You're right, Pav got 400 + 93? so 4 weeks down to 3 with a guilty plea. Embley got 325 + 68 so around 393, 3 weeks down to 2 with a guilty plea. He would have got 4 if 90 or 93 was added to the base 325, 415 or so.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. Pavlich reported for rough conduct
- Thread starter PapaJ
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You're right, Pav got 400 + 93? so 4 weeks down to 3 with a guilty plea. Embley got 325 + 68 so around 393, 3 weeks down to 2 with a guilty plea. He would have got 4 if 90 or 93 was added to the base 325, 415 or so.
It shouldn't be too early. Clancee shouldn't play, end of story. Concussion is almost the most serious injury you can receive (ignoring the time on the sidelines), it boggles the mind how people (including medicos) think players should even be given the chance to play the next week.
teamex
All Australian
- Jul 23, 2012
- 705
- 385
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Flyers, Arsenal, Rockets, Ricciardo
at some point you've gotta put faith in the medical testing don't you?
I have not been around long enough, but I can imagine how bad it was from your description.
The current system is still too ambiguous. When is it negligent and when is it reckless? Why is Burgoyne judged as intentional? Brown got up to play the rest of the game, but in his own word Frasier "think" it's still a medium. It's still a judgment call at the end of the day. Having a structured framework around bad judgement doesn't really make it better.
Nothing
Brownlow Medallist
- Jul 30, 2009
- 10,493
- 17,544
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
You've got a small, constantly injured Dick too.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,264
- 62,159
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I don't think they really have it right. Not the medical profession's fault, as I'm not sure they can even come up with testing which is 100% foolproof. Too many unknowns, not enough research or long term data into such a serious issue. Plus, I liken the tests to say trying to pass a sobriety test if you had a few drinks. I'm sure there is a wide range of drunkenness over which different people could still walk in a straight line or recite the alphabet backwards or whatever. Whatever brain tests they have, I don't think they can categorically say your brain isn't still traumatized.
I remember a game when Jordan Lewis played after being smashed, he passed all the tests ... then he said when he was playing he just didn't feel right, and should not have been playing. Sometimes you see players come off the ground all groggy, then reappear after supposedly passing the tests ... that just isn't right. We are talking about the brain being jarred.
Anyway ... back to the MRP.
Pav ... The panel graded the incident as reckless conduct, medium impact and high contact.
Embley ... The incident was assessed as negligent conduct, high impact and high contact.
This whole reckless vs negligent is ridiculous. It is completely subjective, and makes such a significant difference to the end result. How do you say Pav was reckless, yet Embley was only negligent? He elbowed someone in the head for ****'s sake and knocked him out.
The impact is also debatable. I thought it could have been low for Pav, but watching it again, medium is fair enough. You could argue Embley's was "severe" seeing as he knocked someone out. What else is that severe grade there for? Killing someone?
With Embley, if you make it reckless ... then it is 3 weeks. Severe contact and I think he gets 4 weeks.
If you change the grading to negligent/low ... then Pav ends up with Level 1 ... 125 (+93) - 25% = 1 week. If you change it to negligent/medium ... then it is a 2 week ban, which is probably fair.
It is really frustrating that they give Pav the most you could come up with (3 weeks), yet don't do this with say Embley or McKernan from last week.
- Jul 15, 2007
- 9,634
- 7,239
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Patriots
- Thread starter
- #258
Sort of. The problem (I think) is the issue of how the MRP apply their rulings. The system is such that it should reduce the ambiguity (it will never get rid of it), but they don't apply the sanctions with enough consistently. So we get frustrated when certain things get through and others don't. In general though, I still reckon the current system is better than the completely 'make it up as you go' method.
I said earlier I don't fully get it myself, and I've looked at it fairly closely. But again, it's because it's not executed well. The theory behind it makes sense.
'Negligent' is supposed to be when a player does something that would be considered a reasonable and normal AFL action but neglects to do so with due care causing (potential) harm/injury. That's what they decided Embley did, and called it high contact high intensity which is probably right.
'Reckless' is when the player does something that would reasonably be considered a reportable or dangerous act in and of itself. Front on contact (as defined by the AFL) nearly always fits this category.
Then the "light, medium, heavy" impact ... subject terms still, but if they just implemented them with consistency I think we'd be at least a bit happier.
ANy way you look at it that's a super harsh suspension. Tough to see the base assessment (ignoring loadings) as being more than embley's where he pretty much lined up a head at full force and knocked a bloke out.
It should have been contested, it should have accompanied by a statement from the head Steve lambasting the MRP for the lack of logic, inconsistent interpretations, obvious errors and the level of apparent bias in the reports. Its time we stood up for the bullshit.
