MRP / Trib. MJ in trouble?

[Ragtooth]

Agreed. By all right only Johnson should get a reprimand (and a grilling from the group tbh, last thing we need).......buut we'll see

also didn't i see crozier involved in some fisty cuffs?

 

[TheMcManusNose]

also didn't i see crozier involved in some fisty cuffs?

Yeah a bit of a battle in the forward pocket late in the game. I didn't see anything impactful actually land so i'd be surprised if he received more than a talking to.

 

[Simmofreo]

And Gary Lyon was nice enough to point out the Pav and Harvey scuffle
With some vision. Even though Pav got hit in the head first

 

[Wizard]

And Gary Lyon was nice enough to point out the Pav and Harvey scuffle
With some vision. Even though Pav got hit in the head first

A case of mistaken identity from Pav if i recall correctly.
Either way, nothing in that one.

 

[bruzaar62]

I'd be very surprized if Jono got done for this,Im not sure he even knew Black was injured,he was not facing him when Black got injured and continued to follow the play,turned around and saw Black and gave body contact on the way to the next contest.......no case to answer ?
Dawson's was as soft as,if anything Harvey should be done for staging

 

[DOCKERZ]

Dawson's slipped off Harveys shoulder, onto his head. Insufficient contact surely.

 

[caterina]

MJ reprimand
Dawson not assessed
All good

 

[Ragtooth]

MJ reprimand
Dawson not assessed
All good

Praise Jebus! However I think the playing group needs put everyone on serious warning...we cannot afford this anymore suspensions!

 

[purplepassion82]

WHAT THE?!

 

[Simmofreo]

Both avoided suspension !!!

 

[Docker82]

MJ reprimand
Dawson not assessed
All good

Where's this info from?

Not questioning you just wanna know for future reference.

 

[BeepTest]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-28/mrp-full-statement-round-six

 

[Simmofreo]

Where's this info from?

Not questioning you just wanna know for future reference.

AFL website MRP full statement

 

[Docker82]

AFL website MRP full statement

For whatever reason it still hasn't popped up on my tablet when I open afl.com

Luckily the link is posted above.

 

[Tas]

There was argy bargy during the game, a bit of physical stuff but nothing that warranted a suspension, am glad nobody got done. You just have to laugh at the inconsistency of it all though, Gibson got off for something worse than what they gave Ziebell 3 weeks before loading for. It really is Wheel of Misfortune.

 

[go_the_dockers]

There was argy bargy during the game, a bit of physical stuff but nothing that warranted a suspension, am glad nobody got done. You just have to laugh at the inconsistency of it all though, Gibson got off for something worse than what they gave Ziebell 3 weeks before loading for. It really is Wheel of Misfortune.

It is all about the injury, and unfortunately for Ziebell he hurt him (from memory)

 

[PapaJ]

MJ reprimand
Dawson not assessed
All good

Yeah "all good" in a sense. Though MJ is now one unlucky spin of the MRP chocolate wheel from getting weeks with 70 odd carry over points.

Like Ragtooth said, need to start tightening up on the disciplines across the board.

 

[Docker82]

Yeah "all good" in a sense. Though MJ is now one unlucky spin of the MRP chocolate wheel from getting weeks with 70 odd carry over points.

Like Ragtooth said, need to start tightening up on the disciplines across the board.

Does he still get a reprimand if he challenges? My understanding is that they'd still give him 25% off for his good record. Almost worth challenging if that's the case. 93.75 compared to 70 is unlikely to a make a difference in terms of a suspension but the difference between 93.75 and 0 is the difference between getting a reprimand and a week off for a minor incident.

Also love how the match review panel managed to get Gibson off by making it a striking rather than rough conduct charge
The incident was pretty much identical to Glass last week yet the MRP get him off by doing these two things. Absolute corrupt bs. Gotta keep the big Victorian teams at the top do the MRP.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

There was argy bargy during the game, a bit of physical stuff but nothing that warranted a suspension, am glad nobody got done. You just have to laugh at the inconsistency of it all though, Gibson got off for something worse than what they gave Ziebell 3 weeks before loading for. It really is Wheel of Misfortune.

