Given that the Match Review Officer and Match Review Panel frequently frustrate and bewilder many of us, and that this tends to pollute other threads, I felt that 'the chaps' deserved their own home thread on Demonland. Surely there will be no lack of material.

13 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Given that the Match Review Officer and Match Review Panel frequently frustrate and bewilder many of us, and that this tends to pollute other threads, I felt that 'the chaps' deserved their own home thread on Demonland. Surely there will be no lack of material.

Maybe the AFL can bring in a hair length rule, so they then know if it's a dangerous sling tackle.......

9 minutes ago, demon3165 said:

Maybe the AFL can bring in a hair length rule

Tom Hickey has already been to the barber.

The MRO & MRP can go and get stuffed.

Just add them to the reasons for staging a proletarian revolution.

There are two reasons to implement transparent, consistent policies and absolutely minimise the influence of executive decision-makers on active issues.

1. People are stupid and arrogant and become more so the more apparent power they have.

2. Within a few years it will be possible to generate completely undetectable fake recordings and videos of anyone you want to blackmail.

1 hour ago, dl4e said:

The MRO & MRP can go and get stuffed.

Now that you have got that off your chest, tell us what you really think....

Sort of related in terms of incompetence and confusion to the MRO and MRP sagas are the umpires and the resulting free kicks they give and don’t give.

Initially I thought that having the 4th umpire was going to pick up frees that were being missed deep In forward/ back lines. What I didn’t anticipate was how the extra umpires that were required stretched (diminished) the overall ‘talent pool’ of the umpires overall and negative flow on effect to the umpiring decisions being made / not made.

Problems that emerged include inconsistent interpretations / decision making process by umpires during the actual match.  Also it appears ‘stars’ seem to get preferential treatment on occasions (more time to hang onto/ dispose of the footy, hands in the back, handball versus a throw etc etc).
 

Another related problem that is emerging is differentiating the difference between a handball and a throw. (I actually feel sorry for the umpires with on this one, it must be so hard to adjudicate)

One can argue that I look at things from a one eyed Melbourne supporter perspective. Sure I get it. However, when I watch a neutral game on tv it does my head in trying to work out what frees are given and why others aren’t. Trying to work out what is a throw or a handball is another story! (There is a lot of throwing happening)

I think an immediate fix (or marginal improvement) of sorts would be to reduce the umpires back to three but I know it’s not going to happen.
I can only hope come finals time that the better ones take the field and at the very least are consistent with their decision making.

Ps- Still reckon we have been crucified by some really poor decisions!

Feel better now that I’ve vented.

In my view,  old fashioned probably,

I think we need to have in the back paid, and if  you fail to get rid of the ball correctly incorrect handball, and if there are 2 players from one side into there opponent on the ground,  in the back,

The game will open up and we will not have a rugby scrum rolling around the ground.

 

Now I feel better n better

 

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

In my view,  old fashioned probably,

I think we need to have in the back paid, and if  you fail to get rid of the ball correctly incorrect handball, and if there are 2 players from one side into there opponent on the ground,  in the back,

The game will open up and we will not have a rugby scrum rolling around the ground.

 

Now I feel better n better

 

Also players who dive onto a pack often grab players who don't have the ball.  Why not pay holding the man?

I was looking for a thread to vent (some of)  my frustrations. 
Friday nights game Swans v Carlton  — didn’t watch it all but I saw two Swans give head high impact to the head ultimately resulting in a concussion, and two more slam tackles where the head hit the ground.   
Did that dumb [censored] Christian cite any of these?  Any of these involving one of ours would get 2-3 for starters. 
He is NOT impartial and or NOT competent.  Could be construed as  corruption. 

Another loss for Ando.

Zorko unsuccessful.

Will Schofield just rubbished the Tribunal and said Cerra and Laird decisions were laughable and have made it less certain how to tackle.

Drew Jones also rubbished the Tribunal.

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Another loss for Ando.

Zorko unsuccessful.

The fact they challenged it is seriously a joke. Zorko is a piece of [censored]. 

