MRP / Trib. Tex vs MRP/Tribunal

[Hinkstuff]

I'm hoping the AFL program The Verdict tonight explains why the hit was deemed reckless and not intentional. I saw all sorts of intent in him.

550 points represents the highest penalty the MRP could administer, ignoring loadings for previous indiscretions or good behaviour/early plea. But really it should've gone to the tribunal.

 

[SydCrow]

Agree entirely but the problem is its not criminal... maybe it should be! LOL!!!

would be interesting to see the outcome if Simpson sued him

 

[BACCS]

I'm hoping the AFL program The Verdict tonight explains why the hit was deemed reckless and not intentional. I saw all sorts of intent in him.

550 points represents the highest penalty the MRP could administer, ignoring loadings for previous indiscretions or good behaviour/early plea. But really it should've gone to the tribunal.

I thought is was more reckless than intentional, I have no problem with that ruling. He was legitimately trying to spoil the ball but just executed it in an really dangerous manor, it isn't like he was trying to break Simpson's jaw, which is what intentional should be reserved for (i.e. looking to hurt first before attacking the footy).

 

[Bacon8]

I tweeted this earlier, but I wonder if a player's time on the scholarship or the "alternative talent" rookie list counts towards a players 5 year record. I totally accept a rookie listed year as being included.

Tex wouldn't have been eligible anyway (since he missed games at Norwood from memory), but interested to know the answer (for players like Dowdell, Pyke, Blicavs). And would Crouch/O'Meara count for this year?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Any penalty that had it classified as reckless not intentional is wrong, there is nothing appropriate about that

I guess they need somewhere to go for the Barry Hall type punches that are obviously intentional.

Wellingham's effort falls short of Hall's but exceeds Walker's in terms of whether it was intentional or not. No category in between = very lucky.

 

[Dandy_GO]

The issue is more that Walker's was miscastegorised. Really should have been level 1, and would have been, if not for a certain phony medical report.

 

[Hinkstuff]

The MRP probably should've just taken a step back and let the tribunal handle it.

 

[fairfooty]

would be interesting to see the outcome if Simpson sued him

Still civil...

 

[jenny61_99]

Still civil...

IMO, when there is serious injury involved as a result of reckless/intentional (and lets face it, the line between these two are so blurry it's very hard to pick which it was) actions of a player, the penalty should be that the offending player is out of the game for "at least" as long as the injured player.

 

[spenze]

IMO, when there is serious injury involved as a result of reckless/intentional (and lets face it, the line between these two are so blurry it's very hard to pick which it was) actions of a player, the penalty should be that the offending player is out of the game for "at least" as long as the injured player.

Think that should be the rule for every report

 

[headache1]

I thought is was more reckless than intentional, I have no problem with that ruling. He was legitimately trying to spoil the ball but just executed it in an really dangerous manor, it isn't like he was trying to break Simpson's jaw, which is what intentional should be reserved for (i.e. looking to hurt first before attacking the footy).

So when Wellingham jumped off the ground, whilst looking straight at Simpson, and put his shoulder into Simpson's face, what exactly was he trying to do? There was nothing legitimate about it. Were he trying to spoil the ball, he would have had his fist out and pointed at the ball, as you do when trying to spoil somebody.

 

[macca23]

Forget all the discounts and loadings etc, when you wash up the final results, Tex and Wellingham are both serving 3 match suspensions, yet their offences are poles apart.

Tex ended up with 3 matches for a tackle FFS for what might have happened - not what did happen.

Wellingham deliberately slaughtered Simpson in the head (he jumped up and into his head) resulting in a very nasty incident with Simpson very much hurt out of that incident.

IMO this goes to show that while the principle of this points system appears sound, if it didn't exist and it was left to a tribunal to judge the penalty, the Tex penalty was far too great and IMO Wellngham would have got more.

 

[cmndstab]

Do you agree that a player's past suspension record should count for anything, m23?

One incident was judged to be worth three matches, the other five matches. The fact that Wellingham can get his reduced while Walker can't is solely due to Walker having the two previous suspensions while Wellingham does not.

I do think that a 20% loading for only two incidents over several years is a bit harsh though. Considering it's becoming increasingly more difficult to avoid getting suspended for accidentally endangering players (who often place themselves in the dangerous position in order to win a free kick), they need to review that.

 

[macca23]

I understand what you're saying Stabby, but if we go back to the days before the points system, priors did count but not significantly unless you actually mangled a player and then not even that drastically.