Fraser just consistently displays his incompetence and bias. Its the same old VFL cloaked in legalese and incompetence, Buddy would not cop this from the MRP, nor would any Vic star.
Fraser just consistently displays his incompetence and bias. Its the same old VFL cloaked in legalese and incompetence, Buddy would not cop this from the MRP, nor would any Vic star.
I'm not unhappy that he's out, he needs the time off from how he was moving.
The most important person at our club for our chances to go long and deep into the finals is Jason Weber. Get Pavlich cherry ripe for the finals with 4 games leading in.
The most important person at our club for our chances to go long and deep into the finals is Jason Weber. Get Pavlich cherry ripe for the finals with 4 games leading in.
We'd be better off getting an actor that plays a lawyer on TV. It might impress the brain dead members of the MRP with some quasi legal ramblings and star power. Is Matlock still alive? People confuse the MRP with any legitimate legal system. There is no due process, there is no presumption of innocence, there is no burden of proof. It is a kangaroo court and should be treated as such. We don't need a lawyer, we need a showman. The Chewbacca Defense would probably work brilliantly on these gibbering idiots.
- Jul 15, 2007
- 9,634
- 7,239
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Patriots
- Thread starter
- #265
I'm unhappy, but agree with the sentiment. He finished out the game pretty well, but still, said it in the game day thread that it looks like he needs a week off. I think two might have been better.
We can look at the bright side here - we get a preview of what our spine may potentially look like in the not too distant future - with Silver at CHB and Maggie T at CHF. Let's fact it - Luke and Pav are closer to the end of the line than the start of it. It would not surprise me at all if these two and Sandi decide to call it a day as a threesome, whenever this happens.
I expect Pav and Sandi to go before McPharlin. Pav and Sandi's bodies are struggling more.
particularly Sandi, he's really struggled to get on the park the last couple of years, I think this would be Sandi's last year, and maybe 1 more for Pav. Hopefully 2 more for McPharlin.
If that was Pavlich attempting to pull out, you can expect plenty of father/sons from him in the future.
Yep the decision sucks and was graded in the highest possible manner. Just gunna keep telling myself that Pav was clearly sore (back/glut/hammy - all three were worked on) and he was going be rested or should have been rested anyhow. there you go - I feel better!
Crap result really.
I agree that Pav probably needed a week or two off for the hit but the way the MRP comes to it's various decisions is really baffling. Without looking at prior form and just watching the game (and incidents) in isolation one would have thought the Embley hit was a lot more dangerous and had a larger impact in the grand scheme of things.
This is the crux of the problem with the current set up, no ones knows what's bloody going on, there is no clarity in how decisions are made. Supporters, players, coaches and the media all seem confused how various sanctions are handed out, there is no consistency from one week to the next and Freo seem to cop the rough end of the pineapple a fair bit.
I sure hope Mark Evans follows through and goes through the MRP with a fine tooth comb as he has mentioned at the end of the season as the current set up is bulldust and is just broken.
Maybe I'm still feeling a bit disappointed and as such am coming across as a bit of a whinger but the whole MRP decision making process has been grinding my gears over the whole season (if not longer).
I agree that Pav probably needed a week or two off for the hit but the way the MRP comes to it's various decisions is really baffling. Without looking at prior form and just watching the game (and incidents) in isolation one would have thought the Embley hit was a lot more dangerous and had a larger impact in the grand scheme of things.
This is the crux of the problem with the current set up, no ones knows what's bloody going on, there is no clarity in how decisions are made. Supporters, players, coaches and the media all seem confused how various sanctions are handed out, there is no consistency from one week to the next and Freo seem to cop the rough end of the pineapple a fair bit.
I sure hope Mark Evans follows through and goes through the MRP with a fine tooth comb as he has mentioned at the end of the season as the current set up is bulldust and is just broken.
Maybe I'm still feeling a bit disappointed and as such am coming across as a bit of a whinger but the whole MRP decision making process has been grinding my gears over the whole season (if not longer).
- May 26, 2003
- 24,513
- 18,924
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- SFFC, Aussie Women's Cricket, HNK
Unfortunately the equation is quite simple.
Front on v side on + carry over points... Pav gets 3, the sniper 2.
Front on v side on + carry over points... Pav gets 3, the sniper 2.
Shit, we're ****ed.
C'mon Pusswah, He's not that bad.
With our senior two bookends missing, we need an experienced campaigner (He's played in 4 finals!) that's handy at both ends to be on our list to jump in and compete when required.
Go Team Alex!
