Match Review Panel

[tribey]

Will we? Does that mean players have always tackled like that or did they play a softer game in the past?

The two arm pin is the holy grail of tackles - the ball carrier cannot dispose of the ball and there is a high probability of either a holding the ball or incorrect disposal decision for the tackler - and not all of them result in a player being propelled forward remember.

If you're more specific and mean the one where a player gets propelled forward - which is essentially illegal as in the back anyway - then fair enough, but banning all two-arm pins would be worse than the 'hands in the back' rule.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

They're setting some huge precedents this week I reckon. Publicising details of the assessments is going to make life more difficult for the tribunal later on I reckon (although it's a very interesting read and thanks REH for posting it)

They publish the decisions every week. This week they looked at 16 incidents, 2 they decided to allocate demerit points to the players and took 6 hours to do it according to Fox Sports News a few minutes ago.

Publishing the reasons why the MRP make a decision is the cornerstone of the Tribunal System introduced in 2005.

It's just that the AFL website and the AFLPA usually take so long to put up the rulings on their websites and unless you go looking for them, ie non Port player decisions, you don't take any notice. I think I read every decision in 2005 and probably half of them in 2006 and 2007.

There still is an element of chook lotto about it all, but it has improved since 2005 when there were a lot of teething problems. Also I think getting rid of Peter Schwabb as chairman of the MRP has been a big improvement. He has been replaced by Andrew McKay.

 

[MP_]

you f_cking beauty, harden up cows supporters, physicality it what makes footy so great, next you cows will be wanting to wear all the crap american footballers do to keep ur guys safe

harden the f-ck up

 

[portentous]

They publish the decisions every week. This week they looked at 16 incidents, 2 they decided to allocate demerit points to the players and took 6 hours to do it according to Fox Sports News a few minutes ago.

Publishing the reasons why the MRP make a decision is the cornerstone of the Tribunal System introduced in 2005.

It's just that the AFL website and the AFLPA usually take so long to put up the rulings on their websites and unless you go looking for them, ie non Port player decisions, you don't take any notice. I think I read every decision in 2005 and probably half of them in 2006 and 2007.

There still is an element of chook lotto about it all, but it has improved since 2005 when there were a lot of teething problems. Also I think getting rid of Peter Schwabb as chairman of the MRP has been a big improvement. He has been replaced by Andrew McKay.

Thanks for the info.

Totally agree about the Schwab comment. He was a sook IMO and ran the MRP the same way.

 

[*PAF]

... If you're more specific and mean the one where a player gets propelled forward - which is essentially illegal as in the back anyway - ...

That is exactly what I meant but not only from the back. Pinning the arms and propelling a player forwards and down should be banned. No different to looking after a player who has the head over the ball.
A bump is legal, but one to the head when the player is in the act of picking up the ball is not. Players will soon adjust to it.

 

[roger explosion]

That is exactly what I meant but not only from the back. Pinning the arms and propelling a player forwards and down should be banned. No different to looking after a player who has the head over the ball.
A bump is legal, but one to the head when the player is in the act of picking up the ball is not. Players will soon adjust to it.

but as DT said that's essentially in the back anyway...

 

[*PAF]

but as DT said that's essentially in the back anyway...

Both the Pickett and Thomas tackles were from the side more so than the back, but in both cases there was a lot of momentum forwards and downwards.
Nothing against either player as it is legal, just that IMO the rule should be changed as it was for the bump to the head when a player is bending over to pick the ball up. There will be next to no impact on the game.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

On the Couch showed the DVD that alot of people were prepared to hang Thomas on even though they had never seen it.

They had 3 examples on what was unacceptable.
1 a sling after a tackle had been made ie 2 clear actions,
2 a spear tackle where a player is lifted and dumped, and
3 a player had the ball a tackle is applied, the ball has spilt free and then the player is dumped/slung with out being in possession of the ball.

No Byron Pickett tackle on Kane from last year was in the DVD.

Thomas probably did get pretty close to the line, but of the half a dozen ex players I have heard talk about it they all have said they had no problems with the tackle and think its a good thing that he wasn't rubbed out.

 

[jarmanagic]

Thomas is a gun, my fellow Crows fans can whinge all they want about him, but we wish we had someone that hard in our lineup. I'm glad they didn't try and suspend him, it's part of the game and his tackles were hard, maybe worthy of a free kick against - but making your opponent earn the footy is what every player should be doing. A couple of the other incidents were borderline in my opinion, but good hard footy is what we all want. Thomas is only going to get better, and he's going to worry a lot of people when he's about the place.

define why he is so tough? Scott Thompson (a good Port magpie boy) back into the oncoming pack in the last 5 minutes that was tough (Pettigrew the lucky one of your boys for mine pretty marginal)

Chad Cornes, he is tough

Thomas is agressive. Not the same.

