Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints

[plugger66]

You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.

The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shite

Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse

In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????

If you do the crime you should do the time .... period

You could easily argue that If Barry Hall did the same damage to a player as Nick Reiwoldt that they dont deserve the same amount of weeks. Surely that is fair. It happens in law.

[Devilhead]

Mickey mouse organization, Mickey mouse decision. Once again the AFL are shown up as the most amateurish sports org in the professional world. Rugby league is run better in regards to the running of the actual sport, rather than the sideshow around it.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.

Well he did get 5 weeks. And you realise we have pretty much the same system as the NRL. Can you give us rundown of how the NRL is run as you know it is run better than the AFL. I will go out on a very short limb and say it is the best run professional sport in Australia. Ring Patrick Smith tomorrow. An AFL apologist he is not and suggest it is the worst run sport in Australia. My guess is he would say it is the best run. By the way he hates the MRP so you will on common ground there.

Why should players get a reduced sentence because they have a good record???

[Devilhead]

You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.

The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shite

Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse

In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????

If you do the crime you should do the time .... period

You could easily argue that If Barry Hall did the same damage to a player as Nick Reiwoldt that they dont deserve the same amount of weeks. Surely that is fair. It happens in law.

Why is it fair??

[SainterK]

What's crazy is he admitted on the football show 'I didn't mean to hurt him that much'

Which makes it intentional doesn't it?

[plugger66]

The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shite

Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse

In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????

If you do the crime you should do the time .... period

You could easily argue that If Barry Hall did the same damage to a player as Nick Reiwoldt that they dont deserve the same amount of weeks. Surely that is fair. It happens in law.

Why is it fair??

Because you havent been reported. If you get reported every game you come back are you suggesting they just keep giving you the same penalty. Why dont courts do that? because they are breaking the rules more often than others so there is an extra penalty.

[Devilhead]

Because you havent been reported. If you get reported every game you come back are you suggesting they just keep giving you the same penalty. Why dont courts do that? because they are breaking the rules more often than others so there is an extra penalty.

But why the reduced penalty for a good record??

Where is the sense in that??

[Moods]

What junk if it Baker would of got 10

That's the thing about the system though. Bakes had a horrific record so instead of getting discounts, he was loaded up. In isolation I thought that Bakes was targeted by the MRP. There was only one hit on Johnson that was deserving of weeks. The rest was BS - but that's the system. If a player consistently comes up before the tribunal then they should be punished further. The old system judged each incident on it's merit, so a bloke like Brereton would often be getting 4 weeks for an incident where he should have got 7!

I like it. It's not perfect. Wellingham deserved some sort of discount for his clean record. 5 down to 3 does seem very generous. However our systen of law also applies heavy discounts to those who plea early and also have little if any criminal history. I personally think that Wellingham deserved 4 weeks for what he did, and I got the feeling that Buckley did as well by his comments.

Seems unbelievable though that a player of N. Riewoldts character and standing in the game with 200 games of a clean record still got rubbed out last year for a couple of weeks for essentially a player running into him. Yet Wellingham lines someone up and breaks his jaw and gets only one more week. I still reckon the system when looked at in it's entirety is far better than the old one though.

[SainterK]

Because you havent been reported. If you get reported every game you come back are you suggesting they just keep giving you the same penalty. Why dont courts do that? because they are breaking the rules more often than others so there is an extra penalty.

But why the reduced penalty for a good record??

Where is the sense in that??

He doesn't so much have a good record, as just hasn't been playing that long

[plugger66]

Because you havent been reported. If you get reported every game you come back are you suggesting they just keep giving you the same penalty. Why dont courts do that? because they are breaking the rules more often than others so there is an extra penalty.

But why the reduced penalty for a good record??

Where is the sense in that??

Well you said you wanted the same penalty if it was the same incident. That would suggest you dont want loading for a poor record either. I still say you should get a reduced penalty for a good record especially in this day and age when even a very fair player can accidentally done the wrong thing. Lets face it there are so many more ways to be reported than years a go and if you have been a good boy for 10 years you deserve a reduced penalty. I dont like the guilty reduced penalty though especially with the very obvious ones.

[sunsaint]

You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.

The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shite

Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse

In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????

If you do the crime you should do the time .... period

of course repeat offenders should be penalised more, and I will say it again the wellingham incident was "in play"
the other incident, off the ball, and you have obviously never been punched in the throat...
the are going to be judged accordingly

[Devilhead]

You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.

