MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[trooroo4life]

Well if that sort of contact/collision is the precedent for season 2017, buckle up it's going to be a fun year.

.... what a ****ing joke.

 

[Passmore]

It opened him up and we aren't playing a final next week.

Gaso is right AFL don't like blood.

DOn't get me wrong, its horse shit, but it is merely a symptom of the broken system.



Outside of the Boomer Challenge to play in a final (which carries special consideration) what others have we challenged and won?

You're correct. The penalty is shit but we have nothing to base an appeal on.

You can't just storm into the tribunal, slam the table then walk out. You actually need grounds to appeal. Otherwise we are just sacraficing a week of our best contested ball winner for nothing more than false bravado.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Only Forwards]

We don't challenge we 99% of the time take the penalty.

We come out in the media and say we believe the player did nothing wrong but its too big a risk. Absolute garbage by the club, to not challenge this.

The MRP will keep on handing down bullshit suspensions to our players because they know we take it like their little bitch.

I would have no doubt that the Tribunal who is made up of ex players would throw this one out, citing it was accidental and not careless.

We challenged with Jack when he was contesting a ball, judgement was that he had an alternative to contest it. The tribunal that handed that down was made up of ex players including one Wayne Schimmelbusch. There were a lot of industry people citing how much of a joke it was and how Jack had to be let off and he wasn't.

IMHO the drew blood thing is enough to hide behind to keep the force at medium (agree with it or not) which leaves only one parameter to argue on. Which they have shown to be pretty inconsistent in changing.

Seems to me we have taken the stand point of, its unlikely they'd over turn it (given our previous record of challenging) so cop the week on the chin (Which Cunners would do because he's a footballers footballer) and we'll beat West Coke anyway.

 

[Only Forwards]

You're correct. The penalty is shit but we have nothing to base an appeal on.

You can't just storm into the tribunal, slam the table then walk out. You actually need grounds to appeal. Otherwise we are just sacraficing a week of our best contested ball winner for nothing more than false bravado.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Its a shit sandwich no doubt, but that is nothing new.

The entire system is flawed.

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

Not worth the risk, correct call.

 

[muttley45]

A couple of thoughts :
(a) player X (not an AFL HQ fave) collects Joel Selwood and splits his eyebrow drawing blood = rough conduct, careless/medium impact = 2 weeks down to one
and (ineligibilty for Brownlow).

(b) player Y (AFL HQ pet) collects Joel Selwood, splits his eyebrow and draws blood, either, incidental contact, nothing to see here, or careless/low impact,
ending up with a fine $1500 down to $1000 (and Brownlow eligibility).

As per HQ's preferrment, the desired result can be engineered as required.

 

[SMaturin]

The head is sacrosanct.*

Any avoidable contact to the head will get looked at.

*Unless you're going for a mark...in which case you can be (for example) Brayden Preuss, run at full speed, leap into the air, smash the back of your opponents skull with your knee and be lauded for taking a nice mark.

 

[Dirty_11]

There were plenty of angles we could have pushed for either low impact or accidental contact. Weak as piss. Can see this costing us round 1.

 

[hilly]

Wonder how many weeks Preuss will get when he plants Luke Shuey beneath Etihad's surface.

 

[hilly]

We don't challenge we 99% of the time take the penalty.

We come out in the media and say we believe the player did nothing wrong but its too big a risk. Absolute garbage by the club, to not challenge this.

The MRP will keep on handing down bullshit suspensions to our players because they know we take it like their little bitch.

I would have no doubt that the Tribunal who is made up of ex players would throw this one out, citing it was accidental and not careless.

We seem gun-shy after losing previous appeals i.e. Harvey v West Coast (which was a ridiculous decision to appeal) and Ziebell v that Carlton plodder.

Going to annoy me when a similar incident occurs and a player/club challenge it successfully.