It's modeled on the NHL system: http://www.nhlwheelofjustice.com/

 

[madethegrade]

MRP is such a piece of shit, how fyfe got 2 weeks its beyond comprehension when they guy who got chapman head high gets a reprimand. Bureaucratic muppets of the highest order.

 

[strobe00]

There was argy bargy during the game, a bit of physical stuff but nothing that warranted a suspension, am glad nobody got done. You just have to laugh at the inconsistency of it all though, Gibson got off for something worse than what they gave Ziebell 3 weeks before loading for. It really is Wheel of Misfortune.

Yellow and brown stripey guernsey provides (partial) immunity from the evils of the Wheel.

They gave him striking as it results in a lesser penalty.

Cod sh*t.

 

[Tas]

It is all about the injury, and unfortunately for Ziebell he hurt him (from memory)

The problem with the first one was that Carlton gave a medical report which our president mocked on The Footy Show, said he Carlton player was lucky to be alive according the medical report lodged by Carlton, despite him playing on during the game and playing the following week.

Tribunal said Ziebell had only eyes for the ball but he gave him 3 weeks because 'he had another option other than going for the ball'. The second one he copped was a brutal but fair hit on a Crows player, no high contact, right into his chest, player was winded but got up and played on, no concussion, played the following week. Nobody from Crows complained, was no report. 4 weeks with 5 weeks if we tried to fight it, we thought **** it they are just going to make bullshit up on the fly like this having another option other than going for the ball.

The funniest thing was the AFL using video of Ziebell going for the ball that they suspended him for in some promotional video, the commission wants to be hard and tough but is soft on the inside.

 

[Freo2012]

Does he still get a reprimand if he challenges? My understanding is that they'd still give him 25% off for his good record. Almost worth challenging if that's the case. 93.75 compared to 70 is unlikely to a make a difference in terms of a suspension but the difference between 93.75 and 0 is the difference between getting a reprimand and a week off for a minor incident.

Also love how the match review panel managed to get Gibson off by
A: making it a striking rather than rough conduct charge
B: giving it low impact when it was clearly at least medium
The incident was pretty much identical to Glass last week yet the MRP get him off by doing these two things. Absolute corrupt bs. Gotta keep the big Victorian teams at the top do the MRP.

no point challenging - tribunal almost always finds in MRP favor, and with Freo's recent track record as to the quality of the defense (I doubt our rep even speaks to the players before the tribunal, it has been that appalling)

 

[Docker82]

no point challenging - tribunal almost always finds in MRP favor, and with Freo's recent track record as to the quality of the defense (I doubt our rep even speaks to the players before the tribunal, it has been that appalling)

Somewhat agree. Seems to be the attitude of the club as well. But at the same time nothing to lose!

 

[PapaJ]

Does he still get a reprimand if he challenges? My understanding is that they'd still give him 25% off for his good record. Almost worth challenging if that's the case. 93.75 compared to 70 is unlikely to a make a difference in terms of a suspension but the difference between 93.75 and 0 is the difference between getting a reprimand and a week off for a minor incident.

Also love how the match review panel managed to get Gibson off by
A: making it a striking rather than rough conduct charge
B: giving it low impact when it was clearly at least medium
The incident was pretty much identical to Glass last week yet the MRP get him off by doing these two things. Absolute corrupt bs. Gotta keep the big Victorian teams at the top do the MRP.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. He will only get the reprimand either way - just different amount of carry over points. 70 to 95 odd doesn't make a big difference if you get a lowish level offence. But in reality, there's not a lot of scope to move.

It's clearly misconduct regarding an injured player (which is same points punishment as striking and less than rough-conduct), and the incident itself is obviously intentional IMHO. It's already assessed as 'low-impact', so not sure what you're getting at there. The only thing you could play with is intentionality, which as I said, would be difficult, or suggesting it was insufficient force to begin with, which, given it's misconduct, would be hard to argue.

I think he's best to cop it sweet and just be smarter in future.

no point challenging - tribunal almost always finds in MRP favor, and with Freo's recent track record as to the quality of the defense (I doubt our rep even speaks to the players before the tribunal, it has been that appalling)

History of the MRP is irrelevant here anyway, there really isn't much grounds to challenge I reckon (see above).