MRP / Trib. Paddy gets 3 weeks!

[Goldfish]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-08/mcginnity-hit-hard-by-mrp

Rated as bad as the hit on Sheppard... Oh dear.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't even recall seeing the incident; not even quoting Woosha, being serious.

Well it wasn't rated as bad as the McKernan incident, previous records came into play.

 

[Kaboodleer]

System fails to work properly yet again although I knew Paddy would get something- Is there anyone who wouldn't agree McKernan's action was significantly worse?

 

[lyall]

I wouldnt mind finding out how lining someone up and then clearly elbowing them in the head is considered reckless

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I don't even recall seeing the incident; not even quoting Woosha, being serious.

Well it wasn't rated as bad as the McKernan incident, previous records came into play.

Both incidents copped 325 base points.

McKernan was lucky that it was striking and not rough conduct, and that it was reckless and not intentional.

 

[Goldfish]

I don't even recall seeing the incident; not even quoting Woosha, being serious.

Well it wasn't rated as bad as the McKernan incident, previous records came into play.

It was rated equally, but McGinnity can't get a discount for an early plea due to a poor record.

Patrick McGinnity, West Coast, has been charged with a level three engaging in rough conduct offence (325 demerit points, three-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Bernie Vince

Shaun McKernan, Adelaide Crows, has been charged with a level four striking offence (325 demerit points, three-match sanction) for striking Brad Sheppard

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-08/mrp-full-statement-round-15

 

[The Passenger]

haven't seen mcginnity's incident (haven't seen the game, wasn't on at the pub i was at sat night) but i saw a replay of mckernans and i would find it hard to believe they are both deemed the same level as 325 points.

reading through the summation - mckernan had 7 activation points on a striking charge which is 325, while mcginnity had 6 activation points on a rough conduct charge. i would have thought striking was considered more severe than rough conduct, but apparently not.

as an aside is it not a flaw that a person's carryover points also get a deduction if one enters an early plea? the carry over points already received a reduction from the original charge.

mcginnity will go from ~418 to ~314 points if he pleads guilty. which is 325*0.75 (243.75) + 93.75*0.75 (70.31) = 314.06

 

[TassieEagle]

Paddy 3 McKernan 2

That's what it boils down and thus proves, in my mind, the whole points system and the MRP in general are nothing short of a complete and utter joke.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Both incidents copped 325 base points.

McKernan was lucky that it was striking and not rough conduct, and that it was reckless and not intentional.

Oh, what!? Then that is a joke. It was clearly intentional.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

haven't seen mcginnity's incident (haven't seen the game, wasn't on at the pub i was at sat night) but i saw a replay of mckernans and i would find it hard to believe they are both deemed the same level as 325 points.

reading through the summation - mckernan had 7 activation points on a striking charge which is 325, while mcginnity had 6 activation points on a rough conduct charge. i would have thought striking was considered more severe than rough conduct, but apparently not.

Striking is less severe punishment wise. For mine given half the force was due to his body momentum it should have been rough conduct.

as an aside is it not a flaw that a person's carryover points also get a deduction if one enters an early plea? the carry over points already received a reduction from the original charge.

This is something that was covered about a year ago - the message at the time was the MRP was happy with players getting the additional benefit. My view is it would be too complicated working out which points had already been discounted and which hadn't.

 

[The Passenger]

i think one of the problems is, is just how broad rough conduct is?

rough conduct, 6 action points = 325
striking, 7 action points = 325

really should be the other way around though in this incidents, which would mean paddy's rough conduct 6 activation points = 225. 1 for a guilty plea plus 1 for his carry over.

haven't seen the incident but most sling tackles are probably worth around 1 week with guilty plea. plus the extra week, obviously.

there is also the question of mckernan's reckless v intentional. it looked pretty ordinary to me.

 

[The Passenger]

Striking is less severe punishment wise.

seems a bit strange to me. especially given how broad rough conduct is.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

i think one of the problems is, is just how broad rough conduct is?

rough conduct, 6 action points = 325
striking, 7 action points = 325

really should be the other way around though in this incidents, which would mean paddy's rough conduct 6 activation points = 225. 1 for a guilty plea plus 1 for his carry over.

haven't seen the incident but most sling tackles are probably worth around 1 week with guilty plea. plus the extra week, obviously.

there is also the question of mckernan's reckless v intentional. it looked pretty ordinary to me.

Most have been about 3 weeks.

Trengove, Mumford, Walker all copped large penalties

 

[kane249]

The only thing that saved MacKernan from a stiffer penalty was the fact Sheppard didn't get a worse injury out of it.

 

[Toshowyouwhy]

Our game is broken.

 

[Bacchus]

^ Agreed. Ridiculous decisions when put next to each other. A guy who maliciously elbows another player in the head with force gets less of a penalty than someone who does a hard tackle. A stupid system and/or operators of it.

 

[ChampRevesby]

The only thing that saved MacKernan from a stiffer penalty was the fact Sheppard didn't get a worse injury out of it.

Its ****ing bullshit, it should be all about intent. MacKernan's intent was to strike Shep in the face with an elbow, that is indisputable and a dog act. Paddy tackled the guy with no intent to slam his head into the ground. Its ****ing stupid system.

 

[kimirocks]

MRP probably saw his swan dive in the forward 50

Two issues that separate the two; McGinnity's prior record and the fact Vince was unable to partake in the rest of the game.

McKernan certainly lucky it was graded as a striking offence rather than rough conduct.

 

[Gods_Son23]

Disappointing and unexpected. I forgot about the incident tbh. He would've been handy in the derby providing intensity.

 

[jaxxon]

I won't miss him.

 

[ChampRevesby]

Disappointing and unexpected. I forgot about the incident tbh. He would've been handy in the derby providing intensity.

Huge out! Massive. He adds that mongrel we need!
But that about sums up this year, full of disappointments and hypocrisy.

 

[Jarlcorbz]

Surely they will challenge it, I hardly thought it was a report-able offence, either did the umpires.

 

[arfadunger]

What a joke! This is not the intention when the rule against sling tackles was bought in. It was a hard tackle, no doubt about it, but that's life. When they bought in the rule it was to stop players pining in the arms of their opponent and drilling their head into the dirt. Vince's arms weren't pinned, it's his problem that he didn't protect himself, not the tackler's.

 

[larrikin]

I wouldnt mind finding out how lining someone up and then clearly elbowing them in the head is considered reckless

Surely they didn't call that reckless?

 

[Agent93]

What a joke! This is not the intention when the rule against sling tackles was bought in. It was a hard tackle, no doubt about it, but that's life. When they bought in the rule it was to stop players pining in the arms of their opponent and drilling their head into the dirt. Vince's arms weren't pinned, it's his problem that he didn't protect himself, not the tackler's.

I think you'll find that relates to 'spear' tackles, not 'sling' tackles. Both of which come under the rough conduct umbrella.