MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[GremioPower]

Oh absolutely. In South Australia at least, the law will usually make a distinction between recklessly or with intent, but you're still being charged under the same act and it's usually a fairly easy distinction to make. On a footy field you've got the complicating factor of a player basically always being able to argue that what he was doing was in play, even if the ball has been kicked away like in the Webster case.

IIRC, they used to have negligent, reckless and intentional. Where negligent was something like what SPP did, where you're making a footy play but you go in too hard and hurt someone. Reckless was more like what Webster did, where your action wasn't a reasonable play at the footy at all, then intentional was for off the ball strikes and things of that nature.

The issue we have now is that we've lost the granularity in the MRO matrix. They've done away with the 3 intent categories which means anything but an off the ball hit is now careless, and they've decreed that a concussion (or something that could cause one) must be severe impact so we're basically going to see the vast majority of reportable offences fall into careless/severe. What's the point of the MRO matrix if this is the standard?

People might argue that the MRO matrix doesn't matter because everything serious ends up at the tribunal anyway, but it does. Look at Maynard last year. Because it was graded careless, it was only a step down to non-reportable. If it had been graded reckless as it should have been under the old system, it's much harder for them to go from the middle tier of responsibility to nothing. Similarly, once SPP's incident is graded severe impact, you've got the AFL calling for an extra week to scapegoat SPP for the tribunal's failure on the Maynard case.

The MRO matrix needs an overhaul or to be scrapped and every case can go to the tribunal again.

The proper names can be given by someone who knows English better than me, but I think that the previous categories, while better than the current one, was already missing a few.

I imagine something like this:

SPP would be Level 1. (being in the wrong place at the wrong time)
Maynard would be Level 2. (a badly-executed football play that has put the players in danger)
Then a Level 3. (think of Webster's, but with the bump during the kick or a sling tackle trying to gain a HTB - timing is fine, but the action is not)
Webster would be Level 4. (an agressive football-like act, unreasonable both in the way and timing it's done)
Then, there would Level 5. (think of Goff, but as if he were in an actual altercation - an excessive agression responding an aggression)
Finally, Goff would be Level 6. (an unjustified agression)

Since we currently have TWO categories, I would argue that from levels 1 to 3 should be "careless"; while 4 to 6, "intentional". (In the previous three categories, than 1-2 would be "careless"; 3-4, "reckless"; and 5-6, "intentional".)

There may be gaps in my categories. There are certainly other cases that would need classification. Still, it's a first draft. I just wanted to point out the way I'm thinking about these cases.

 

[GremioPower]

The proper names can be given by someone who knows English better than me, but I think that the previous categories, while better than the current one, was already missing a few.

I imagine something like this:

SPP would be Level 1. (being in the wrong place at the wrong time)
Maynard would be Level 2. (a badly-executed football play that has put the players in danger)
Then a Level 3. (think of Webster's, but with the bump during the kick or a sling tackle trying to gain a HTB - timing is fine, but the action is not)
Webster would be Level 4. (an agressive football-like act, unreasonable both in the way and timing it's done)
Then, there would Level 5. (think of Goff, but as if he were in an actual altercation - an excessive agression responding an aggression)
Finally, Goff would be Level 6. (an unjustified agression)

Since we currently have TWO categories, I would argue that from levels 1 to 3 should be "careless"; while 4 to 6, "intentional". (In the previous three categories, than 1-2 would be "careless"; 3-4, "reckless"; and 5-6, "intentional".)

There may be gaps in my categories, but it's a first draft. I just wanted to point out the way I'm thinking about these cases.

Now, if what SPP did is bad enough for 4 games. Now one can see how ridiculous the penalties should be given in order to remain equitable. Just adding 1 match per level, Maynard would be at least 5 games; Webster, at least, 7.

And I don't think that 1 match per level is fair. The distance actually increases between levels as they go higher.

Something like: Level 2 would be +1; Level 3, +3; Level 4, +5; Level 5, +8; and Level 6, +12.

Hence, to be fair, Webster should get a 9-match penalty.

 

[PowerBaz]

Now, if what SPP did is bad enough for 4 games. Now one can see how ridiculous the penalties should be given in order to remain equitable. Just adding 1 match per level, Maynard would be at least 5 games; Webster, at least, 7.

And I don't think that 1 match per level is fair. The distance actually increases between levels as they go higher.

