Kosi 4 weeks from Match Review Panel

[Thinline]

Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

With due respect I reckon that's plain silly. Through whose eyes do you watch?

[Mr Magic]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

Kennedy should have gone but Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

There are mistakes with this system but like everything else we only remember the now. There were plenty more mistakes under the old system so I am unsure what system they should use. I'd rather this one because at least you see the reason why you get a certain amount of weeks.

Any system that removes 'grey' and replaces it with black/white' has to be better.

My concerns with Monkey Boy's gee-whizz bang system is that whilst the penalties side has been gnerally 'cleaned up', the deliberations on what is/isn't a reportable offense has become a system more resembling chooklotto than an open judiciary.
Please explain, in light of the vision now shown publicly, how the MRP could publish their reasons for not charging Kennedy and even worse, Dimwit and Monkey Boy spoke publicly a number of times last week to reaffirm the correctness of the decision?

I'd really love to know how the decision, published reasons, and vision can be reconciled.

And given the outcry over it last week, I cannot in good faith accept 'a mistake' as a valid reason.
If it was just 'a mistake' then why not admit it instead of publicly trying to validate it?

Well have you got a better system. The NRL use this sytem as well. Even though you like using those really funny names I am sure Anderson and AD would have a better sytem if there was one available. By the way you better ask those 2 why they said those things. I dont see how I would know. I am just a Saints supporter.

I thought you were their official mouthpiece on saintsational.com?

If the system is wrong, why not just admit it and try and figure out a way to make it better?
Why go to the trouble of defending something that is patently obviously incorrect (the MRP published reasoning on Kennedy)?
Surely the only thing that achieves is make everybody look even more critically at it?

Last year teh AFL (Dimwit and Monkey Boy) felt so strongly about Maxwell 'getting off' at teh ZTribunal, they changed the rules over it.
Isn't Sylvia's broken jaw enough of an embarrasment for tehm to have publicly come out and said the reasoning behind the decision was wrong?

You see plugger, this is the problem with your masters. They are so inconsistent in their actions and words.

Nobody really knows what's legit anymore in the bumping/shepherding rule (according to all teh 'experts' I've heard on teh matter).

[plugger66]

The visoin of the Kennedy/Sylvia incident as shown last night seems to cast the MRP's published reasons for their decision as nonsensical.

'Kennedy did not travel far' - at least 10-20 metres
'Kennedy had no oprion' - he could have shepherded instead of bumping

In light of the vision, it was a disgraceful decision by the MRP.


As for the Hille/Bartel decision, it was obviously made by the ex-umpire on the panel.
IMHO no ex-player could state, with a straight face, that at the point of Hille's contact to Bartel he (Hille) was attempting a chest mark.

I repeat that I think Kosi deserved to be rubbed out for his incident, but how on earth these other 2 also weren't rubbed out is what, again IMO, makes the MRP/Tribunal system a 'lottery'.

Kennedy should have gone but Hille was definitely going for the mark and then realised he couldnt get there and turned his body so his face didnt hit the other players shoulder. having played footy and umpired heaps I would expect any player trying to save his face from smashing into the back of another to do the same thing.

There are mistakes with this system but like everything else we only remember the now. There were plenty more mistakes under the old system so I am unsure what system they should use. I'd rather this one because at least you see the reason why you get a certain amount of weeks.

Any system that removes 'grey' and replaces it with black/white' has to be better.

My concerns with Monkey Boy's gee-whizz bang system is that whilst the penalties side has been gnerally 'cleaned up', the deliberations on what is/isn't a reportable offense has become a system more resembling chooklotto than an open judiciary.
Please explain, in light of the vision now shown publicly, how the MRP could publish their reasons for not charging Kennedy and even worse, Dimwit and Monkey Boy spoke publicly a number of times last week to reaffirm the correctness of the decision?

I'd really love to know how the decision, published reasons, and vision can be reconciled.

And given the outcry over it last week, I cannot in good faith accept 'a mistake' as a valid reason.
If it was just 'a mistake' then why not admit it instead of publicly trying to validate it?

Well have you got a better system. The NRL use this sytem as well. Even though you like using those really funny names I am sure Anderson and AD would have a better sytem if there was one available. By the way you better ask those 2 why they said those things. I dont see how I would know. I am just a Saints supporter.

