MRP - Time for consistency

backit · Post: # 787231Post **backit** » Sun 02 Aug 2009 6:16pm

Just watching the Port v Hawks game and Rodan committed a bump on Xavier Ellis who was on the mark of Danyle Pearce nearly identical to the Zac Dawson incident. Rodan came from the back collecting Ellis aND Knocked Ellis down and out. The 7 commentators were quick to pick it up and mention the likeness to the Dawson incident and how Rodan could be in trouble.

Now to wait for something to be consistent from the MRP.

Nattens · Post: # 787236Post **Nattens** » Sun 02 Aug 2009 6:25pm

I noticed it to, very similar to the Dawson Bump. MRP should pick it up if they aren't completely useless.

desertsaint · Sun 02 Aug 2009 6:27pm

saw it and thought good stuff play on, as did the umps - very similar to the dawson incident - was it rodan tho? whoever it was is lucky they're not wearing red, white, and black!

derby Street · Sun 02 Aug 2009 7:29pm

Wasn't Rodan - but it was so close to Dawson it was frightening

I await how the MRP deal with it with great interest but little confidence in their consistency.

goodie · Post: # 787299Post **goodie** » Sun 02 Aug 2009 8:14pm

Nattens wrote:I noticed it to, very similar to the Dawson Bump. MRP should pick it up if they aren't completely useless.

Problem is they are

Mr Magic · Post: # 787306Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 02 Aug 2009 8:24pm

I think it was Matt Thomas

ace · Post: # 787673Post **ace** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 3:44pm

Matt Thomas plays for Port Adelaide.

Match Review Panel Chairman Andrew McKay came from Genelg before he interfered with the draft to get 10 clubs to skip him so he could go to Carlton.
See http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=54606

Thomas is history all civilised Adelaide hates Port Adelaide like all civilised Melbourne hates Collingwood.
AND McKay is a man of the highest integrity.

plugger66 · Post: # 787675Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 3:48pm

ace wrote:Matt Thomas plays for Port Adelaide.

Match Review Panel Chairman Andrew McKay came from Genelg before he interfered with the draft to get 10 clubs to skip him so he could go to Carlton.
See http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=54606

Thomas is history all civilised Adelaide hates Port Adelaide like all civilised Melbourne hates Collingwood.
AND McKay is a man of the highest integrity.

Off your head.

TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:00pm

Sorry guys, more worried about the MRP's verdict on Milney than the MRP's consistency on the above case.

bigcarl · Post: # 787681Post **bigcarl** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:03pm

if thomas doesn't go the club is entitled to an explanation and should seek one at the highest level. i also hope the media get hold of it and make an example of it.

doesn't matter so much what the rules are so long as they are enforced consistently.

TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:05pm

Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?

degruch · Post: # 787685Post **degruch** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:08pm

TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?

We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.

TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:12pm

degruch wrote:
TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.

Fair comment.

plugger66 · Post: # 787689Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:12pm

degruch wrote:
TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.

I havent seen the incident yet but is it exactly the same as the Zax incident. if it is he will go but if it is slightly different the guy could get off. Did you see it and if you did is it exactly the same. Having said that I really care what happens as it will not impact us and the Zac decision didnt matter to us either as we won both games

thirty-seven!? · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:12pm

Don't know where everyone got Rodan's name from - Definately Matt Thomas!

TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:13pm

plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.
I havent seen the incident yet but is it exactly the same as the Zax incident. if it is he will go but if it is slightly different the guy could get off. Did you see it and if you did is it exactly the same. Having said that I really care what happens as it will not impact us and the Zac decision didnt matter to us either as we won both games

You summed up what I was trying to say before. Thanks.

degruch · Post: # 787693Post **degruch** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:16pm

plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.
I havent seen the incident yet but is it exactly the same as the Zax incident. if it is he will go but if it is slightly different the guy could get off. Did you see it and if you did is it exactly the same. Having said that I really care what happens as it will not impact us and the Zac decision didnt matter to us either as we won both games

Didn't see it myself, but I'm pretty keen to. Anyone got some Youtube action? The point is, these things need to be scrutinised, the AFL and the MRP need to know they will be scrutinised. Whether we won or not it irrelevant, as it's not about the score.

plugger66 · Post: # 787695Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:21pm

degruch wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
We've had one of our best players sidelined for 2 weeks thanks to the MRP's ruling on this kind of play...we should be interested, and we should be asking questions of the MRP if no action is taken.
I havent seen the incident yet but is it exactly the same as the Zax incident. if it is he will go but if it is slightly different the guy could get off. Did you see it and if you did is it exactly the same. Having said that I really care what happens as it will not impact us and the Zac decision didnt matter to us either as we won both games
Didn't see it myself, but I'm pretty keen to. Anyone got some Youtube action? The point is, these things need to be scrutinised, the AFL and the MRP need to know they will be scrutinised. Whether we won or not it irrelevant, as it's not about the score.

It actually doesnt worry me and come GF day it will all be about the score. I will not care if one of our players gets reported for something he may not have done and our oponents dont get reported for something they may have done if we win the friggin thing. Anyway till i see it I will not be sure it is exactly the same as some people on here do sometimes see things through one eye.

bigcarl · Post: # 787696Post **bigcarl** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:21pm

degruch wrote:The point is, these things need to be scrutinised, the AFL and the MRP need to know they will be scrutinised.

agree. we've every right to expect consistency in their decisions otherwise where is the integrity of the competition?

at first glance they looked very similar, something remarked on by the commentators.

but i wouldn't mind another look at them because, as plugger says, there might be a technical reason why one is deemed worthy of a two week ban and the other is let pass.

degruch · Post: # 787699Post **degruch** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:24pm

bigcarl wrote:...there might be a technical reason why one is deemed worthy of a two week ban and the other is let pass.

Oh absolutely, and I'm sure there'll be varying opinions on how relevant the technicalities will be, but if not pinged by the MRP, it will be interesting to see if it is raised by the media at all.

Mr Magic · Post: # 787702Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:27pm

! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?

I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

desertsaint · Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:28pm

plugger66 wrote: It actually doesnt worry me and come GF day it will all be about the score. I will not care if one of our players gets reported for something he may not have done and our oponents dont get reported for something they may have done if we win the friggin thing...

and if it's a prelim? and it does impact on our ability to win the flag?
seriously plugger, all you are saying is you won't care as long as we win the GF - welcome to everyones world!

ace · Post: # 787704Post **ace** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:29pm

bigcarl wrote:
degruch wrote:The point is, these things need to be scrutinised, the AFL and the MRP need to know they will be scrutinised.

agree. we've every right to expect consistency in their decisions otherwise where is the integrity of the competition?

at first glance they looked very similar, something remarked on by the commentators.

but i wouldn't mind another look at them because, as plugger says, there might be a technical reason why one is deemed worthy of a two week ban and the other is let pass.

I noticed a big difference - Matt Thomas was not wearing a St Kilda guernsey.

plugger66 · Post: # 787706Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:30pm

Mr Magic wrote:! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?

I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

Is that one eye or two. If you think the player was running after Joey then it is one eye. He moved his body but was never running. As for the force well one came back onto the ground and I'm not sure if the other did.

bozza1980 · Post: # 787708Post **bozza1980** » Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:32pm

I for one hope he gets off.

It should not be a reportable offence and it was a joke that Dawson was suspended for a similar offence but for the good of the game I hope he remains the only player suspended (incorrectly) for this sort of bump.