Something like: Level 2 would be +1; Level 3, +3; Level 4, +5; Level 5, +8; and Level 6, +12.

Hence, to be fair, Webster should get a 9-match penalty.

I bet they appeal too.

 

[JUSTWORK]

4-6 would suggest this is equivalent; maybe only a little bit worse that what SPP did.

SPP was reacting to a player getting tackled into him and braced to protect himself.

Webster lined Simkin up, came in late after the ball was kicked, left the ground and bumped Simkin high.

Anything less than double what SPP got is a joke.

 

[Brian McGee]

The careless/intentional split has always been a joke. Much like the impact rating, it's not fit for purpose. They effectively can't accurately judge intent because a player will just always claim they were going for the ball and just missed by a lot, unless you get a Gaff style punch.

We said just a week ago that if SPP's was severe, what happens when we get a genuinely bad one. The MRO matrix may as well be scrapped, it's completely meaningless.

The AFL have backed themselves into a corner here where they have to hand out an enormous suspension. 6 won't feel like enough, but I think that's probably where they'll land.

If they give Webster 4, it's just racism against SPP, there's no other explanation for it.

I totally agree with this. There has been multiple instances of head high contact already this year that resulted in a free kick but no injury. All of these cases should be deemed careless, high contact and low impact. But the mro doesn’t even look at cases unless the resultant impact is high or severe. There are whole levels of the matrix that are just ignored, resulting in a jump from 0 - 3 or 4 games with nothing in between.

 

[JUSTWORK]

I bet they appeal too.

Doubt it, Ross Lyon has already stated publicly that Websters bump can’t be defended.

Makes appealing it a few days later.

 

[MrMeaner]

Oh absolutely. In South Australia at least, the law will usually make a distinction between recklessly or with intent, but you're still being charged under the same act and it's usually a fairly easy distinction to make. On a footy field you've got the complicating factor of a player basically always being able to argue that what he was doing was in play, even if the ball has been kicked away like in the Webster case.

IIRC, they used to have negligent, reckless and intentional. Where negligent was something like what SPP did, where you're making a footy play but you go in too hard and hurt someone. Reckless was more like what Webster did, where your action wasn't a reasonable play at the footy at all, then intentional was for off the ball strikes and things of that nature.

The issue we have now is that we've lost the granularity in the MRO matrix. They've done away with the 3 intent categories which means anything but an off the ball hit is now careless, and they've decreed that a concussion (or something that could cause one) must be severe impact so we're basically going to see the vast majority of reportable offences fall into careless/severe. What's the point of the MRO matrix if this is the standard?

People might argue that the MRO matrix doesn't matter because everything serious ends up at the tribunal anyway, but it does. Look at Maynard last year. Because it was graded careless, it was only a step down to non-reportable. If it had been graded reckless as it should have been under the old system, it's much harder for them to go from the middle tier of responsibility to nothing. Similarly, once SPP's incident is graded severe impact, you've got the AFL calling for an extra week to scapegoat SPP for the tribunal's failure on the Maynard case.

The MRO matrix needs an overhaul or to be scrapped and every case can go to the tribunal again.

This is the key for me. The MRO has always had way too much power in this system. Their decisions are often enough to make a reasonable observer go 'hmmm'.

 

[Powerade 08]

I totally agree with this. There has been multiple instances of head high contact already this year that resulted in a free kick but no injury. All of these cases should be deemed careless, high contact and low impact. But the mro doesn’t even look at cases unless the resultant impact is high or severe. There are whole levels of the matrix that are just ignored, resulting in a jump from 0 - 3 or 4 games with nothing in between.

The AFL have said in the past that they just go off reports from umpires and footage provided by the broadcasters. The broadcaster a lot of times is deciding who gets suspended and who gets off.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

In light of Webster’s foolhardy indiscretion, even David King is now saying maybe we went too hard on SPP. No **** Sherlock, if Sam’s was worth 4 (which it clearly isn’t), then Webster must take a 2 month hit at the bare minimum.

It's moments like these I wish there was a rolleyes button for Likes because that's what David King deserves.

 

[GremioPower]

Port should seek the Judiciary, if Webster gets 5 matches or fewer.

Six, as bad as it would still be, doesn’t give us a case.

We may not win, but I believe it would be heard.

 

[Janus]

It’s going to be amusing seeing the AFL and tribunal squirm out of asking for anything less than 7 week holiday for Webster.