I thought you were their official mouthpiece on saintsational.com?

If the system is wrong, why not just admit it and try and figure out a way to make it better?
Why go to the trouble of defending something that is patently obviously incorrect (the MRP published reasoning on Kennedy)?
Surely the only thing that achieves is make everybody look even more critically at it?

Last year teh AFL (Dimwit and Monkey Boy) felt so strongly about Maxwell 'getting off' at teh ZTribunal, they changed the rules over it.
Isn't Sylvia's broken jaw enough of an embarrasment for tehm to have publicly come out and said the reasoning behind the decision was wrong?

You see plugger, this is the problem with your masters. They are so inconsistent in their actions and words.

Nobody really knows what's legit anymore in the bumping/shepherding rule (according to all teh 'experts' I've heard on teh matter).

Your the one saying it is wrong not me. You think of a better system. i am happy with this one even though there are mistakes. By the way those names are soooo funny.

By the way I dont see where I have defended the Kennedy decision but if you want to make things up so you get support for your arguement go ahead.

[SainterK]

See the trouble is, is that the MRP says there are no precedents, that every case is judged on it's merit.

While that may be true internally, surely they know that externally, every bump or head high contact this year is going to be compared to the examples that have already taken place in 2010.

No point denying it, if they are inconsistent, they will continue to look foolish.

[Mr Magic]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

[plugger66]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I've only read a few of the early responses to this post, but I guess you're not allowed to lay a shepherd any more? You can now get in trouble for clearing a path for one of your team-mates to get the ball. How ridiculous. It makes a whole lot more sense to me for Kosi to have done what he did (except for the hitting him in the head part) and let BJ get the ball, with a clear path, rather than Kosi grab the ball and get tackled.
I reckon it blows (is "blows" OK, p66?), but that's the rule and Kosi got what I expected, but what the f*** are Hille and Kennedy doing getting off?
Hille clearly dropped the shoulder into the guys head (even Hird agreed he was lucky) and Kennedy bumped someone high and broke their jaw, which was supposed to be a big no-no.
This is mystifying, except for the part where our bloke gets weeks. When are we going to be on the end of one of these ridiculously good calls at the tribunal?
Our blokes go up and they get weeks and weeks.

[Mr Magic]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

You're correct - you're not debating anything.
You're just happy to accept that mistakes will occur becasue you believe there is no better system.

The only thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to jump on here and defend every AFL wrong decision with 'mistakes happen'?
I can understand you springing to their defense when you think that the decision was correct and they are being unfairly targetted, but why when even you admit that the decision is wrong?

Surely the AFL is big enough and strong enough to cop criticism for wrong decisions from meaningless internet football forums?

[plugger66]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

You're correct - you're not debating anything.
You're just happy to accept that mistakes will occur becasue you believe there is no better system.

The only thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to jump on here and defend every AFL wrong decision with 'mistakes happen'?
I can understand you springing to their defense when you think that the decision was correct and they are being unfairly targetted, but why when even you admit that the decision is wrong?

Surely the AFL is big enough and strong enough to cop criticism for wrong decisions from meaningless internet football forums?

When did i defend the Kennedy decision. i got on here to say Kosi got what he deserved. I still havent seen your better system. You could make a fortune if you release it. Also have you had a chance to speak to AD or AA about the current mistakes?

[Mr Magic]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

You're correct - you're not debating anything.
You're just happy to accept that mistakes will occur becasue you believe there is no better system.

The only thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to jump on here and defend every AFL wrong decision with 'mistakes happen'?
I can understand you springing to their defense when you think that the decision was correct and they are being unfairly targetted, but why when even you admit that the decision is wrong?

Surely the AFL is big enough and strong enough to cop criticism for wrong decisions from meaningless internet football forums?

When did i defend the Kennedy decision. i got on here to say Kosi got what he deserved. I still havent seen your better system. You could make a fortune if you release it. Also have you had a chance to speak to AD or AA about the current mistakes?

Why would I need to speak with Dimwit or Monkey Boy?
Surely with you here as their spokesperson it would be superfluous?

All jokes aside, why do you believe it is reasonable to just accept 'mistakes' as being the end of the story?
Why aren't you willing to look for improvements so that these mistakes are lessened or even eradicated?

