GT's view on the AFL MRP

[evertonfc]

From the Ninemsn website...

Confusion reigns supreme
30/06/2010 5:02:00 PM, Grant Thomas

The AFL can defend their position until the cows come home. Adrian Anderson denies any involvement whatsoever in any case stating "The AFL has never SOUGHT to influence the match review panel's view on the guilt or innocence or level of sanction for any player".

What a pathetic attempt to divorce and exonerate oneself from the heat.

Read the whole article:
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogid=4088

[ace]

From the Ninemsn website...

Confusion reigns supreme
30/06/2010 5:02:00 PM, Grant Thomas

The AFL can defend their position until the cows come home. Adrian Anderson denies any involvement whatsoever in any case stating "The AFL has never SOUGHT to influence the match review panel's view on the guilt or innocence or level of sanction for any player".

What a pathetic attempt to divorce and exonerate oneself from the heat.

Read the whole article:
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogid=4088

No need to "seek to influence" when you issue a direct instruction.

[Teflon]

From the Ninemsn website...

Confusion reigns supreme
30/06/2010 5:02:00 PM, Grant Thomas

The AFL can defend their position until the cows come home. Adrian Anderson denies any involvement whatsoever in any case stating "The AFL has never SOUGHT to influence the match review panel's view on the guilt or innocence or level of sanction for any player".

What a pathetic attempt to divorce and exonerate oneself from the heat.

Read the whole article:
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/Blog.aspx?blogid=4088

No need to "seek to influence" when you issue a direct instruction.

yep....Grant can be a flog of the highest and has his own axe to grind with Dimwit...but hes right.

[cowboy18]

The Rendell comments are intriguing.

It still reeks and doesn't make the administration's response any more palatable imo.

[SainterK]

Thanks for the link everton, haven't seen you on here lately...

[meher baba]

It's all true, but what do you do?

This is AFL 21st century style. Baker is too good at stopping star opponents from playing attractive football, so we embark on a 5 year campaign to rub him out of the game.

Meanwhile, there are no penalties applied to equally (or arguably more) violent acts by "marquee" players like Judd and J Riewoldt.

We are (insanely IMO) by expanding into rugby areas so we set up new tinpot teams which will have few spectators.

We then buy them rugby players who will be inept at AFL but who we think will attract fans because of name recognition and novelty value. And we pay these guys more than many of our game's elite players.

And we see a guy like Lenny Hayes go on telly and toe the party line say he's happy to be paid less than Israel Folau: even though he knows that Folau almost certainly will struggle to reach NSWFL standards, let alone AFL


In the minds of those who run the AFL today, it's ok to sacrifice the integrity of your product on the altar of marketing.

But watch out. That's the way Kevin Rudd and his coterie of pimply young West Wing wannabes saw things as well......

[StSteven]

+1 meher

[Mr Magic]

GT is telling the truth about what Matt Rendell said.
Rendell told other people at/around the Club the same thing - that he had been told by the AFL that they were out to get Baker.

[gringo]

I don't get why they see Baker as a big problem, he is no different to guys like Crouch and Carr, yet he seems to have had a stigma from his place as one of the first high profile taggers. Even guys like Aker slip a shifty fist in occasionally and guys like Mooney have it as a way of intimidating the defender but is let go. The AFL knows St kilda will not have media voice of high profile clubs. And they have no interest in protecting the brand like they do in Sydney and Brisbane. When Barry hall left for Sydney he was no different from when he was with us yet all of a sudden he had "controlled aggression". He still let his frustration get the better of him at times, but wasn't penalized relentlessly.

[rodgerfox]

I don't get why they see Baker as a big problem, he is no different to guys like Crouch and Carr, yet he seems to have had a stigma from his place as one of the first high profile taggers. Even guys like Aker slip a shifty fist in occasionally and guys like Mooney have it as a way of intimidating the defender but is let go. The AFL knows St kilda will not have media voice of high profile clubs. And they have no interest in protecting the brand like they do in Sydney and Brisbane. When Barry hall left for Sydney he was no different from when he was with us yet all of a sudden he had "controlled aggression". He still let his frustration get the better of him at times, but wasn't penalized relentlessly.

I must admit, I don't get it either.

And as I've said before, as for his 'track record', the AFL handed him that.

Up until the Farmer debacle, he'd only missed 7 matches through suspension over nearly 10 years.

And, in cluded in those 7 weeks were the farcical 'attempted jumper punch' and the 'kick' on Alessio's leg.

Both a complete joke. So as for his 'history' that resulted in the 9 week flogging, the 'history' itself is probably more farcial than the latest suspension.

[Mr Magic]

The reason given to Rendell was quite simple.

They didn't want vision of their most marketable players resorting to retaliatory strikes/elbows (insert the name Judd). Therefore they were going to get rid of what they considered the source.

It also came, I believe, not long after the game vs Carlton where Baker hit Murphy a few times and was charged twice?

[Thinline]

I don't get why they see Baker as a big problem, he is no different to guys like Crouch and Carr, yet he seems to have had a stigma from his place as one of the first high profile taggers. Even guys like Aker slip a shifty fist in occasionally and guys like Mooney have it as a way of intimidating the defender but is let go. The AFL knows St kilda will not have media voice of high profile clubs. And they have no interest in protecting the brand like they do in Sydney and Brisbane. When Barry hall left for Sydney he was no different from when he was with us yet all of a sudden he had "controlled aggression". He still let his frustration get the better of him at times, but wasn't penalized relentlessly.

I must admit, I don't get it either.

And as I've said before, as for his 'track record', the AFL handed him that.

Up until the Farmer debacle, he'd only missed 7 matches through suspension over nearly 10 years.

And, in cluded in those 7 weeks were the farcical 'attempted jumper punch' and the 'kick' on Alessio's leg.

Both a complete joke. So as for his 'history' that resulted in the 9 week flogging, the 'history' itself is probably more farcial than the latest suspension.

Concur unequivocally.

Carr, Hall, Picken, Jack, Mooney, Ling, Mitchell, Brennan, Brown, Kosi, O'Bree, O'Brien...If you put your mind to it there's about a million players who flirt with the edge of the rules by being overtly physical.

Baker is but one...

And as you point out, really, Baker's REAL record is hardly mind-bogglingly violent...

Very odd.

But what can do...