MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[The Nostradamus]

Head high bump Hayward deserved a week if Marley got 2

 

[The Nostradamus]

Has Liam made a statement?

Picken absolute knob
Not surprised to see him quiet as a mouse this week with the bulldogs suspension

 

[ferball]

Marley shouldn't have got two, just one, and Haywood shouldn't have been fined.

If you watch Haywood closely he pulls out of the bump and pulls the contact, tries to go soft and not transfer any impact. He's showing the duty of care the AFL has demanded of players.

Well that my opinion of the incident anyway. Others might see it differently.

 

[Samsquanch]

Surely he deserved 2 weeks ?

Wash yer mouth! Those AFL turkey's will probably use your post as evidence to re-open the case.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Weak as.

Such a hypocritical club. Can't stand them.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Devington]

I have a suspicion he might give a guilty plea....

 

[DaveyBoy123]

I have a suspicion he might give a guilty plea....

 

[ferball]

It wasn't the best thing I've seen on a footy field.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Burgoyne gets off with no charge, despite pinning the arms and slamming Dangers head into the ground....

The good bloke rule at it again.

 

[Hojuman]

Burgoyne gets off with no charge, despite pinning the arms and slamming Dangers head into the ground....

The good bloke rule at it again.

And the next club to have the same incident and get 1-2 weeks ?

 

[Mav]

Burgoyne gets off with no charge, despite pinning the arms and slamming Dangers head into the ground....

The good bloke rule at it again.

or it could just be the Outcome Rule again. But don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theory.

 

[giantroo]

Burgoyne gets off with no charge, despite pinning the arms and slamming Dangers head into the ground....

The good bloke rule at it again.

Explained: The one letter that saved Hawks star from ban despite dangerous sling tackle

Explained: The one letter that saved Hawks star from ban despite dangerous sling tackle

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[GarnerSmash]

Explained: The one letter that saved Hawks star from ban despite dangerous sling tackle

Explained: The one letter that saved Hawks star from ban despite dangerous sling tackle

www.foxsports.com.au

Lol

That reads as 'how can we work this so as to get Burgoyne off?'.

 

[Samsquanch]

Lol

That reads as 'how can we work this so as to get Burgoyne off?'.

Easier solution: Just name the players who can’t be suspended because of their marketing profile and leave it at that. We all know that the AFL is about as straight as a safety pin. Why hide it?

 

[Harris 10]

Burgoyne gets off with no charge, despite pinning the arms and slamming Dangers head into the ground....

The good bloke rule at it again.

Nothing to do with being a good bloke, the system is flawed. There was no possible way he could be suspended under it.

My opinion is that the incident should be worth 2 weeks. Fix the system.

 

[Devington]

 

[shintemaster]

Nothing to do with being a good bloke, the system is flawed. There was no possible way he could be suspended under it.

My opinion is that the incident should be worth 2 weeks. Fix the system.


View attachment 892679

It's not a system issue - it is due to the following:
- Results rather than decision making and intent matter
- Your club and personal reputation matter
- Precedent means nothing, therefore they can game the system however they like based on the mood in the media / supporters without being able to be challenged

 

[muttley45]

Nothing to do with being a good bloke, the system is flawed. There was no possible way he could be suspended under it.

My opinion is that the incident should be worth 2 weeks. Fix the system.


View attachment 892679

According to that chart, Intentional/low/high = 1 match, Careless/low/high = reprimand, yet he was fined, i don't get it.

 

[Harris 10]

According to that chart, Intentional/low/high = 1 match, Careless/low/high = reprimand, yet he was fined, i don't get it.

Sorry attached an old chart, i think this is a more current one.

It's not a system issue - it is due to the following:
- Results rather than decision making and intent matter
- Your club and personal reputation matter
- Precedent means nothing, therefore they can game the system however they like based on the mood in the media / supporters without being able to be challenged

Results rather than decision making and intent matter - That's the system issues.
Your club and personal reputation matter - Agree, if they can downgrade force of can use either intentional or careless in their favour they do.
Precedent means nothing - Agree, another sytem issue. It should be used in all cases, especially from the current year.


I still can't see under the table how Burgoyne could be graded as anything but a fine.

 

[shintemaster]

I still can't see under the table how Burgoyne could be graded as anything but a fine.

You could easily argue that a tackle that slings is "intentional" by definition, in the same way that any bump was deemed so a few years ago. I don't disagree there are systemic issues but I think they're by design - ie. the AFL want the system to be flexible for them rather than an impartial system.

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[Samsquanch]

You could easily argue that a tackle that slings is "intentional" by definition, in the same way that any bump was deemed so a few years ago. I don't disagree there are systemic issues but I think they're by design - ie. the AFL want the system to be flexible for them rather than an impartial system.

Totally right. They are more than happy with ambiguous "rules" that are open to interpretation at pretty much every level. Umpires can call HTB or MTM and be deemed "correct" either way. There are marks paid for 6 metre kicks, throws that are ignored. They have cameras on the goal posts and I'm shocked that their footage don't have a great big thumb in the corner they are so bad. Oh, and the match review committee or whatever they are, well they just make their own interpretation. What a lot of rubbish this mob are.

BTW: I don't hate football. Just the administrators of the AFL.