If I was on a tribunal with no points system in vogue or loadings or discounts, I just couldn't give Tex and Wellingham the same penalties, whether they had priors or not.

 

[Carmo]

The way things are going soon half the league will be suspended, then in two years time it will be way worse cos everyones got priors!

 

[Carmo]

Also how did they judge sidebottoms to be not enough force? Just looking at the tape? Pretty subjective. Be good to use the tape to calc the linear velocity and rotation velocity as he hit the ground.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So when Wellingham jumped off the ground, whilst looking straight at Simpson, and put his shoulder into Simpson's face, what exactly was he trying to do? There was nothing legitimate about it. Were he trying to spoil the ball, he would have had his fist out and pointed at the ball, as you do when trying to spoil somebody.

You're right. If Wellingham's wasn't intentional then nothing is. They may as well scrap the category apart from the lose the plot haymakers that get thrown once every 10 years.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

You're right. If Wellingham's wasn't intentional then nothing is. They may as well scrap the category apart from the lose the plot haymakers that get thrown once every 10 years.

Bartel's from the weekend was classified as intentional. I haven't seen it - can anyone say what it was, how intentional it looked?

 

[MarcusP2]

Looked to me he ran past and threw an elbow at him for no reason. Can't really see any other classification other than intentional for it. Also I think all behind play incidents are automatically intentional now?

 

[rayven]

Same old Collingwood 4eva
they get to play a different game
Side by side the vfl sticks together
to uphold Collingwoods name
All the interstaters are shouting
cause they don't get a fair go
Oh the premierships far from a cakewalk
if your not the good old collingwood

 

[cmndstab]

I understand what you're saying Stabby, but if we go back to the days before the points system, priors did count but not significantly unless you actually mangled a player and then not even that drastically.

If I was on a tribunal with no points system in vogue or loadings or discounts, I just couldn't give Tex and Wellingham the same penalties, whether they had priors or not.

I think I'm agreeing with you, in some sense. Personally I'm very much in favour of the base points system, but I think they need to review the various loadings and reductions.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Also how did they judge sidebottoms to be not enough force? Just looking at the tape? Pretty subjective. Be good to use the tape to calc the linear velocity and rotation velocity as he hit the ground.

I thought during the game he might go.. After watching it again, i don't know how he has gotten away with it..
The act was dangerous and isn't that the whole issue and what is being suspended now?

I thought they are trying to stop the thought of "i'm going to sling this guy into the ground"..

 

[Moonwatcher]

When Morriss' hips went above his head, there was a risk of a neck injury. When Wellingham jumped there was a risk of a head/jaw injury. Walker got 4 , Wellingham got 5 , certainly no bias involved.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

So when Wellingham jumped off the ground, whilst looking straight at Simpson, and put his shoulder into Simpson's face, what exactly was he trying to do? There was nothing legitimate about it. Were he trying to spoil the ball, he would have had his fist out and pointed at the ball, as you do when trying to spoil somebody.

Totally agree with all of this.
Wellingham should have recieved 9 activation points and a trip straight to the tribunal. To be classified as reckless is insulting to Simpsom who is now sporting a broken jaw and about 2 months on the sidelines.

At no stage was he trying to spoil or get to the ball. Wellinghams actions show his objective was to smash Simpson and the MRP responded by REWARDING him with 5 games reduced to 3 because of his good record.

MRP hang your head in shame!!!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Forget all the discounts and loadings etc, when you wash up the final results, Tex and Wellingham are both serving 3 match suspensions, yet their offences are poles apart.

Tex ended up with 3 matches for a tackle FFS for what might have happened - not what did happen.

Wellingham deliberately slaughtered Simpson in the head (he jumped up and into his head) resulting in a very nasty incident with Simpson very much hurt out of that incident.

IMO this goes to show that while the principle of this points system appears sound, if it didn't exist and it was left to a tribunal to judge the penalty, the Tex penalty was far too great and IMO Wellngham would have got more.

Strongly agree that there was a huge difference in these incidents & the resultant injuries sustained ... yet same games suspended. Shows the current MRP system is not fair & inconsistent.

Wellingham should have been intentional as been mentioned by others.

Discounting from 5 to 3 games is too much of a discount - 40%. At best should have ony had it reduced to 4 games for prior good record.

Could argue for really bad incidents that there should be no discounting.