-
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.
MRP 2015
- Thread starter Baloo
- Start date
mjb said:
That's not what the MRP report says. In the last para of that report it says he gets an extra week for bad record which takes it to 3 which can be reduced to 2 with an early guilty plea.
DirtyDogTiger said:
Yes
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf
DirtyDogTiger said:
This from the MRP report:
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, it was the view of the panel the incident should be classified as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. This offence was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has an applicable bad record which increases the penalty to a three-match sanction. An early plea can reduce the penalty to a two-match sanction.
But, from what I've been told, the "bad record" only applies to players who have been suspended for 2+ weeks. None of this makes any logical sense to me. The whole process needs a complete overhaul.
If you've got access to view highlights of the cats v roos game, near the end of the 3rd qtr (1:33 mins to go to be exact) number 43 for the roos (Sam Gibson?) steam rolls Joel Selwood.... possibly in retaliation to his chicken wing tackle before that. Intentional/deliberate and forceful contact with body to the head of Selwood who is laid out flat and looked in trouble for a bit and very lucky not to be concussed.... probably was slightly, but he eventually got up and played on - but the fact he wasn't officially ruled as concussed shouldn't diminish the seriousness of the bump.
It gets replayed in slo mo.
I defy anyone to defend this (in the current climate of rules) as not being worthy of report and having AT LEAST the same penalty Vickery got.
Yet it wasn't even reviewed as far as I can tell.
It gets replayed in slo mo.
I defy anyone to defend this (in the current climate of rules) as not being worthy of report and having AT LEAST the same penalty Vickery got.
Yet it wasn't even reviewed as far as I can tell.
They dodged a bullet with Priddis winning last year. Not risking embarrassment a second time.St Kevin said:
I actually got a reply to my email, Rosy, although from the membership dept.
It mentioned the fact that Vickery has a "bad record" and that Jamison left the field with concussion, and they didn't want to risk the three weeks if the appeal failed.
Which is fair enough I suppose, but I would hope that the club are voicing their opinion to the AFL instead of letting it slide
It mentioned the fact that Vickery has a "bad record" and that Jamison left the field with concussion, and they didn't want to risk the three weeks if the appeal failed.
Which is fair enough I suppose, but I would hope that the club are voicing their opinion to the AFL instead of letting it slide
Not the case at all rosy. The club might find it to be an appalling decision but unless they can make an evidence based case to counter the findings they would be wasting their time and giving Vickery an extra week.rosy23 said:
My biggest issue with the weekends MRP outcomes is that Fyfe, Mitchell and Adams actions were malicious and specifically intended to maim their opponent while Vickery 's intent was solely to block a player. How on earth does he then get the bigger suspension and his action seen by most as the bigger evil?!