Also, why keep bringing up that the NRL use the same system?
They throw the ball around - should we adopt that as well?
What other rules/systems have they got that we should be using?

[plugger66]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

You're correct - you're not debating anything.
You're just happy to accept that mistakes will occur becasue you believe there is no better system.

The only thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to jump on here and defend every AFL wrong decision with 'mistakes happen'?
I can understand you springing to their defense when you think that the decision was correct and they are being unfairly targetted, but why when even you admit that the decision is wrong?

Surely the AFL is big enough and strong enough to cop criticism for wrong decisions from meaningless internet football forums?

When did i defend the Kennedy decision. i got on here to say Kosi got what he deserved. I still havent seen your better system. You could make a fortune if you release it. Also have you had a chance to speak to AD or AA about the current mistakes?

Why would I need to speak with Dimwit or Monkey Boy?
Surely with you here as their spokesperson it would be superfluous?

All jokes aside, why do you believe it is reasonable to just accept 'mistakes' as being the end of the story?
Why aren't you willing to look for improvements so that these mistakes are lessened or even eradicated?

Also, why keep bringing up that the NRL use the same system?
They throw the ball around - should we adopt that as well?
What other rules/systems have they got that we should be using?

As i have said before I cant come up with a new system and dont mind this one especially compared to old one. That is your job as you are the one who is extremely worried by it. Again those names are sooo funny.

I brought up the NRL as they are second biggest sport in Australia and they use it as well. Are you saying both sports are incompetent with tribunal systems and just couldnt be bothered having a better system. Have you actually thought there isnt a better system unless of course yours is but you will not release it on us.

[Mr Magic]

I notice you didn't deny being the 'AFL plant' on saintsational!!!!!!

Forget the nonsense, how about debating the real issue here - the seeming inability for the AFL to accept that a decision was incorrect/wrong/a mistake/ridiculous (insert whichever adjective you prefer).

Your acceptance of it as
'a mistake'
so what, they happen
does not constitute (in my belief) an argument/discussion/debate on teh matter.
Surely the first thing that needs to be done, before a better system can be devised and then implemented is for the authorities to accept that not every decision handed down by the MRP is correct?
The 'stick your head in the sand' attitude currently being displayed means that they are happy to accept that the MRP will have 'mistakes' and there is no need to try and improve the system?

Why is that attitude acceptable?

Every other part of the game is striving for improvement and yet we seemingly have the judiciary being confirmed as 'near enough is good enough'.

What am I debating. Is it that the AFL will not accept they made a mistake. How can I debate that. You need to debate that on the radio with AA or AD. If you are a smart man you may be able to come up with a system that never makes mistakes. If you do then you can then go to the NRL and they can use it as well.

You're correct - you're not debating anything.
You're just happy to accept that mistakes will occur becasue you believe there is no better system.

The only thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to jump on here and defend every AFL wrong decision with 'mistakes happen'?
I can understand you springing to their defense when you think that the decision was correct and they are being unfairly targetted, but why when even you admit that the decision is wrong?

Surely the AFL is big enough and strong enough to cop criticism for wrong decisions from meaningless internet football forums?

When did i defend the Kennedy decision. i got on here to say Kosi got what he deserved. I still havent seen your better system. You could make a fortune if you release it. Also have you had a chance to speak to AD or AA about the current mistakes?

Why would I need to speak with Dimwit or Monkey Boy?
Surely with you here as their spokesperson it would be superfluous?

All jokes aside, why do you believe it is reasonable to just accept 'mistakes' as being the end of the story?
Why aren't you willing to look for improvements so that these mistakes are lessened or even eradicated?

Also, why keep bringing up that the NRL use the same system?
They throw the ball around - should we adopt that as well?
What other rules/systems have they got that we should be using?

As i have said before I cant come up with a new system and dont mind this one especially compared to old one. That is your job as you are the one who is extremely worried by it. Again those names are sooo funny.

I brought up the NRL as they are second biggest sport in Australia and they use it as well. Are you saying both sports are incompetent with tribunal systems and just couldnt be bothered having a better system. Have you actually thought there isnt a better system unless of course yours is but you will not release it on us.

Forget all the glib sarcasm and let's discuss the real issue here.