 

[Wild Kangaroo]

Absolute farce, purley accidental, North should appeal it. But then again we are talking North Melbourne here.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Bollocks. Ben10 looking primed for a great season and now it has to wait until round 2 to start.

Really disappointed but I can certainly see the sense in the decision not to challenge. "Careless" is such a catch-all, it's hard to get away from, and the level of contact is unlikely to be changed from what they choose after checking medical reports. They should have let it go as an accident - once they didn't, it's hard to justify risking the extra week.

 

[Shermanator]

Yeah that decision is goats poo and it doesn't help our chances against West Coke with their midfield getting even stronger, but it's certainly no surprise he got weeks, that's how the MRP roll..

 

[scottywiper]

Careless is the same rating Jordan Lewis got for the king hit on Goldy. Seems fair.

 

[Arthur Cloke]

Cunnington suspended for a bloke diving into his ******* knee?

What the absolute **** is that all about???

What a ******* sham!! I had to check that it wasn't April 1st ffs.

Yes sir. Absolute nonsense. Next time I see Gil, I'll be having a quiet word to him about this. I've paid good money for my membership & if him & his cronies want to rob me of watching my favourite players, he'd want to think again.

 

[shintemaster]

Careless is the same rating Jordan Lewis got for the king hit on Goldy. Seems fair.

Which says all we need to know about how they decide these things - and our chances at getting off.

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

On the bright side... there's no way Froggy will miss Round 1

 

[Passmore]

Wonder how many weeks Preuss will get when he plants Luke Shuey beneath Etihad's surface.

Whatever it is, it'll be worth it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[astrovic]

I accept it was careless - the AFL rules state very clearly that the head is sacrosanct. Duryea was on the ground fumbling around, to Cunnington had to approach the contest more cautiously than he did. We could argue up hill and down dale that Cunners was as cautious as could be expected, but the AFL will argue the opposite and we'd be guessing if he thought we knew how the tribunal would rule on this. I think we'd lose this argument based on how it has been treated in the past (despite the many inconsistencies we are all aware of).

What I don't agree is that the impact was "medium". Yes, Duryea got hit about the eyebrow, splitting it open. As Selwood will tell us (and the tribunal), that spot is very susceptible to bleeding. Even a mild knock will draw blood. As such I reckon the impact was "low". Based on the table, a careless action with low impact is a $1,500 fine, down to $1,000 with an early plea. However, again we're in the lap of the gods as to whether the tribunal would agree that the impact was "low".

So I reckon the MRP was right about careless, wrong about "medium" (should be "low") impact and the club is being pretty sensible in not rolling the dice and risking losing Cunner for 2 matches instead of one because it is line ball.

 

[Rod Stroker]

There were plenty of angles we could have pushed for either low impact or accidental contact. Weak as piss. Can see this costing us round 1.

Spot on. The Eagles mids with Mitchell look very solid. Us now missing a fit and in form Cunners makes it even harder.

 

[Black2Blue]

Looks like a case of the MRP suffering from relevance deprivation. "Look at me, look at me." That's the risk of putting ex-players on the MRP....the only way they can stay in the game is by making 'tough' match review
decisions. Soft call, allowed by a flawed system.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Imagine what David King would have got for sliding into Craig O'Brien had these same parameters been around back in 96.

 

[LT Smash]

We seem gun-shy after losing previous appeals i.e. Harvey v West Coast (which was a ridiculous decision to appeal) and Ziebell v that Carlton plodder.

We already used up our 2x DRS appeals on those Shane Watson efforts.

 

[Kimbo]

Classic 'swings and roundabouts'. Sure, we don't get a lot of attention on Brownlow night, or AA selections, but it's more than made up for in '3 vote' suspensions by the MRP. It all evens out.

 

[Frank Thring]

Well I don't really think he had time to bend over tbh. Maybe if he was an acrobat in a circus, he might have pulled off that manouvre, but he is not. He is an Australian Rules softballer, sorry footballer.

Hmm not sure about that Horace.