2018 MRP MRO and Tribunal stuff


Him and Pyke want to run the joint like a cult. They got this mind control bloke in to bend the players mind and hatched the “Crow stare” for the finals. Anyone not agreeing with Tex is put on the outer and they wonder why players keep leaving them.


The difference 1 game makes. They win the flag and 17 other teams go full cult.


Wait that preseason cult thing was his idea?!


tex is that guy that threw a chair at someone in highschool then you see them 10 years later and they’re knocking door 2 door as a Jehovah’s witness.


What the heck? And the Crows actually want that at their club?


Nice idea, but unworkable. Others have already mentioned the idea of retiring before the suspension is served. There is also the distinct possibility that the culprit could also be injured next time the two teams are due to meet. Would missing a game stand as penalty for time served? At the moment, injured players can serve their suspension at the same time, but your idea would confuse this issue even further.


Did have the thought that using a player ratings system, if anyone’s reported for an act that leads to a player unable to continue,… a player equally ranked from their team is dismissed from taking any further part as well.

Perhaps selected by an independent arbiter, as to rating, and impact thus far in the match etc.


It was coming immediately following GF day… huge implosion imminent.


A lot of creative ideas for suspending players to compensate the adversely affected team, why not just bring in the sin bin and take a player off and make them play a man down.

Now that would make players more careful.

Nothing’s perfect, but if you really want players heads protected, that would encourage it if red cards were given out for concussing an opposition player unless it was plain as day it was an accident.

Mistakes are always made by umpires and off field officials reviewing video, but if you are going to make mistakes it might as well be in the name of a measure that would make it an absolute priority to protect the head of an opposition player.

In case it became a thing to draw head contact to create the possibility of getting the opposition one man down, I also wouldn’t be against suspending players who blatantly put their own head at risk, eg the Selwood knee drop, or in any other way not protecting their own head where it is possible.

The AFL is being sued by players with concussion injuries which are causing brain damage, anything they can do to prevent players getting brain damage is warranted.


I don’t reckon this was a snipe, though. He went and made a reasonable(ish) attempt to get him body on body - and missed.
Now he took the option to bump, so if he gets the head, that’s on him. (And I think the week is about right for an almost-OK-but-just-a-bit-high bump.)

But let’s not pretend this was a pure, dirty headshot, it was far from that.


Laughing at it hasn’t ever helped me.


No doubt a lot of sniping does go on in games. Some players are good at disguising it.


It wasn’t high on the snipe scale, but: a)he could have made the ball his object, and didn’t. And b) you can work backwards from the end result (got him high) to figure out if there was a risk of that happening. Clearly, there was! Call it what you like, we don’t need people doing what Douglas did. I wouldn’t want my kid getting whacked like zerrett dud, and I wouldn’t Want him dishing it out, either.


The whack in Zerret’s gob, meant that his head was Douglas’s objective on some level.

Zerrett’s cheap tap on the back of the head after tackling Douglas clearly inspired Douglas’s actions. Douglas might have hoped his hip bump was a little cleaner, but definitely not doing his utmost to avoid the head.


Do you trust them to get the implementation right? Nope. Keep it simple for those down in Reboot-land.


That was always going to be the argument against, but a team often loses a player to a cheap shot, who can take no further part in the game and that is not only unfair, ultimately it can be life crippling.

Unfortunately dealing with the injustice of poor decisions is preferable if it reduces both head injuries and star players being taken out during games.

Soccer is not always fair, but red cards are an accepted part of the game and it would be the same in AFL once it was established.

The AFL wouldn’t like the bad press for taking players off if it was a howler of a decision, their aversion to bad media would be some protection as they wouldn’t be able to keep terrible decisions out of the headlines as it would be irresistible clickbait.


On this idea, would have thought you could further reduce the effects or instances of bad decisions (and staging) by matching whatever happens to the injured player.

If they come straight back on, so does the offender. If they take the 20 minute concussion protocol and then are back in, same again. This would also give the video referee a chance to review it further for intent/accidental contact and provide more work to do than just stuffing up basic scoring decisions.

Then let the tribunal decide if it is suspension worthy.


Everything’s perfectly black and white?
5 weeks for any head contact, no questions asked?


Not black and white. I said in the "they got juggernauted"thread that I thought 1 week about right, and that it wasn’t high on the sniping scale ( but it is on there imo, that’s all).


1 week for Caddy and fines for Nankervis and Fogarty