MRP / Trib. 2015 MRP/ Carlton Tribunal News & Reports (aka Chook lotto)

[ODNBlue]

It's a farce... Both perfectly good tackles.

Buddy on the other hand... one week... ridiculous.

 

[MrMan]

Almost a carbon copy.

Wait for the AFL to come up with a diferrent outcome than that of B. Gibbs.

 

[inyourcool]

Of course they will. And let's not forget that this tackle won't generate the same hysteria like Gibbs tackle. They won't want a witch hunt this time.

* only Carlton cheats

 

[Stamos]

Schultz got off.
What a ****ing joke.

Edit: I don't think a player should be rubbed out for what he did, but it was worse than Gibbs' tackle.

 

[Robbo's my hero]

Well, there is no justice. Two tackles, same result, little difference in application. Carlton player, 2 weeks. Power player, no penalty. WTF! The difference between a win and a loss on Saturday night.

Gibbs was thrown to the wolves by the media and the AFL was happy to set an example.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Schultz got off.
What a ******* joke.

Edit: I don't think a player should be rubbed out for what he did, but it was worse than Gibbs' tackle.

Same tackle, same injury...Carlton penalties apply. AFL still can't let go of the salary cap episode and the Diesel court appeal. What a corrupt and incompetent bunch of self important nobodies.

 

[King of Ruin]

MRP report round 12 - Bryce Gibbs, Carlton, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Robbie Gray, Port Adelaide, during the second quarter of the Round 12 match between Carlton and Port Adelaide, played at the MCG on Saturday June 20, 2015.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Port Adelaide Football Club, it was the view of the panel the incident should be classified as careless conduct with high impact to the head. The offence was classified as a three-match sanction. The player has no applicable bad record. An early plea can reduce the sanction to a two-match penalty.

MRP report round 14 - Contact between Port Adelaide's Jay Schulz and the Sydney Swans' Ted Richards from the third quarter of Thursday's match was assessed. The panel said Richards took possession of a loose ball and was tackled by Schulz from behind. In the course of the tackle, Richards’ head made forceful contact with the ground. It was the view of the panel that the tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The panel said, in their view, the tackle was undertaken in one continuous motion, with no secondary action. It was determined no further action would be taken.


So where is the rough contact charge in the Schulz report? How in the **** can these campaigners claim they are any different... Absolute joke!

 

[passmark]

Same tackle, same injury...Carlton penalties apply. AFL still can't let go of the salary cap episode and the Diesel court appeal. What a corrupt and incompetent bunch of self important nobodies.

Had a full two hours on Sunday morning of Dwayne saying it will get thrown out and the rest of the team sounding bewildered that he could come to that conclusion.

They said a minimum of 2 down to 1.

Now watch the head of operations come on and explain how they got it right.

Did anyone else hear how this guy just happened to "drop in" on the MRP as they were considering the Lance Franklin decision?

He said he just wanted to give them some feedback on things.

Corrupt campaigner.

 

[HBF]

I'm not even surprised anymore.

 

[tigs2010]

I'm not even surprised anymore.

Inb4 VFL conspiracy. Wait a minute...

 

[NavyBlue5]

Disgrace.

 

[Space Cadet]

There's a slight difference between the two tackles but surely that difference isn't worth 3 games (albeit reduced to 2). Ridiculous.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

Battling to make sense of this one.

Let me start by saying I do not believe either tackle deserved suspension but the inconsistency here is hard to explain. Within the space of 3 weeks 2 tackles almost identical yet one gets 3 weeks and the other no case to answer. Both players on the receiving end of the tackle get knocked out yet one is judged to be vastly different to the other?

I have to say I do not think they actually know what they are doing. This really makes them look incompetent and lacking any understanding of the Gibbs judgement when 3 weeks later the same thing happens and a completely different adjudication is made!

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yeh whatevs you joke @MRP

 

[HARKER]

There's a slight difference between the two tackles but surely that difference isn't worth 3 games (albeit reduced to 2). Ridiculous.

That's true but they were either too harsh on Gibbs or too soft on Schultz

Think they're struggling with this rule or else doing too much coke..............one of the two.

 

[JamisonRun40]

What a complete joke, the simple fact that Richards was knocked out should of warranted a suspension of some sort. I'm not surprised by the outcome either.

 

[Blue Pulse]

You can only laugh.

Both Gibbs and Shultz tackled within the laws of the game and did not intend to cause the outcome that they did, but both concussed their opponents, yet different outcomes?

Spin it anyway you want but their explanation is a disgrace.

 

[BM123]

Buddy 1 week, Gibbs 2 and Schulz 0 for the same tackle.

Garbage system.

 

[ESKIE]

That is a bloody joke, take us for mugs that lot

That is infuriating

 

[Jabba73]

Is anyone really surprised?

 

[ShanDog]

Nah, but still shitty.

 

[AB_Blue]

What an ordinary decision!!

Russian roulette at its finest

 

[TommyMcG]

Geez slobbo actually talking some sense on 360. Amazing.

 

[BlueMania]

Entire MRP should be sacked

 

[Sector 7G]

Didn't want Schultz to miss the Pies game

Happy to see Maric out.

Good result regardless of the hypocrisy.