The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shite

Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse

In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????

If you do the crime you should do the time .... period

of course repeat offenders should be penalised more, and I will say it again the wellingham incident was "in play"
the other incident, off the ball, and you have obviously never been punched in the throat...
the are going to be judged accordingly

It was a love tap - didn't hurt him one iota

[Solar]

So he gets 5 years good bhaviour reduction despite not playing in 2007 as he WAS NOT ON THE AFL LIST.... p66, please explain?

[desertsaint]

Mickey mouse organization, Mickey mouse decision. Once again the AFL are shown up as the most amateurish sports org in the professional world. Rugby league is run better in regards to the running of the actual sport, rather than the sideshow around it.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.

Well he did get 5 weeks. And you realise we have pretty much the same system as the NRL. Can you give us rundown of how the NRL is run as you know it is run better than the AFL. I will go out on a very short limb and say it is the best run professional sport in Australia. Ring Patrick Smith tomorrow. An AFL apologist he is not and suggest it is the worst run sport in Australia. My guess is he would say it is the best run. By the way he hates the MRP so you will on common ground there.

No plugger - he got 3 weeks. He deserves 6 MINIMUM. Read my post and you will also read in 'regards to running the sport' itself - the umpiring, the tribunal decisions, the draw, the rules and rule changes. The NRL can't hold its head high - it's a bit of a joke really - but the AFl is worse. Hence my comparison.

[stevie]

Wellingham was never going to be able to spoil. Watch the vid from all angles - he never once takes his eye off Simpson. Where the ball is to him is irrelevant. It's almost like he thought, 'f*** it, I'm taking this guy out'.

He should also have received an extra week for the ludicrous habit he has of flicking his silly hair from his eyes during a game

[perfectionist]

So he gets 5 years good bhaviour reduction despite not playing in 2007 as he WAS NOT ON THE AFL LIST.... p66, please explain?

Being a rookie at a club is being on an AFL list. For example, if you look at our 2012 playing list here:
http://www.saints.com.au/players/tabid/ ... fault.aspx
you will find that we have our rookies listed. Any one of them could be elevated at any given time, according to long term injuries. You will also note that there are players on our list, who are not rookies, who will not play a game this year. Should this year be ignored for them? That is, is the suggestion that the 5 years begins with the first AFL game? It's arguable from both perspectives, but I don't think that there is a case (here at least) where Collingwood have received an unfair advantage, at least one that is not available to all other clubs (and players).

[Thinline]

Simpson misses for min 4 weeks with a broken jaw.

Wellingham gets a midseason rest for 3.

Awesome bit of adjudicating.

Really well thought through.

Intoxicatingly fair.

Immeasurable in its reasonableness

[CURLY]

what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the wellingham collision was in the act of spoiling, in play
goddard was off the ball

I don't know how you spoil but what Wellingham was doing wasn't spoiling. Ridiculous to even suggest he was trying to.

[sunsaint]

So he gets 5 years good bhaviour reduction despite not playing in 2007 as he WAS NOT ON THE AFL LIST.... p66, please explain?

Being a rookie at a club is being on an AFL list. For example, if you look at our 2012 playing list here:
http://www.saints.com.au/players/tabid/ ... fault.aspx
you will find that we have our rookies listed. Any one of them could be elevated at any given time, according to long term injuries. You will also note that there are players on our list, who are not rookies, who will not play a game this year. Should this year be ignored for them? That is, is the suggestion that the 5 years begins with the first AFL game? It's arguable from both perspectives, but I don't think that there is a case (here at least) where Collingwood have received an unfair advantage, at least one that is not available to all other clubs (and players).

yep you're right, they play in the feeder comp and it works exactly the same if they transgress there, the penalty stands in the seniors(AFL) People thinking its a collingwood loophole are barking up the wrong tree

[kosifantutti]

what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the wellingham collision was in the act of spoiling, in play
goddard was off the ball

I don't know how you spoil but what Wellingham was doing wasn't spoiling. Ridiculous to even suggest he was trying to.

