executive nature of the AFL is I think more egregious. It’s too profit oriented, at the expense of almost everything that guarantees satisfaction with and for the future health of the game. As you say, what a ridiculous waste of money on executive process. Imagine what the grass roots clubs around the country would do with a share of that $4 million? Then look at the fixturing. Collingwood and Essendon simply don’t  play in Geelong. Other clubs (we seem to be in that camp), play there every year. In a competition that has excellent equalisation measures otherwise, this is just plain wrong. The AFL makes a fantastic profit every year because the game is intrinsically, culturally embedded. We love it for that. The AFL does not however respect or seem to understand that it should be managed and administrated beyond profit through media. Could go on….

3 minutes ago, forever demons said:

Cripps jumped into an unaware player that must be worse

I’m glad that people are making a distinction between the Cripps and JVR incidents.  Reason being that on one hand we the Melbourne supporter base were saying that Cripps was guilty as sin and on the other hand we are saying that JVR has nothing to worry about 

1 hour ago, McQueen said:

Sums everything up so eloquently McQueen.  Brilliant.  Can you arrange this footage on the big screen at the G on Kings birthday?  PLEASE AND THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

32 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well maybe not wasting $4 million on consultancies, to simply appoint the 2IC in the office next door and paying millions and millions on Executive salaries, could provide plenty of money to fix some of their problems, which as you say are ruining our great game.

I know the game has moved on, but years ago one guy and a couple of secretaries ran the game and everyone knew the rules and what to expect. One umpire on the ground, worked better than 4 umpires now, overruling each other from 200 metres away, seems to do now. 

I know there has to be progress, but it should lead to everything being better, not worse.

Just a little monday rant.

 

4 minutes ago, Webber said:

Monday rant supported @Redleg..... It’s too profit oriented, at the expense of almost everything that guarantees satisfaction with and for the future health of the game. As you say, what a ridiculous waste of money on executive process. Imagine what the grass roots clubs around the country would do with a share of that $4 million? Then look at the fixturing. Collingwood and Essendon simply don’t  play in Geelong. Other clubs (we seem to be in that camp), play there every year. In a competition that has excellent equalisation measures otherwise, this is just plain wrong. The AFL makes a fantastic profit every year because the game is intrinsically, culturally embedded. We love it for that. The AFL does not however respect or seem to understand that it should be managed and administrated beyond profit through media. Could go on….

Sorry to go off topic, but where does this $4 million figure come from? I thought it was widely accepted that the consultancy cost was somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million. (For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the AFL using a consultant to assist them. Nor do I believe it's a "waste of money" given the internal candidate was chosen. The consultants' work should have confirmed that Dillon was the best available candidate.)

7 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I’m glad that people are making a distinction between the Cripps and JVR incidents.  Reason being that on one hand we the Melbourne supporter base were saying that Cripps was guilty as sin and on the other hand we are saying that JVR has nothing to worry about 

They are completely different actions so can't be compared.

Cripps should never have got off, but it was a loophole the AFL closed with their wording.

8 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I’m glad that people are making a distinction between the Cripps and JVR incidents.  Reason being that on one hand we the Melbourne supporter base were saying that Cripps was guilty as sin and on the other hand we are saying that JVR has nothing to worry about 

No we're not. We're  saying that if Cripps is not guilty, then so is JVR.

1 hour ago, RedLegs23 said:

Sam Edmund confirming that we will contests!

I felt they would on this one. It's not right 

28 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I’m glad that people are making a distinction between the Cripps and JVR incidents.  Reason being that on one hand we the Melbourne supporter base were saying that Cripps was guilty as sin and on the other hand we are saying that JVR has nothing to worry about 

It's just a point of precedence and what legal teams would use for their defence. Whether I think Cripps should have gone or not doesn't matter, the point is he got off.

The incidents aren't that similar apart from the fact that there is contact to the head.  Cripps concussed Ah Chee who missed the last two rounds of 2022, Ballard is expected to play this week, JVR was trying to spoil a ball and did while Cripps came in late with a flying superman elbow and got none of the ball. 

If we're going by a certain scale and checklist then it makes sense to mount our defence based on past incidents and if Cripps got off then I'd expect JVR to as well. 

Edited May 8, 20232 yr by layzie

When I woke up this morning I was wondering if I could scratch the MFC into appealing. It worked.

43 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

 

He has shown over the years he is not competent enough to fill the MRO role, so they should be making changes to this process at the end of 2023 and get something better in place.

i still find it very strange that the mro is entrusted to just one person. just looking for trouble.

The MFC has stood up and rightly so well done to the club for not getting bent over royally.

27 minutes ago, Monbon said:

No we're not. We're  saying that if Cripps is not guilty, then so is JVR.

i think we would be better off using one of the many other similar incidents

not the cripps one, because firstly it is quite different but more importantly most commentators and public think he was guilty and only got off because his legal team "gamed" the system. finally the afl vowed that that type of legal arguing would not be allowed in future

building a case around cripps would just create a very risky can of worms

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i think we would be better off using one of the many other similar incidents

not the cripps one, because firstly it is quite different but more importantly most commentators and public think he was guilty and only got off because his legal team "gamed" the system. finally the afl vowed that that type of legal arguing would not be allowed in future

building a case around cripps would just create a very risky can of worms

We don’t need to use the Cripps incident. It’s completely irrelevant. 
 