 

[Crow-mo]

judging by the whooping it up, looks like we both got we wanted.

you guys were beneficiaries of the massively inconsistent MRP, and have some guys invited to join the exclusive PS club.

we got 4 points.

everyone wins.

 

[Mr Magoo]

define why he is so tough? Scott Thompson (a good Port magpie boy) back into the oncoming pack in the last 5 minutes that was tough (Pettigrew the lucky one of your boys for mine pretty marginal)

Chad Cornes, he is tough

Thomas is agressive. Not the same.

So what would you call a guy running against the flight of the ball with his eyes only for the ball? Thomas has a few things he needs to tidy up (disposal by foot) but he's a very courageous/tough player. I had a look on youtube but couldn't find the video where Thomas has done exactly what i said on several occasions.

Also a little amused at no action being taken against the cows trainer (number 2) who pushed Burgoyne just after Brogan dumped Jerico.

 

[Black 18]

Excellent news

I thought Pettigrew would go, so I'm a little surprised on that one. Thomas, well my god, can the man lay a bump or what . His tackle on Bassett wasn't good but also I don't think he could have done anything else given the momentum of both players, just very unfortunate.

Now if we can tidy up his disposal a little, then we sure have a good footballer on our hands .

 

[Power House]

define why he is so tough? Scott Thompson (a good Port magpie boy) back into the oncoming pack in the last 5 minutes that was tough (Pettigrew the lucky one of your boys for mine pretty marginal)

Chad Cornes, he is tough

Thomas is agressive. Not the same.

I think he's both, and in AFL football there is nothing wrong with being agressive, so long as you do it within the rules of the game - the match review panel clearly agrees.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Pretty funny that after a couple of days of hearing about the "typical port thuggery", the "wharfies", "illegal tactics" etc. that they have all been cleared.

As it turns out it was just the "typical crows whiners".

 

[gorangers]

the thomas incedent was just a good tackle basset was unlucky not to get his hands out. but brogan should have been reported i thought.

 

[gorangers]

Pretty funny that after a couple of days of hearing about the "typical port thuggery", the "wharfies", "illegal tactics" etc. that they have all been cleared.

As it turns out it was just the "typical crows whiners".

what are you on about we still won the game didnt we!!!!!!!!

 

[Janus]

And yet half of the time your supporters were complaining about our so called roughhouse tactics instead of celebrating a gutsy win. What does that say?

We might have lost, albiet marginally, but something tells me the Crows will tread a little more warily next time we meet and they think we'll just fold when they play their physical, contested style of footy. From 2005 up until now the Crows and their fans believed, whether in public or in private, that we were a bunch of front runners who shyed away from contact and were soft. So while we might have lost the game, both sides can take positives out of it.

You thought this Showdown was good, wait til the NEXT one

 

[Willis]

Good decisions overall, although I thought Pettigrew might get a week. Supporters just get passionate about their players so its not really surprising that they wanted punishment for the Port players involved.

Hopefully now everyone can move on and appreciate how great a game it really was.

 

[jarmanagic]

Pretty funny that after a couple of days of hearing about the "typical port thuggery", the "wharfies", "illegal tactics" etc. that they have all been cleared.

As it turns out it was just the "typical crows whiners".

Whether some of us complained about aggression should be immaterial though. Some acts were marginal, nothing really bad. After all the scoreboard judges all

and......


we won with 4 first choice players out and 4-5 more injured during the game. Yes you guys have played good opposition but you are essentially at full strength given Wilson's situation. If you couldnt beat us Sunday you are a lot further off us than I thought. That is the real issue

Great spectacle as a game though. I loved it. Back to the good old days for a week but with the fast movement of the modern game

 

[Ford Fairlane]

define why he is so tough? Scott Thompson (a good Port magpie boy) back into the oncoming pack in the last 5 minutes that was tough (Pettigrew the lucky one of your boys for mine pretty marginal)

Chad Cornes, he is tough

Thomas is agressive. Not the same.

Let's see, he puts his body on the line in any contest, never shirks, protects team-mates whenever he can, and hits the body hard. I reckon that qualifies as tough and aggressive.