 

[Wargreymon90]

I’m fine with 6-8

 

[Grave Danger]

It'll be six.

 

[VineValerian]

It's ******* annoying how everyone is coming out the woodwork now to say SPPs ban was too much.

A bit ******* late.

No doubt it is an AFL directive to help promote the fact that they aren't going to charge anyone else like they did SPP.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

MRO should be able to go back and re-address previous penalties, if the "natural evolution of society's expectations" a week or two later is that the initial suspension was excessive.
Thus Sam get 3 weeks instead of 4.
And Webster gets 6 weeks instead of 8, which people are now saying is too much.
Problem solved.

Thanks. The AFL can send me a cheque in the mail for solving their self inflicted dilemna.

 

[Buget]

It'll be six.

Although, I tend to agree. I did read something on the North’s board that the club is taking a very cautious approach and Simpkin could be out for 4 weeks or more.

Makes 6 week seem a little short. (A lot of assumption in this comment though)

 

[JayPea14]

Let's all just thank Jimmy Webster

29

Jimmy Webster

Age

31

Ht

188cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.7

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.8

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

288.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

(being a moron a week after SPP's incident) for either making the AFL system either show their true colours (5-6 weeks - being weak squibs that follow the media outrage) or force their hand to keep the image that they give a sh!t alive (8+ as it deserves on using SPP incident as a reference point)

 

[Ported]

Why do they keep calling it a 'split second decision'? Losing my mind.

I take less time to decide on breakfast than what Webster had.

 

[chiwigi]

Although, I tend to agree. I did read something on the North’s board that the club is taking a very cautious approach and Simpkin could be out for 4 weeks or more.

Makes 6 week seem a little short. (A lot of assumption in this comment though)

Now theres an interesting point.
Should it be 'missed games due to injury plus 2' or something like that.

 

[Poo Eckert]

4-6 would suggest this is equivalent; maybe only a little bit worse that what SPP did.

SPP was reacting to a player getting tackled into him and braced to protect himself.

Webster lined Simkin up, came in late after the ball was kicked, left the ground and bumped Simkin high.

Anything less than double what SPP got is a joke.

I only watched the SPP incident last night. Not sure what else is the guy supposed to do really, the AFL seems to have forgotten players need to protect themselves also. Unless he chooses not to enter the contest at all, which defeats the purpose of our game.

I wonder when soccer will ban heading the ball?

 

[Buget]

I only watched the SPP incident last night. Not sure what else is the guy supposed to do really, the AFL seems to have forgotten players need to protect themselves also. Unless he chooses not to enter the contest at all, which defeats the purpose of our game.

I wonder when soccer will ban heading the ball?

Doctors have recommended it.

 

[Grave Danger]

I only watched the SPP incident last night. Not sure what else is the guy supposed to do really, the AFL seems to have forgotten players need to protect themselves also. Unless he chooses not to enter the contest at all, which defeats the purpose of our game.

I wonder when soccer will ban heading the ball?

Let me know when boxing gets banned.

 

[Poo Eckert]

Let me know when boxing gets banned.

Yeah either we will genetically engineer iron skulls or contacts sports will be dead

 

[Ported]

Considering the AFL would feel they have carte blanche to change rules to protect against concussion, i'm surprised they haven't prohibited intentional contact against the ball carrier that isn't an attempted tackle. I'm aware Websters hit was late anyway, even if he didn't get him high.

Its rare that you see a player hip and shoulder the ball carrier, and when you do see it 99% of the time they look silly and should have just tackled. I guess it happens more on the boundary line to push the player over the line.

 

[tribey]

In light of Webster’s foolhardy indiscretion, even David King is now saying maybe we went too hard on SPP. No **** Sherlock, if Sam’s was worth 4 (which it clearly isn’t), then Webster must take a 2 month hit at the bare minimum.

There was zero common sense to it whatsoever.

Just a hysterical urge to make an example of the first player who happened to run afoul of the crusade:

• 4 weeks for instinctively protecting oneself in objectively extenuating circumstances;

versus

• lining up and actively headhunting a defenceless player with a hit that would’ve seen Byron given six-to-eight in 2005 lol.

‘CaReLeSs’.

 

[GremioPower]

If the incidents happened reversed (I mean, in order), SPP would get a 2-week Port-tax penalty. Webster would get 4 weeks, and life would go on.

We all know it.