2018 MRP and Tribunal


#21

I heard Christian on radio today. He said that it’s clear that the bump made some contact with the head. He also said that if the initial bump didn’t make contact with the head it wouldn’t have been suspended.


#22

And also, I actually reckon the AFL generally has got this one nearly right now; after a few years of ups and downs.

Bumping is part of the game. But running past the ball to bump someone in the head? Fark that. You do that and I reckon there should rightly be consequences for you.


#23

Umm, luckily they didn’t say anything like this?


#24

You know…


#25

Because of his post 3 up where he listened to the AFL guy say what he saw?


#26

Wrong inflection, but thank you.


#27

One can’t mull over and over a period of extended time decide what they would’ve done in that ultimate situation and as a consequence conclude what the player should’ve done on that basis. It’s fundamentally inconsistent on a time basis. Flawed.


#28

But that’s not what they did. They mulled over whether he hit him high. Then they decided whether or not he could have taken any other action, not whether they would have, or even if he should have.

Regardless, as I said, that’s not how any trial system works. If you contest a speeding fine, the judge doesn’t get told they have five seconds to make a decision because that’s how long you were speeding for.

On top of which, imagine if what you’re suggesting actually happened. Michael Christian gets shown one replay at full speed and has to issue a decision within say half a second. He decides it’s a dirty brutal hit, 4 weeks. Slow motion replay shows no high contact, and that the penalised player was actually shoved into his opponent by someone else. Too bad, 4 weeks? That sounds pretty ■■■■ to me.


#29

Douglas is challenging.


#30

not surprising. not risking extra week so it’s basically a free ($10k) swing.


#31

Do they still do the points/grading/intentional/reckless/early plea discount, etc stuff, or is it just Michael Christian determining “don’t like that - 1 week”?


#32

My understanding is the Crows are pretty tight on their FD spend cap so you wouldn’t want to cough up $10k too often


#33

there’s still a points system but it’s just Christian alone that assess the incidents. No discounts, no risking extra weeks to challenge.


#34

They’ve got plenty of cash and could easily cop the equalisation tax, especially if they got somebody off at some stage. There’ll be plenty of frivolous ones though.


#35

No. A speeding fine is based on an instantaneous reading against a threshold.

A player has a fraction of a second to decide what to do and may inadvertently/intentionally hit a head purely because the reveiver is also dynamic. One can’t conclude what the offending player should’ve done after minutes of review on each isolated independent case.


#36

Does anyone else think that players should be made to serve their ban against the team that was disadvantaged?

For example next time we play Adelaide, Douglas serves his week suspension. This would be a change I could get behind.

The only team that gets the advantage here is Richmond, Adelaide’s next opponents.

The only issue I see in this is if the player is about to retire, they may never do the time for their suspension.

Also would make finals more interesting, if Adelaide was through to the Grand Final and we were playing in a prelim, Douglas would be sweating on us getting through.


#37

So if a player gets 5 weeks does that mean they miss the next 5 years against that particular club?


#38

what if they retire.
Clubs could also organise rests etc around those particular teams.

Would also mean Andrew Dunkley would be able to play in the 1996 grand final and serve his suspension later…oh the AFL have already set precedent on that.

Imagine all the blokes Alistair Lynch could have belted in his final year.

But it is probably harsh if Douglas misses a final if we played one. due to something from rd 1.

Would mean there would be less likely to be suspensions in matches against two top 8 sides though.


#39

No!


#40

So if a player gets 5 weeks does that mean they miss the next 5 years against that particular club?

Yes. So WCE probably would never had to face Barry Hall ever again. Suspension would carry over to when he was playing for the Bulldogs.

If he got traded to WCE - then I don’t know what would happen. His suspension would be void? Probably doesn’t really work. Just an idea.