Oh yeah, he nearly died 18 months ago, lost 15kg in body weight and came back to play a full season of SANFL footy as well as getting in a couple of AFL games within several months.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Whether some of us complained about aggression should be immaterial though. Some acts were marginal, nothing really bad. After all the scoreboard judges all

and......


we won with 4 first choice players out and 4-5 more injured during the game. Yes you guys have played good opposition but you are essentially at full strength given Wilson's situation. If you couldnt beat us Sunday you are a lot further off us than I thought. That is the real issue

Great spectacle as a game though. I loved it. Back to the good old days for a week but with the fast movement of the modern game

I'd think a keen follower of the reigning April Premiers of the past 3 years would be a little more careful about making calls about where teams are placed after 3 rounds of a new season.

 

[Janus]

See, I don't buy that argument. Who is to say if you had Knights, Reilly (and whoever else you want to put in as your first 22) that they would have had the same impact as say a Vince or Dougherty? (just throwing those names out there, have no idea really who would be replaced).

Are you really trying to suggest that the four or five players that were out make you a four or five goal better side? If McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards, Rutten and possibly Johncock were out, I'd pay that. But Knights and Reilly? Good players, but not integral to the side...as your team proved on Sunday.

Face facts, it wasn't like either side was dominating the contest up until Bassett went down. From what I recall, the scoreboard was pretty even the whole game. And after that, you could almost say that the adrenaline and anger from Bassett going down in your other players negated any advantage we might have gained on the bench.

Luckily for us, premierships aren't won at AAMI stadium in Round 3. And while you might quite rightly say we're a fair way behind you, you've got a LONNNNGGG way to go before you can match it with Geelong. That's who you should be focussing on.

 

[jarmanagic]

Let's see, he puts his body on the line in any contest, never shirks, protects team-mates whenever he can, and hits the body hard. I reckon that qualifies as tough and aggressive.

Oh yeah, he nearly died 18 months ago, lost 15kg in body weight and came back to play a full season of SANFL footy as well as getting in a couple of AFL games within several months.

I think he is tough, but dont think the weekend either confirmed or changed my opinion. I dont think the tackle on Bassett was tough, rather aggressive. Most of the Port actions that are being lauded as tough were actually aggressive. They arent the same. A case in point is Motlop. Blindside bumping Vince (who lacked awareness by the way) was aggressive, but go back to the last 6 minutes and his attack on the ball in the goalsquare from the Boak kick. It was timid. As much as some Port fans suggested Symes is soft, he went back into Motlop, saved the day, and if Motlop had attacked the ball he would have drawn a free kick and goaled. When it was his turn to be tough he was not

That is why Chad Cornes can only be admired. Yes he stirs up the crowd, but he walks the walk. Superstar. Thomas I think is tough. Motlop just thinks he is

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

judging by the whooping it up, looks like we both got we wanted.

you guys were beneficiaries of the massively inconsistent MRP, and have some guys invited to join the exclusive PS club.

we got 4 points.

everyone wins.

Nice sarcasm.

How can you say the MRP is massively inconsistent? Inconsistent yes, but massive? It's a hell of lot better than 2005 and 2006.

The MRP said the Pickett tackle on Kane was OK in 2007. The MRP would have had input into the 2008 DVD and they didn't put the Pickett tackle as an illegal tackle. The MRP in 2008 said Thomas' similar tackle isn't illegal. How is that massively inconsistent?

McGregor gives a hospital handball to Jericho that goes over his head he turns and is hit in the head by Brogan's shoulder. Brogan doesn't leave the ground. The MRP clears him. Last years in the QF against WCE, someone gives Salopek a hospital handball, goes over his head, is cleaned up by Beau Waters, hit in the head by Waters' shoulder. The only real difference was Waters jumped. The MRP cleared him. Where's the massive inconsistency?

Pettigrew was borderline. But as the impact was low he would have got a level 1 offence at best, 125 pts. With the 25% early plea discount and 25% discount for a clean record he wouldn't have got a game. I don't think this is a massive inconsistency.

But maintain the rage.

 

[jarmanagic]

I'd think a keen follower of the reigning April Premiers of the past 3 years would be a little more careful about making calls about where teams are placed after 3 rounds of a new season.

We've got a long way to go. I never said we can beat Geelong. We lack some depth and the ruck situation is a worry. But..... it would be hard to argue anything but the fact that at the moment the Crows are going a lot beter than Port, mainly becauise you have a number of players not playing their best. Ebert is a good player out of form for example

Do you think Tredrea should have gone to CHB. He struggled on Rutten, I bet he would have got a lot of the ball at CHB?