MRP / Trib. 2022 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[teagueyubeauty]

That’s as Frivolous as any challenge I’ve ever seen of the tribunal


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[The Dominator7]

You want to add even more dumbness to the Toby/Lynch elbows - cast your mind back to this one last year.

Fritsch goes even earlier and higher on Powell, Chriso gives him a week, they appeal and he gets off...thread title sums it up

The verdict is in: Tribunal makes call on Bayley Fritsch challenge

Melbourne successfully challenges Bayley Fritsch's one-match ban at the Tribunal

www.afl.com.au

 

[Dooky]

Rowbottom? Was there a verdict there?

 

[Stamos]

Rowbottom? Was there a verdict there?

Guilty.
Reckon he's a bit unlucky.

 

[Aphrodite]

Rowbottom? Was there a verdict there?

 

[thylacine60]

There is a possible answer, but you're gonna hate it. What about plain old human bias? Not necessarily intentional bias mind you, just bias that sways a judgement for whatever reason?

The regulations around the MRO are pretty straight-forward these days. You can argue whether the rules themselves are correct or not, but the fact that there are 3 specific things that have to be observed and then have the result applied is a relatively simple formula. So one explanation for judging an action one week in a particular way (intentional versus reckless say) and then differently the next week, is bias.

Toby Green competes with a player and gets him with an elbow, 1 week. Tom Lynch competes with a player and gets him with an elbow, nothing to see here. You don't think the perception of Toby Green has a role to play in that call?

Make the MRO a completely independent - from outside the world of AFL - person. It's not f**king rocket science, get a rational, level headed person from a sphere where they've had to demonstrate their resistance to bias and their ability to ignore external noise.

And while you're at it, allow them to review their previous decisions and compare the incidents to those coming under consideration in the current week. Look at decisions in light of challenge/tribunal outcomes that have played out in the past.

Our court system relies on the concept of precedence to guide current decisions, why the f**k can't the AFL's MRO system do the same? What makes them so special? Unless of course, they want to maintain the ability to judge things differently, based on whatever criteria they see fit.

Make the MRO someone from outside the AFL. Great idea. How will you have them immune from bias when Toby keeps popping up on their screens. A new neutral every week?

 

[BlueGum]

Maybe the MRO and Rules committee could do with some representation from other leagues. So that the decisions that are made are in the spirit and interest of the game, not the comp. Keep it simpler so that the rules can be umpired at any level. Draw on and make available the precedents for MRO charges.

Spitballin'

 

[OldBlueFan]

Make the MRO someone from outside the AFL. Great idea. How will you have them immune from bias when Toby keeps popping up on their screens. A new neutral every week?

I didn't say immune from bias, I said someone who's demonstrated resistance to it, and meant in their professional life (eg. retired judge or such). If Toby's appearing in front of them regularly, then chances are he's deserving of a week here or there. But that's not the point, and I think you know it.

However, as someone else has since reinforced, I think the best way to attain consistency would be a precedence concept for the MRO. I mean how hard would it be to bring up archival footage for incidents and compare them to earlier ones - handing out the same punishment as last time?

 

[ferrisb]

What annoys me is that players are getting rubbed out for football acts (dangerous tackles etc) but seem to be getting away (either completely or lightly) with dog acts.

A poorly executed tackle can get 2 weeks. But a gut punch behind the play is a fine and an intentional elbow that hits high is 0-1 weeks.

I get that the AFL is trying to protect the head, I get all the issues around concussion. And the rules are there to disincentive dangerous behaviours.

But the AFL is a fast-paced, 360 degree game with lots of incidental contact. Like Plow's report on O'Meara. It's a split second between contesting the ball and bumping someone. And it's partly out of your control if you bump them high or not.

But a behind-the-play hit (or running past the ball for contact) has absolutely no justification. It's premeditated and intentional. It's not an unlucky outcome. At best it's sometimes perhaps unlucky on timing or a ball bounce.

I appreciate that the AFL is doing its best to protect players (or at least be seen to be protecting players). I just can't believe that they haven't taken a stronger stand on striking / off-the-ball incidents. Surely that's equally important for player safety and training unwanted behaviour out of junior players...

