MRP / Trib. Tex vs MRP/Tribunal

[cmndstab]

It's a 25% discount. I don't know the exact points, but 500 points down 25% is 375. Three matches, 75 points carryover.

Which pretty much means any incident deemed actionable by the MRP in the future will see him suspended again - and from that point, he'll earn a 20% loading on future suspensions.

It isn't simply a three match suspension - any more than Walker's non-suspension for sliding in a while back was a non-punishment. That slide ended up costing Walker two games, in fact, and if Wellingham offends twice more it will likely cost him at least that much extra too.

 

[MarcusP2]

550 activation, 25% for early plea, 20% for good record, 330 points, 3 matches + 30 carryover I think.

 

[cmndstab]

So you get 20% off for a good record, then 0% for one suspension, and 20% added on for two?

I think those numbers are just too big. Should be closer to 10%.

 

[MarcusP2]

The bad record is 10% per match suspended I think.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

550 activation, 25% for early plea, 20% for good record, 330 points, 3 matches + 30 carryover I think.

It's 25% for good record, so it's down to 309.something.

You get 25% discount for a 5 year good record (no points accrued). You get 10% loading for each game suspended in the last 3 years, up to a maximum of 50%. If:

• You have accepted a reprimand (not including monetary penalties) but not been suspended in the last 3 years;
• Not been suspended in the last 3 years but suspended or accrued any points in the 2 years before that;
• Never been suspended but been in the AFL system less than 5 years; or
• Been suspended in the local league in the last 5 years but not at AFL level.

You are said to have "no good or bad record" and there is no loading or discount.

So for example, when Tex got reported in the Showdown he had no good or bad record because he had been in the system less than 5 years, and also becuse he had been suspended in the SANFL last year.

When Tex got reported against Geelong he still had no good or bad record for the same reasons and also because he had received a reprimand in the last 5 years.

When Tex got reported against Richmond he got a 20% loading for having 2 games suspended in the last 3 years.

If Tex gets reported again in or before round 7 2015, he will have a 50% loading for having 5 games suspended in the last 3 years.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Have to bump this, if someone can explain to me how what Jamieson did on the weekend wasn't as dangerous as Walker's tackle I'd like to hear it. He landed full force on a bloke's back!

 

[Brasher]

Have to bump this, if someone can explain to me how what Jamieson did on the weekend wasn't as dangerous as Walker's tackle I'd like to hear it. He landed full force on a bloke's back!

And there's the rub of it.....the MRP ruled that it was insufficent force. If you have a look at a lot of the MRP decisions the interpretation of force is what causes a lot of the confusion. This comes about because they manipulate the activation points to get the ruling they want.

 

[jenny61_99]

And there's the rub of it.....the MRP ruled that it was insufficent force. If you have a look at a lot of the MRP decisions the interpretation of force is what causes a lot of the confusion. This comes about because they manipulate the activation points to get the ruling they want.

Exactly. If it's a Collingwood player, the fact that the injured player will be out for longer than the perpetrator had no bearing on the penalty. But Morris who has played every minute of every game since, was so severely injured, Tex's charge was upgraded to medium from low, and cost an extra week. Absolutely bloody ridiculous!

 

[SugarShane]

Exactly. If it's a Collingwood player, the fact that the injured player will be out for longer than the perpetrator had no bearing on the penalty. But Morris who has played every minute of every game since, was so severely injured, Tex's charge was upgraded to medium from low, and cost an extra week. Absolutely bloody ridiculous!

Not to mention the entire rest of the game after he was "injured" too, without even going off for checks.

 

[Sling tackle]

Not to mention the entire rest of the game after he was "injured" too, without even going off for checks.

Seems pretty clear this was payback for the Jake King incident. Ah well, as has already been noted karma got 'em.

The other interesting report on the weekend was the Corey tackle that apparently lacked the required force to warrant assessment. . . makes you wonder whether Tex would've got off if the Tigers hadn't filed that false medical report. . .

 

[Brasher]

Seems pretty clear this was payback for the Jake King incident. Ah well, as has already been noted karma got 'em.

