MRP - Time for consistency
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
MRP - Time for consistency
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.
Now to wait for something to be consistent from the MRP.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
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.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
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.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
Off your head.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.![]()
![]()
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2009 12:48pm
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
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.
doesn't matter so much what the rules are so long as they are enforced consistently.
Last edited by bigcarl on Mon 03 Aug 2009 4:17pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2009 12:48pm
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2009 12:48pm
Fair comment.degruch wrote: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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
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 gamesdegruch wrote: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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Tue 16 Dec 2008 10:20pm
- Location: Melbourne
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed 22 Jul 2009 12:48pm
You summed up what I was trying to say before. Thanks.plugger66 wrote: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 gamesdegruch wrote: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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
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 wrote: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 gamesdegruch wrote: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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
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.degruch wrote: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 wrote: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 gamesdegruch wrote: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 wrote:Seriously, what's the point in worrying about things you can't control?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
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.bigcarl wrote:...there might be a technical reason why one is deemed worthy of a two week ban and the other is let pass.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12775
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 785 times
- Been thanked: 425 times
! 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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
and if it's a prelim? and it does impact on our ability to win the flag?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...
seriously plugger, all you are saying is you won't care as long as we win the GF - welcome to everyones world!
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
I noticed a big difference - Matt Thomas was not wearing a St Kilda guernsey.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.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
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.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.