Should we, as followers of the game, be happy and content with a system that appears to acept 'mistakes'?
Because that is what appears to be happening given the 'defense' of the 'Kennedy decision' being put out by the architects of this MRP/Tribunal system (and btw there are many seemingly inconsistancies in the NRL version as well).

Maybe if I was getting paid the money that those entrusted with inventing, arranging and implementing the system were, then I could be expected to come up with something better?
But given I'm not, surely it's not unreasonable for me, and others, to expect those that are being paid the big bucks, to admit there are 'mistakes' and at least try to come up with a better system?

Is that too much to expect from those employed 9and entrusted) with ruinning the game?

[St DAC]

I too think the Kennedy and Hille decisions were incorrect. But as long as I can remember (back to the middle sixties at least) tribunal decisions have been argued about. This system to my tired eyes is no worse than the old one (AKA chooklotto) and is at least reasonably transparent in the decision making process. Where I disagree is usually with how incidents are classified, ala Kennedy. Once the classifications are done it's usually then an arithmetic formulae as to what penalty is subscribed.

Under the current rules I reckon Kosi got his right whack. That shepherd was reckless, and clearly hit Malceski in the head. You can't do that anymore, and every player should know that.

Kennedy and Hille didn't get their right whack, and IMO were extremely lucky to get off. But that's footy.

[Mr Magic]

I too think the Kennedy and Hille decisions were incorrect. But as long as I can remember (back to the middle sixties at least) tribunal decisions have been argued about. This system to my tired eyes is no worse than the old one (AKA chooklotto) and is at least reasonably transparent in the decision making process. Where I disagree is usually with how incidents are classified, ala Kennedy. Once the classifications are done it's usually then an arithmetic formulae as to what penalty is subscribed.

Under the current rules I reckon Kosi got his right whack. That shepherd was reckless, and clearly hit Malceski in the head. You can't do that anymore, and every player should know that.

Kennedy and Hille didn't get their right whack, and IMO were extremely lucky to get off. But that's footy.

So we should just accept wrong decisions (Kennedy) as mistakes and move on to the next week where there may well be further 'mistakes' occur?

That's my problem.
The defense of these 'mistakes' by the custodians of our game.
They refuse point blank to admit that these 'mistakes' occur, so there is no hope of the system ever being fixed?

That's the issue to my mind.
Take the players involved out of the discussion.

[plugger66]

I too think the Kennedy and Hille decisions were incorrect. But as long as I can remember (back to the middle sixties at least) tribunal decisions have been argued about. This system to my tired eyes is no worse than the old one (AKA chooklotto) and is at least reasonably transparent in the decision making process. Where I disagree is usually with how incidents are classified, ala Kennedy. Once the classifications are done it's usually then an arithmetic formulae as to what penalty is subscribed.

Under the current rules I reckon Kosi got his right whack. That shepherd was reckless, and clearly hit Malceski in the head. You can't do that anymore, and every player should know that.

Kennedy and Hille didn't get their right whack, and IMO were extremely lucky to get off. But that's footy.

So we should just accept wrong decisions (Kennedy) as mistakes and move on to the next week where there may well be further 'mistakes' occur?

That's my problem.
The defense of these 'mistakes' by the custodians of our game.
They refuse point blank to admit that these 'mistakes' occur, so there is no hope of the system ever being fixed?

That's the issue to my mind.
Take the players involved out of the discussion.

Life is full of mistakes. It is humans in charge, it will always happen. As I have mentioned the NRL and the AFL use the system. Maybe you think they delibrately dont want a better system. I prefer to think that as much as they try there isnt a better system. Does that mean we accept it. Probably as there doesnt seem that anyone can think of a better option. Soccer certainly doesnt have a better option and thats the biggest game in the world.

[St DAC]

I'm not arguing there's no room for improvement; obviously there is plenty. And I agree that the powers that be should be more willing to accept when their decisions are blatantly wrong.

But in this regard Plugger is right; it's an imperfect world we live in, and always will be. Incorrect adjudications in other forums (legal, political, social) exist and always will, and the MRP will be imperfect too.

You can choose (not you personally MM) to be bitter over it, or not. I've got better things to be concerned about.

[Bernard Shakey]

I'm not arguing there's no room for improvement; obviously there is plenty. And I agree that the powers that be should be more willing to accept when their decisions are blatantly wrong.