4 hours ago, 640MD said:

In my view,  old fashioned probably,

I think we need to have in the back paid, and if  you fail to get rid of the ball correctly incorrect handball, and if there are 2 players from one side into there opponent on the ground,  in the back,

The game will open up and we will not have a rugby scrum rolling around the ground.

 

Now I feel better n better

 

Totally agree about the in the back rule. Players are getting pushed head first into packs.

There's also a lot of times the tackler just pins the ball to his opponent and lays on top.

Who's really holding the ball?

If the players tries to spill the ball out, they get pinged for incorrect disposal. If they just pretend to punch it, it's a stoppage.

Footy is now some kinda weird interpretative dance.

7 hours ago, demon3165 said:

Maybe the AFL can bring in a hair length rule, so they then know if it's a dangerous sling tackle.......

Not the same thing, but hair-related: a few weeks ago, I can’t remember who we were playing nor who for us had kicked a goal but a score review was called, the question being if the ball was touched. The goal wasn’t paid because the ball had grazed JvR’s hair, not his head, but his hair before going through for a goal. I thought that was a strange decision, but I guess one’s hair is part of one’s body. 🤷‍♀️ 

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Not the same thing, but hair-related: a few weeks ago, I can’t remember who we were playing nor who for us had kicked a goal but a score review was called, the question being if the ball was touched. The goal wasn’t paid because the ball had grazed JvR’s hair, not his head, but his hair before going through for a goal. I thought that was a strange decision, but I guess one’s hair is part of one’s body. 🤷‍♀️ 

I think it might have been the North game?  From memory it was not a game where we needed the extra goals (compared to Suns or our more recent losses 🥲)

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Will Schofield just rubbished the Tribunal and said Cerra and Laird decisions were laughable and have made it less certain how to tackle.

Drew Jones also rubbished the Tribunal.

The guy has a brain after all 

Just now, DeelightfulPlay said:

I think it might have been the North game?  From memory it was not a game where we needed the extra goals (compared to Suns or our more recent losses 🥲)

That would’ve been the game. You’re right: the fact that we were well in front meant it wasn’t a big deal. It’d be interesting to see this happen in a game won or lost by less than a goal. 

27 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

 

Zorko is a piece of [censored]. 

Don’t think you will get a lot of arguments on that.

Interestingly they only spoke about his forefinger as the one near the eye, while in fact, his middle and ring fingers were right over the eye.

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

Don’t think you will get a lot of arguments on that.

Interestingly they only spoke about his forefinger as the one near the eye, while in fact, his middle and ring fingers were right over the eye.

Ignoring the universal dislike of Zorko, again I am left confused by the decision.

I was watching 360 last night and it was reported that both the oppo player involved , Peddlar, and his Club's medicos reported no contact to the eye.

I have no idea of Zorko's intent but a hand coming into contact anywhere on the face, in that type of situation would , on most occasions, be incidental.

Gleeson was the previous lawyer of choice by the AFL to make their case at the Tribunal.

He is now the permanent chair of the Tribunal.  Any wonder he is doing the AFL's bidding and making up nonsense to support the desired outcome.

The Cerra and Laird decisions were nonsense, especially Laird's as it was identical to Sparrow's: grabbed him around the hips, spun around and momentum took them to ground.

No wonder players are second guessing themselves. 

By the way, David Neitz was on the Tribunal this week.  Doubt he would take the nonsense the Tribunal is going on with.  May have been over ruled by the Chair (Gleeson). 

Gleeson certainly seems to lead the Tribunal members in his commentary during hearings.

Edited June 1, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

11 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

The fact they challenged it is seriously a joke. Zorko is a piece of [censored]. 

the fact that they had anderson as representation is a joke

If Viney gets rubbed out from tonite  then search for your chastity belts .

4 minutes ago, dl4e said:

If Viney gets rubbed out from tonite  then search for your chastity belts .

Was on the AFL members wing and thus didn’t get a view of the incident but if Viney’s opponent’s head hit the turf then it’s an auto 1 week suspension.

Mind you the Carlton player got up like a  Jack rabbit to receive his free.

 

 

It was a single motion tackle. Does that mean anything? No. 
Throw a dart and see where it lands.