The other interesting report on the weekend was the Corey tackle that apparently lacked the required force to warrant assessment. . . makes you wonder whether Tex would've got off if the Tigers hadn't filed that false medical report. . .

This is the one that annoys me, not because Corey got off, but because the only difference between his tackle and Walker's is that the tackled player managed to get an arm free to brace his collision with the ground, Corey nor Walker intended to drive the players head into contact with the ground. You'll see a dozen sling tackles a week that go unchecked by the MRP but they keep playing this "sufficent force" card which is more often then not based on medical reports (in the case of Morris how can anyone conclusively prove that his neck injury was based upon Walker's tackle????).

 

[Cap]

I think it is fairly clear that the Walker suspension was a platform for the AFL to set an example - and they picked the right club to do it to.

The RIchmond falso report was childish, but lets face it the way that club has self destructed over the last couple of weeks makes it bearable.

 

[SugarShane]

My issue with Corey getting off was how similar his tackle was to Walker's on Harry Taylor earlier in the year. Which Tex got 2 weeks for. Apparently driving the head into the turf is not a problem as long as you have a hand free.

 

[rayven]

If walker went to the tribunal, how many could of he got.

Baring in mind judd just got 4 for something much much worse....at the tribunal.

I thought the MRP was all about 'consistency' ,

 

[spenze]

If walker went to the tribunal, how many could of he got.

Baring in mind judd just got 4 for something much much worse....at the tribunal.

I thought the MRP was all about 'consistency' ,

Consistently inconsistent

 

[relapse]

How typical that Colin Garland only received a reprimand for his Tex style sling tackle on Tippett.

If that was a Walker tackle he would have been given another 3-4 spell on the sidelines. Once again we've been burnt by the inconsistency of the MRP.

 

[headache1]

How typical that Colin Garland only received a reprimand for his Tex style sling tackle on Tippett.

If that was a Walker tackle he would have been given another 3-4 spell on the sidelines. Once again we've been burnt by the inconsistency of the MRP.

Was thinking as I watched that tackle that had it been Walker laying it, the commentators wouldn't have shut up about it, and he'd get weeks for it.

 

[FR0GGY]

Anyone notice a melbourne player went down behind play. I didnt see who or what did it.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Anyone notice a melbourne player went down behind play. I didnt see who or what did it.

No crows player was sited?

It's done and dusted now.

 

[FR0GGY]

No crows player was sited?

It's done and dusted now.

Good, down worry i wont ring Adrian

 

[jenny61_99]

Anyone notice a melbourne player went down behind play. I didnt see who or what did it.

Yes I did see it and thought whoops at the time. They didn't so good!

 

[srv23]

Was thinking as I watched that tackle that had it been Walker laying it, the commentators wouldn't have shut up about it, and he'd get weeks for it.

The only difference between that tackle and Tex's on Morris was the size differential between the players. The action with the turn lift and drop was virtually identical. Difference is Tex is massive and Morris small which meant he lifted him way up in the air while Garland is small in comparison to Tippo so did not have the strength to lift him off the ground. Straight after the tackle the commentators went on about what a great tackle it was.

 

[Crow-eater]

Called it as soon as it happened. Tex would have got another lengthy ban, Garland gets a reprimand.

What was the difference between it and Tex/Taylor? Kurt went straight off the ground afterwards, but came back, just like Taylor. Yet this was low impact and Tex's medium?

It is quite clear that consistency is not a word in the MRPs vocabulary.

 

[CrowsEst1991]

Called it as soon as it happened. Tex would have got another lengthy ban, Garland gets a reprimand.

What was the difference between it and Tex/Taylor? Kurt went straight off the ground afterwards, but came back, just like Taylor. Yet this was low impact and Tex's medium?

It is quite clear the consistency is not a word in the MRPs vocabulary.

Melbourne didnt squell about it ... /waves Richmond.

 

[FR0GGY]

Melbourne didnt squell about it ... /waves Richmond.

kurt was the one who was tackled not a Melbourne player