But in this regard Plugger is right; it's an imperfect world we live in, and always will be. Incorrect adjudications in other forums (legal, political, social) exist and always will, and the MRP will be imperfect too.

You can choose (not you personally MM) to be bitter over it, or not. I've got better things to be concerned about.

+1

[Mr Magic]

I'm not arguing there's no room for improvement; obviously there is plenty. And I agree that the powers that be should be more willing to accept when their decisions are blatantly wrong.

But in this regard Plugger is right; it's an imperfect world we live in, and always will be. Incorrect adjudications in other forums (legal, political, social) exist and always will, and the MRP will be imperfect too.

You can choose (not you personally MM) to be bitter over it, or not. I've got better things to be concerned about.

I accept that the 'bitter' comment is not dirested at me, and I also accept that there will always be mistakes.
What I cannot accept is this defestist attitude that we shouldn't strive to make a system better because 'there will always be mistakes'.

Why don't we apply that same logic to other parts of the game?
We should just accept mediocre performances from players and not demand improvement?
We should just accept mediocre performances from umpires and not demand improvement?
We should just accept mediocre performances from administrators and not demand improvement?

Where do you draw the line on accepting of 'mistakes'?

Who says that the AFL and NRL have the system correct?
I'll bet those running the AFL prior to this current administration felt that the Tribunal system they had in place was fine too?

If there hadn't been a directive from the authorities not to show the vision last week, do you think there wouldn't have been a much bigger public outcry over the Kennedy decision than there was?
Whose interests were being served by the AFL instructing the Media and Clubs not to broadcast the vision?

It is quite appartent that the vision shows a completely ridiculous decision was reached by the MRP and yet hte AFL heavies went out of their way last week to try and explain why the decision was correct, in the knowledge that nobody was going to see the actual footage.

And to repeat, my angst is with this attempt to gloss over the terrible decision of the MRP by Demetriou and Anderson as much as the ridiculous machinations that the MRP obviously went through to reach the published reasons for their decision.

If it's not perfect it can always be improved.
But to improve it you first of all have to admit that there is something wrong.

[St DAC]

I can't and won't argue against any of your points MM. You are completely correct; the current system is imperfect, the AFL won't admit it, and don't appear to be trying to improve it. It annoys me too.

In fact, the Baker suspension (7 weeks for stopping running) had me incensed. Completely and utterly unreasonable IMO. I was furious.

And yet, the Saints played sans Baker the next week. The earth still turned. My cat still liked me. All my anger at that decision did was ruin my good humour. No one else (other than fellow Saints) seemed to care, and life went on.

I'm much calmer about these things now.

So, if it annoys you that much, by all means bellow your angst. Have at it. IMO it won't change a thing, but you may be better at influencing the AFL that I am (wouldn't be difficult). I wish you all good luck in your quest.

[busso mick]

As a contrast to to the Kosi incident there was a player who got 3 weeks in the NRL last weekend for busting another players jaw in a head high tackle. In comparison Kosis effort looks like handbags at 5 paces. Different code and it appears like a different punishment. If it was the AFL this would have been between 8 to 10 weeks at a guess.

I don't have the video (which I have seen on TV) but the article is linked below.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... 89556.aspx

[Dr Spaceman]

Let's see if we can keep this going til Kosi gets back!

[santazzi]

I can't and won't argue against any of your points MM. You are completely correct; the current system is imperfect, the AFL won't admit it, and don't appear to be trying to improve it. It annoys me too.

In fact, the Baker suspension (7 weeks for stopping running) had me incensed. Completely and utterly unreasonable IMO. I was furious.

And yet, the Saints played sans Baker the next week. The earth still turned. My cat still liked me. All my anger at that decision did was ruin my good humour. No one else (other than fellow Saints) seemed to care, and life went on.

I'm much calmer about these things now.

So, if it annoys you that much, by all means bellow your angst. Have at it. IMO it won't change a thing, but you may be better at influencing the AFL that I am (wouldn't be difficult). I wish you all good luck in your quest.

Good to hear you have your humour about you.......reading the posts by various in this thread I detect a kind of simmering angst which says "Why are the Saints so rarely beneficiaries of MRP mistake????"......I may be wrong I just feel it.....