-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Dylan Grimes JDM
- Thread starter Baloo
- Start date
tigerlee said:
That's the thing, are they really that inconsistent? We'll have an incident and one group of supporters will claim it's too harsh and the other claims it's too lenient. Just like umpiring, same incident, but one group of supporters will think it's their free and the other will think it's theirs. The one thing I disagree with is basing penalties on how injured the other player gets. To me it should be all about intent. Sometimes there is great intent to hurt someone but they luckily land safely whereas another will be no intent at all but the player hits their head and gets concussed. That's where the lottery is at this stage, some really fair players hurt another player with no intent and get rubbed out. Very hard being an AFL player these days. Many I am sure would feel aggrieved at penalties they get for just playing the game as it is.
tigerlove said:
So you thought Houli was worth 2 and the MRP sent him to the Tribunal in anticipation of 4+. Sound argument.
They are all over the shop.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Huh? Tribunal gave him 2, not 4. AFL then appealed their AFL body's decision to be reviewed by another AFL body because of media-hyped public condemnation possibly due to being a Muslim and/or politicians getting nvolved (Bugg received nowhere near the same amount of media attraction even though it was much worse incident).
tigertim said:
And if he did he wouldn't have been suspended. But if he led with his fist then to me that would have been far more intentional. I don't believe he was trying to spoil the mark initially, he would have thought he was in for a chance to mark.
If our players had reacted as a group to remonstrate if not even give membry a few clips, then I reckon the Tribunal may have gone harder. Our boys just stood around looking for someone else to do something. Our guys didn't make a big deal of it at all.
Only Prestia stood tall and flew the flag (it was his best passage of play for the day).
Only Prestia stood tall and flew the flag (it was his best passage of play for the day).
tigerlove said:
MRP did not rule on Houli as they deemed it too serious for them to adjudicate on. The AFL's counsel subsequently argued that the penalty for intentional/high/high logically begins at 4. Therefore the MRP determined it was worth at least 4.
Tribunal should've called Gil or Simon Methfiend to check whether 2 was OK and saved everyone time and embarrassment.
The MRP is a mess.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:MRP did not rule on Houli as they deemed it too serious for them to adjudicate on. The AFL's counsel subsequently argued that the penalty for intentional/high/high logically begins at 4. Therefore the MRP determined it was worth at least 4.
Tribunal should've called Gil or Simon Methfiend to check whether 2 was OK and saved everyone time and embarrassment.
The MRP is a mess.
Houli deserved 2 imo. I don't agree that the conduct of hitting him in the head was intentional. In my view it would have been careless and high, 3 matches down to 2. But they classed it Intentional and High, probably because of the media focus. Remember this was the FIRST one to be passed to the tribunal for the year. Was this really the worst incident this year? It went to the tribunal and they gave him TWO weeks. The AFL intervened possible due to Eddie disgust (maybe he doesn't like Muslims or Waheed or Trunball, who knows) and it was reviewed by a hand-picked panel who turned it over into 4 games. This one was a media circus intervention decisison. Two weeks was adjudicated originally and that goes with my view of Careless and High, 3 weeks down to 2.
tigerlove said:
Yeah. According to you the MRP got it wrong and the Tribunal got it right (but for the wrong reasons).
This one got graded "low" impact (incidentally the week before they played Richmond).
http://www.goldcoastfc.com.au/news/2016-06-06/tom-lynch-charged-by-match-review-panel
The MRP is a cluster*smile*.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I agree th Houli case was totally stuffed up procedure-wise. Driven by the media! Not good. Lynch's incident, in line with what they've been dishing out for those type of incidents. Love tap to the gut, yep low impact. I think they need to stamp it out but in line with the guidelines. You do get rubbed out on the third incident of it's kind, maybe it should be on second.
tigerlove said:
You're old school and fair enough. I've got no problem with it if the MRP consistently treads lightly. But they don't, they wheel out "head is sacrosanct", "potential for serious injury" etc when it suits. It is a highly erratic process.
If there was any confidence in the system they'd allow the citing of precedent, but that would take away the AFL's power to manipulate outcomes.
You told us it would be 2. Wrong. MRP handed out 3 which is the maximum they are allowed to hand out. Reduced to 2 based on early plea.tigertim said:
tigerlove said:
So what determines the outcome and weeks penalty is the "media hype"; not the AFL's own constituted panels, policies and processes? I fully agree with you, and also that the first decision on Houli was right. Three down to two because of his impeccable record, and it was in play, with Lamb illegally holding him, which was ignored by the umpires!
But here exactly is the downfall of your case, and the reasons for so many objecting and complaining.
So Membrey got half as much as Houli did in the end, and in effect probably the same penalty as Grimes who was taken out of this match leaving the team a man down plus will most likely miss this week, because it's all run by the media? Who, in their non-reaction to Membrey's brutal smash of Dylan's head, behaved altogether differently over Houli?
I think it leaves some interesting conclusions to be logically drawn.
