Search the Community

Well this is the most frustrated I've ever been with the MRP. There is plenty of talk about if the players were guilty- which most of us agreed with - although the severity and complete lack of consistency the MRP has with adjudicating the offences is beyond pathetic. Is the club being dealt with more harshly than others? It could definitely be argued given the likes of Thompson's forearm to Dangerfield's head was deemed less forceful than Jesse's open-palmed jab. We know that the player symptoms, whether directly following the incident or in the weekends case with Rowe, headaches after the game which are deemed as delayed concussion, are the greatest variable in the decisions the MRP dish-out. But is that right? I posted this in the other thread but thought it be a topic of discussion due tot he large majority of posters agreeing that the system continues to be broken. Amongst other thoughts I've had, I believe television and radio commentators should be banned from talking about incidents on game day as this is just more opinions that invariably influence the overall flawed process that the MRP try to follow. Also, the club/s should have the right to take their players case to the tribunal without fear of risking a longer sanction. This is purely a mechanism to provide a buffer so the MRP don't get regularly made to look like fools. In our case should have been able to plainly disagree with the severity of the sanction and been allowed to question the veracity of the claims. But hey, this may have happened in an informal manner that we as supporters are not privvy to.. Anyway, the MRP stinks. Their outcomes are so variable it causes them to lack any credibility in my books. The demerit points system was a failure and now a couple of years on it's still not working. I'm keen to hear other peoples ideas about how this could be improved. Cheers