Show last week’s vision of Fogarty and Lynch earlier in the year. 

41 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I’m glad that people are making a distinction between the Cripps and JVR incidents.  Reason being that on one hand we the Melbourne supporter base were saying that Cripps was guilty as sin and on the other hand we are saying that JVR has nothing to worry about 

The Brisbane player was knocked out cold, from a bump, when Cripps left the ground. He was concussed and missed a few games. Ballard is uninjured and will play this week.

Do you see any difference?

1 hour ago, pitmaster said:

Rapt the challenge is on. Hopefully we incinerate Christian’s [censored]…and give it back to Jay Clark as well.

A friggen little peanut that Jay-Z.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

We don’t need to use the Cripps incident. It’s completely irrelevant. 
 

Show last week’s vision of Fogarty and Lynch earlier in the year. 

How bout Fogarty on Murphy from last weekends Crows v Pies game drew blood and 10 times worse than JVR's.

Didn't even get sighted.

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i still find it very strange that the mro is entrusted to just one person. just looking for trouble.

And he has to make his decisions viewing multiple incidents at very short notice with only a TV replay, noise from commentators and lack of post incident evidence like diagnosed nature of injury and recovery. Leaves opening for optics and emotions to barge in and influence decisions. 

Edited May 8, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i still find it very strange that the mro is entrusted to just one person. just looking for trouble.

I think the converse is true. The AFL changed the system from a panel to one person to overcome concerns about  inconsistency. I'm not sure having a single person eliminates inconsistency - it just removes the argument that any inconsistency was due to having multiple people involved.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the converse is true. The AFL changed the system from a panel to one person to overcome concerns about  inconsistency. I'm not sure having a single person eliminates inconsistency - it just removes the argument that any inconsistency was due to having multiple people involved.

i'm aware of the background

still silly to entrust to one person. smacks of him being the trusted monkey to do the afl's crazy engineering

The original suspension was media driven.

The appeal result will also be media driven.

Partisan hacks with agendas, click bait need and relevance desire drive the whole reporting and suspension process.

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think we would be better off using one of the many other similar incidents

not the cripps one, because firstly it is quite different but more importantly most commentators and public think he was guilty and only got off because his legal team "gamed" the system. finally the afl vowed that that type of legal arguing would not be allowed in future

building a case around cripps would just create a very risky can of worms

This is not a case of using words that people didn’t understand.

The Cripps decision was a disgrace and imo a manufactured result, to let a leading Brownlow fancy and best player of a big club fighting for finals, continue to play.

6 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

How bout Fogarty on Murphy from last weekends Crows v Pies game drew blood and 10 times worse than JVR's.

Didn't even get sighted.

No it was sighted, just not cited.

2 hours ago, Deeoldfart said:

Thanks MFC!  That is the first critical step.  The next is for the Tribunal to exercise some common sense and clear JVR.  The alternative will (van) ruin our great game, which has withstood the test of time.

Agree great first step.  Pity they didn’t fly the flag for Chandler last year by the way. 
Second step should be appeals board IF this farce proceeds

1 hour ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Thats just it, they wont spend the money Uncle. You see it every week with the now 5+ score reviews per game, while we all sit there clueless to the outcome. They wont even go down to JB HIFI and buy a decent set of cameras for all the possible angles, instead of 2 !

And a roaming mic for the pressers, with someone who can stop questions being asked without said mic

1 hour ago, Webber said:

The appeal will result in a quashing of ANY penalty, which seems obvious to anyone with half a brain. The bigger question, which many of you have raised, is why was he given a penalty in the first place? Why is there no process of oversight to make sure these ridiculous judgements aren’t made to begin with? The cynic in me thinks it’s deliberate attention seeking…..clickbait driven by controversy. Otherwise it is just amateurish beyond comprehension. 

Why insert “otherwise”? Surely it is both. 

59 minutes ago, forever demons said:

Cripps jumped into an unaware player that must be worse

But I don’t think that JVR is Brownlow favourite and the powers that be would be very embarrassed if he were ineligible. 

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i still find it very strange that the mro is entrusted to just one person. just looking for trouble.

…. and that person having proven time and time again his partisanism and or incompetence. 

The match day commentators insinuating JVR has a case to answer, the media following suit yesterday. Today all the commentariat saying MFC should appeal and JVR will get off. Weird.

9 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

And he has to make his decisions viewing multiple incidents at very short notice with only a TV replay, noise from commentators and lack of post incident evidence like diagnosed nature of injury and recovery. Leaves opening for optics and emotions to barge in and influence decisions. 

agree

mro should only cite incidents/players in that current short time

then (except for simple fine cases) give the cited player (club) 24 hours to provide info the mro has not seen

so for cases involving game suspension the mro use a 2 stage process.

only after that could a tribunal appeal be used

there seems a lot of consensus in the broad public that the mro system is broken (again!)