 

[Blue Warrior]

What annoys me is that players are getting rubbed out for football acts (dangerous tackles etc) but seem to be getting away (either completely or lightly) with dog acts.

A poorly executed tackle can get 2 weeks. But a gut punch behind the play is a fine and an intentional elbow that hits high is 0-1 weeks.

I get that the AFL is trying to protect the head, I get all the issues around concussion. And the rules are there to disincentive dangerous behaviours.

But the AFL is a fast-paced, 360 degree game with lots of incidental contact. Like Plow's report on O'Meara. It's a split second between contesting the ball and bumping someone. And it's partly out of your control if you bump them high or not.

But a behind-the-play hit (or running past the ball for contact) has absolutely no justification. It's premeditated and intentional. It's not an unlucky outcome. At best it's sometimes perhaps unlucky on timing or a ball bounce.

I appreciate that the AFL is doing its best to protect players (or at least be seen to be protecting players). I just can't believe that they haven't taken a stronger stand on striking / off-the-ball incidents. Surely that's equally important for player safety and training unwanted behaviour out of junior players...

 

[thylacine60]

I didn't say immune from bias, I said someone who's demonstrated resistance to it, and meant in their professional life (eg. retired judge or such). If Toby's appearing in front of them regularly, then chances are he's deserving of a week here or there. But that's not the point, and I think you know it.

However, as someone else has since reinforced, I think the best way to attain consistency would be a precedence concept for the MRO. I mean how hard would it be to bring up archival footage for incidents and compare them to earlier ones - handing out the same punishment as last time?

why isn't it the point? you brought it up, not me - are you starting to pick up a theme here at all? you know, the one where everyone has the answer but the afl? you're one in a long line over a 100 years, thousands and thousands of people who have the answers the afl can't see - staggering none of those have ever made it into a position where they fix everything as they say they can - umpires, tribunal, ticketing prices, finals ticket allocations - it never changes, it never will, in fact I see it getting much worse - I can live with it, like a lake where I like to swim that is a bit too cold to fully enjoy but hey, it's the only swimming hole around and it refreshes like nobody's business..........when people want what they can't have..........oh the humanity.........

 

[thylacine60]

Yep. Unconscious bias is an amazing thing. Someone could be influenced by personalities, or whether there's been a run of judgments one way or another, or even just whatever they happened to be thinking about last.

Bottom line is that every single human has some degree of unconscious bias, so the key is to have something in place to mitigate it. A panel judgement rather than relying on a single individual is one obvious measure that could help. Better respect for precedence is another.

we had panels, why were they dropped?

 

[ferrisb]

we had panels, why were they dropped?

The idea was to get rid of a panel and replace it with a formula.

A panel can be subjective. A formula cannot be.

Of course the formula still has to be applied by someone. That's where the subjectivity remains and where the weakness lies.

I don't think Christensen is corrupt. I don't think he is incompetent. There is always interpretation involved and anyone can and will make questionable calls. He probably makes a few more head scratchers than I think are justified, but none of us could apply the formula perfectly 100% of the time.

I think the formula itself is probably wonky. It can be very hard to design an effective 'black box'...ie a system that you enter in a few inputs and spits out an accurate answer.

IMHO the whole system probably needs an overhaul.

 

[ferrisb]

 

[OldBlueFan]

why isn't it the point? you brought it up, not me - are you starting to pick up a theme here at all? you know, the one where everyone has the answer but the afl? you're one in a long line over a 100 years, thousands and thousands of people who have the answers the afl can't see - staggering none of those have ever made it into a position where they fix everything as they say they can - umpires, tribunal, ticketing prices, finals ticket allocations - it never changes, it never will, in fact I see it getting much worse - I can live with it, like a lake where I like to swim that is a bit too cold to fully enjoy but hey, it's the only swimming hole around and it refreshes like nobody's business..........when people want what they can't have..........oh the humanity.........

I mean the point is not Toby Greene getting suspended, it's other players not getting suspended for the same thing.

