Important News


User Tag List

Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2028293031 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 453

Thread: Match Review Panel (MRP)

  1. #436
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    13,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Hawkins pleaded guilty, apologised and copped a week.

  2. #437
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    13,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Ed and Charlie Curnow have been referred directly to the Tribunal for making intentional contact with an umpire.


    Jack Ziebell can accept a one-match suspension for kneeing Reece Conca.

  3. #438
    FFC Bag Carrier Wheedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    4,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    310 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Quote Originally Posted by divvydan View Post
    Ed and Charlie Curnow have been referred directly to the Tribunal for making intentional contact with an umpire.
    Clarry likes this
    Proud coach of Big Jenny Talia FFC
    SC 2013 - 11th
    SC 2014
    - 16th
    SC 2015 and beyond - foetal position

    "Yonnies in the wind, we're ruggin' up for winter"

  4. #439
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    13,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    May found not guilty of intentional contact with umpire by tribunal. Classed as careless contact instead and a fine.

  5. #440
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    13,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Like May, Charlie Curnow found not guilty of intentional contact with ump, instead guilty of careless conduct and gets a fine.

  6. #441
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    13,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    324 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Ed Curnow makes 3, also guilty of only careless and not intentional contact with ump. Thought his was more intentional than the other 2, so I'm a little surprised he got off.

  7. #442
    FFC Bag Carrier Wheedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    4,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    310 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Quote Originally Posted by divvydan View Post
    Ed Curnow makes 3, also guilty of only careless and not intentional contact with ump. Thought his was more intentional than the other 2, so I'm a little surprised he got off.
    Bizarre - no way this is anything other than intentional. Who the f*** did he think he was touching?? More BS form the Tribunal
    Proud coach of Big Jenny Talia FFC
    SC 2013 - 11th
    SC 2014
    - 16th
    SC 2015 and beyond - foetal position

    "Yonnies in the wind, we're ruggin' up for winter"

  8. Likes Bunga liked this post
  9. #443
    Super Moderator Bunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Team
    WEST COAST
    Posts
    16,013
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    906 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    SC is FFC's number 1 fantasy game

  10. Likes Hodges liked this post
  11. #444
    FFC Senior Coach Elvs1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Team
    HAWTHORN
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    263 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    And now Ziebell gets off on his kneeing charge.
    Tribunal lost the plot tonight with all these charges

  12. #445
    Moderator Athomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Glen Waverley
    Team
    CARLTON
    Posts
    10,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    468 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Do we really want Ed Curnow suspended though?

    I can understand the inconsistency with Hawkins, but Hawkins pleaded guilty. Hard to know if he would've got off if he just said it was careless. Hawkins had more malice than Ed's as well. Do feel for Hawkins a little though, glad Curnow's got off however.
    AFL Twitter --------------------------- This post is SC related--------------------------Movie Twitter

  13. #446
    Moderator Wogitalia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Team
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    21,520
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    866 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Blogger

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Yeah I'd have been fine with Hawkins being a fine as well to be honest, the bigger issue for mine is why are the umpires even within touching distance of the player, there is absolutely no need for it. It's like punishing a tiger for biting a visitor to the zoo when they climb into his cage.

    I think the bigger issue is the complete inconsistency the AFL is rapidly establishing. NicNat tackle gets one week, 6 near enough to identical tackles in a row on Friday don't even get looked at. Robbie Gray has a head clash in the preseason and gets a week, Burton does it in season and gets nothing. Hawkins swats a hand away and gets a week and literally a week later 3 guys do similar and get a fine. Selwood punches a guy and gets nothing, several others do the same and it's a week. Sicily knees and it's a week, Ziebell does it and it's not.

    Basically every decision this year has felt like they're rolling dice more than ever.

    System is just broken and needs to be fixed. Step one would be removing suspension for all but serious offenses, imo. The problem is that the difference between a 1k fine and a 10k fine is quite literally nothing to the fans and the spectacle. If anyone can tell me the amount that even 3 players were fined this week then they have an issue (or a talent) but we can list everyone who is missing games. If you remove suspensions for all but the Barry Hall type incidents then you're just working on fines which don't have the ridiculous impact on the outcomes of games and thus make the punishment pretty much entirely targeted at the players who infringe. That would fix most of the issues to be honest, NicNat becomes a fine and I don't even mind if they use the ridiculous system to scale it and set them. Even if you fine players a weeks wage for example. Added bonus of this is there is also no longer a need for the massively obvious Brownlow discounts they currently have to apply.