Simpson didn't take the mark so you could call it a spoil. Not textbook but a spoil

[HardSaint]

he should have got 8 reduced to 5 or 6

watch the vision - lined him up and took him out - no last minute turn, or slide, he had a damn good look at it from 20 meters back, ran in, left the ground and went hip and shoulder into Simpson's head

Wreckless and negligent in the fullest - disgusting result

[plugger66]

Mickey mouse organization, Mickey mouse decision. Once again the AFL are shown up as the most amateurish sports org in the professional world. Rugby league is run better in regards to the running of the actual sport, rather than the sideshow around it.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.

Well he did get 5 weeks. And you realise we have pretty much the same system as the NRL. Can you give us rundown of how the NRL is run as you know it is run better than the AFL. I will go out on a very short limb and say it is the best run professional sport in Australia. Ring Patrick Smith tomorrow. An AFL apologist he is not and suggest it is the worst run sport in Australia. My guess is he would say it is the best run. By the way he hates the MRP so you will on common ground there.

No plugger - he got 3 weeks. He deserves 6 MINIMUM. Read my post and you will also read in 'regards to running the sport' itself - the umpiring, the tribunal decisions, the draw, the rules and rule changes. The NRL can't hold its head high - it's a bit of a joke really - but the AFl is worse. Hence my comparison.

No the AFL isnt worse and anyone in the media who knows how the AFL is run will tell you it is the best run sport in Australia with somethings that arent perfect. And he got 5 weeks for the incident. Seen that your knowledge of the NRL is so good can you tell us how their MRP is going.

Solar i have no idea how the rookie thing works. Do you know that a rookies year has never been counted before. I certainly wouldnt have a clue. It seems you know what they did was wrong.

[satchmo]

he should have got 8 reduced to 5 or 6

watch the vision - lined him up and took him out - no last minute turn, or slide, he had a damn good look at it from 20 meters back, ran in, left the ground and went hip and shoulder into Simpson's head

Wreckless and negligent in the fullest - disgusting result

bingo.

[Devilhead]

No plugger - he got 3 weeks. He deserves 6 MINIMUM. Read my post and you will also read in 'regards to running the sport' itself - the umpiring, the tribunal decisions, the draw, the rules and rule changes. The NRL can't hold its head high - it's a bit of a joke really - but the AFl is worse. Hence my comparison.

And he got 5 weeks for the incident.

No he got 3 weeks full stop thanks to the ridiculous good behaviour reduction

Nice how you can conveniently disregard the reduction due previous good behaviour - something you actually agree with but very happily overlook to protect your beloved MRP committee

[plugger66]

No plugger - he got 3 weeks. He deserves 6 MINIMUM. Read my post and you will also read in 'regards to running the sport' itself - the umpiring, the tribunal decisions, the draw, the rules and rule changes. The NRL can't hold its head high - it's a bit of a joke really - but the AFl is worse. Hence my comparison.

And he got 5 weeks for the incident.

No he got 3 weeks full stop thanks to the ridiculous good behaviour reduction

Nice how you can conveniently disregard the reduction due previous good behaviour - something you actually agree with but very happily overlook to protect your beloved MRP committee

That is the rules at the moment. he was given 5 weeks. Had he had a poor record he could have gotten more. Maybe the MRP look at that, maybe they dont. Anyway the charge is 5 weeks. he also get the stupid 25% discount for pleading guilty which I dont agree with.

Anyway didnt you say an identical charge should get an identical amount of weeks so why do you want players with poor records to get more. Isnt that against what you said?

And i would guess if we had the old system and he got 3 weeks you would want to know why but we would never know. At least this way we see why even if we dont agree.

[Devilhead]

That is the rules at the moment. he was given 5 weeks.

No the rules at the moment gave him 3 weeks

Had he had a poor record he could have gotten more. Maybe the MRP look at that, maybe they dont. Anyway the charge is 5 weeks. he also get the stupid 25% discount for pleading guilty which I dont agree with.

And there in lies the problem of the system

Good record + guilty plea - 3 weeks
Bad record - 7 weeks

The difference is ginormous

Anyway didnt you say an identical charge should get an identical amount of weeks so why do you want players with poor records to get more. Isnt that against what you said?

My position is that the MRP should get rid of the good record reduction malarky - you do the crime you do the time

I agree with loading as a deterrent if you have a previous bad record - conditions would apply

A small reduction for a guilty plea I can deal but not 25% and not when the act is deemed intentional as some have put forth - maybe a reduction on your next loading would be the way to go

I hope this clarifies my position on the topic