I don't think I'll tackle the shotgun rant, but I'd like to hear your opinion of using precedent?

Unlike even 30 years ago (so let's try not to go back further than that) there are now a shitload of camera angles of every incident and they are analysed to the nth degree.

At some level, there must be a team of people reviewing games looking for incidents that may require the attention of the MRO (I refuse to believe that Christensen is poring over every game in minute detail). So, once they've identified the incidents, that same team could go back through the MRO archives and look for incidents that show the same characteristics. Whatever was applied previously should be applied again.

OK, initially this will be a bit of a sorry system, given the wildly different interpretations that have been applied since the MRO's inception, but as time passes there will be less reference to older incidents and greater emphasis on the more recent ones. Those that have had the principle of precedent applied.

And this isn't an "I'm smarter than the AFL" thing, it's a "this is the principle that is the very foundation of our legal system, one that has been proven over a couple of hundred years to be the fairest we think we can achieve" thing.

Why do the AFL insist on keeping themselves outside of that?

 

[BigFrizz36]

The idea was to get rid of a panel and replace it with a formula.

A panel can be subjective. A formula cannot be.

Of course the formula still has to be applied by someone. That's where the subjectivity remains and where the weakness lies.

I don't think Christensen is corrupt. I don't think he is incompetent. There is always interpretation involved and anyone can and will make questionable calls. He probably makes a few more head scratchers than I think are justified, but none of us could apply the formula perfectly 100% of the time.

I think the formula itself is probably wonky. It can be very hard to design an effective 'black box'...ie a system that you enter in a few inputs and spits out an accurate answer.

IMHO the whole system probably needs an overhaul.

Sounds like you were involved in the plot writing for "The Good Place".

Excellent show by the way

 

[TENACIOUS]

The MRO would have given him a week...

 

[BlueGum]

The MRO would have given him a week...

Should have rubbed him out

 

[Stamos]

The MRO would have given him a week...

Should be career ending

 

[Dadda Dave]

The MRO would have given him a week...

Yeah ,that little kid should of got more than a week for that.

 

[forever blue 1]

So kennedy offered 1 week off
What a joke
Should be 2
Well done AFL you shit stain

 

[jj1978]

So kennedy offered 1 week off
What a joke
Should be 2
Well done AFL you shit stain

Just in case his hammy heals in a week they wanna give him a chance to get to 300

 

[ajb72]

Wow 1 week.
Late
High
Elbow
No where near the ball and never had eyes for ball at all.

I was thinking 4. Shows I have no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aphrodite]

Match Review: Veteran Swan cops one-game ban

Former Sydney skipper Josh Kennedy has been suspended for one match for his late hit on Carlton's Sam Docherty

www.afl.com.au

What a joke!

Kennedy charged with striking Doc.

Assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact, High Contact.
The incident was classified as a one-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Liam Stocker, Carlton, has been charged with wrestling Chad Warner

1

Chad Warner

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

3star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

1star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

2star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

4star

CL

0.0

1star

, Sydney Swans, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between Carlton and the Sydney Swans played at Marvel Stadium on Friday, May 20, 2022.

In summary, he can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.
A second offence for Engaging in a Melee is a $2500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1500 sanction.

Chad Warner

1

Chad Warner

Age

23

Ht

185cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

3star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

1star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

2star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

2star

CL

0.0

1star

D

7.0

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

2.5

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

1.5

4star

CL

0.0

1star

also charged with wrestling Stocker.
$1K sanction with an early plea.

 

[Blue Pulse]

So kennedy offered 1 week off
What a joke
Should be 2
Well done AFL you shit stain

Shows what a farce the AFL is, many camera angles, one showing Kennedy had no eyes on the ball, just Doc and his intent was to create hurt, make a statement to stop our run.

I'm happy with 2 weeks once he is ready to return to football after his injury, the saving grace was that Kennedy hurt himself otherwise that could have got ugly.

Picture yourself at a suburban game watching your son or daughter play and this occurs in front of you, I would guess most would need to be restrained. It is not part of the game and is part of what needs to be cleaned out of the game. Big FAIL from the AFL.