    Step 2 is to just get some consistency into the decisions. Removing the outcomes based approach would be part of it, grade two tackles on the actual tackle not if one player got unlucky or not. This solves most of the issues right here. After that, establish precedents so that you have several clear examples of what constitutes each grading of each offense and then you can apply a common sense approach to grading offenses and apply the fines.

    Step 3 is the tribunal which probably which would be the only time suspension comes into it. It would be saved, imo, for non-football related incidents. So striking off the ball (not attempting to spoil or tackle type incidents) for example, imo if you weren't thinking at least a month on the sidelines then there the tribunal is unnecessary.

    To be fair, I've actually liked several of the decisions this year it's just the complete inconsistency and then a few randomly awful decisions (NicNat...).
    The Truck is driving the Fish Shack in 2018... Christian Petracca is my boy!

  14. Likes Hodges, Bunga liked this post
  15. #447
    Moderator Athomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Glen Waverley
    Team
    CARLTON
    Posts
    10,413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    468 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    AFL appealing both Curnow cases, 3PM tomorrow.
    AFL Twitter --------------------------- This post is SC related--------------------------Movie Twitter

  16. #448
    FFC Bag Carrier Wheedus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    4,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    310 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    Wow. The surprises just keep on coming.
    Proud coach of Big Jenny Talia FFC
    SC 2013 - 11th
    SC 2014
    - 16th
    SC 2015 and beyond - foetal position

    "Yonnies in the wind, we're ruggin' up for winter"

  17. #449
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Team
    FREMANTLE
    Posts
    4,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    471 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter PosterFFC Blogger
    Fyfe Award - for outstanding contributions - Outstanding contributions accross the FFC and forwardpress blogs. A huge amount of work completed by Hedge so our thanks go out!!!

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    I can see both sides here. Carlton's QC brought up an incident where Dom Sheed made umpire contact for both cases, and noted the similarities which I believe was the main reason they ended up with fines, as from memory that's what Sheed got as well.

    AFL could just as easily turn around and use the Hawkins case as precedent, but unless there was a specific memo sent out to clubs regarding a change in rule interpretation, it's hard to see it being overturned. Carlton made a fairly valid point with the Sheed comparison. This is the issue with picking a 'rule of the week', no other sport does this and you get situations where what was only a fine last month is now worthy of suspension.

    Agree with Wogi that the system is broken, hate situations like Parker's where you've got a player fairly attacking the ball and you get 24 hours of purgatory because the outcome seems to be completely random. And then the inverse, where Cotchin's hit on Shiel last year which by the AFLs own precedent set that year was a one week ban, but under any reasonable measure was somewhere between $1000 fine and a 1 week ban, gets zero punishment because it'd mean missing the GF. Lunacy.

    I don't necessarily agree with reduced number of suspensions, I still think there's about one suspendible act every week and the threat of missing games is important because it's too easy to get some scrub to take out opposition players and disguise it as being careless, not outwardly violent.

    I believe the most important aspects of a revamped MRP system are differentiating Football vs non-Football acts and potential for harm caused. Neck/head injuries are ****ed, as is charging with knees into an exposed players backs, and I'd be happy to see harsh penalties handed out for acts that have potential to cause this sort of harm. That's why the Naitanui decision didn't infuriate me; would've thought he'd get off or at worst a fine and the fact Amon was concussed was largely incidental, but driving the head into the ground like that is a pretty good mechanism of injury to cause paraplegia, and it's not as though Naitanui was unlucky in that his head hit a stray knee or something, the tackle went exactly as planned. But it's also a 'football act', so not something that would attract too harsh a penalty.
    Anyone
    Anywhere
    Anytime


  18. Likes Wheedus, Hodges, Athomas liked this post
  19. #450
    FFC Football Operations Manager Nothing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Team
    FREMANTLE
    Posts
    4,493
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    322 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Match Review Panel (MRP)

    I was out for dinner with an ex-AFL player on Saturday night. He's not played for years but he thought the Naitanui tackle deserved a suspension. His view was that the risk of serious (career ending) injury was too high to let it continue.

  20. Likes Crow-mo, Hodges liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •