MRP- Cotchin on Geary + Hall

[saintbrat]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx
Trent Cotchin, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence against Jarryn Geary, St Kilda, during the third quarter of the Round 13 match between Richmond and St Kilda, played at Docklands on Sunday June 28, 2009.

In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

[Thinline]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

[Mr Magic]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

[plugger66]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.

[Mr Magic]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.

So why did he get 2 last season for 'attempting to strike'?
You can't on the one hand claim that the dscrepancies occur because of the differing injuries/pain caused by the action and then disregard an incident where nobody was hurt becasue the blow didn't apparently land?

[ausfatcat]

no force?

Did you see Bocks head snap to the side?

Deserves to be suspended for that and was. Just because he wasn't knocked out doesn't make it ok.

[plugger66]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.

So why did he get 2 last season for 'attempting to strike'?
You can't on the one hand claim that the dscrepancies occur because of the differing injuries/pain caused by the action and then disregard an incident where nobody was hurt becasue the blow didn't apparently land?

Of course the injury incurred has to come into it. As for the attempting to strike so always give that low impact which i suppose is pretty obvious.

[Mr Magic]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

[plugger66]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

[Mr Magic]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

[St DAC]

Only in the level of damage. And Clarke was off for the rest of the game IIRC. So, not consistent. But really, was it ever? Under any system?

[plugger66]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

Who said they were consistant. Not me. Like any system there are problems. Do you want to go back to the old system. Had as many if not more faults but just like many things, people think the old days were better.

As for your question. West should have gone but it is also different to the King one because last years accidents didnt matter, this year they do.

[joffaboy]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).

King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.

[Mr Magic]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).

King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.

So Joffa, are you happy with the penalties handed out to King and Hall based on their actions and relative to each other?

Because that's where this debate started.

[kosifantutti23]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

A bloke called King from St.Kilda a couple of weeks ago.

King was charged with Rough Conduct which carries more demerit points than a strike. He would have got 4 weeks reduced to 3 if he had been charged with an intentional strike to the head with the same impact.

[joffaboy]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).

King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.

So Joffa, are you happy with the penalties handed out to King and Hall based on their actions and relative to each other?

Because that's where this debate started.

No Kings was too harsh and Halls was not enough but I was looking in isolation at the argument that West got nothing and King got four.

The AFl admitted they got that wrong. it was bad luck that King was the next one to go.

How Hall gets only two weeks after he got 6 for Staker and another 2 for Wakelin is beyond me. On second thoughts it isn't. The AFl changed the rules to state that his strike on Goose was in play when everyone who was at the ground and saw it (including myself B4E whom I was sitting with and another couple of blokes) all KNOW that the ball was at LEAST 80 metres away.

The AFL under Anderson corrupts the process. Always has always will.

[Saintschampions08]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.

He punched someone, with a closed fist, intentionally ... in the face...

And he should have gotten off?

If that's the case theirs some extremely serious problems with our system...

[plugger66]

I know its boring to regurgitate, but he knowingly punches someone with obvious intent to inflict damage (how couldn't there be that kind of intent) and gets a week and yet Steven King shepherds a bloke and......

There's a huge problem with the whole MRP/Points/Tribunal system.

Steven King lays a block/shepherd which may/may not have included an accidental head clash.

King, together with his bad record and points (I reprimand earlier this season?) copped a penalty of 6 weeks, reduced to 4 weeks with an early guilty plea.

Hall, suspended twice in the last season including 1 penalty of 10 weeks for a 'king hit' and another 2 weeks for an 'attempted strike' gets a penalty of 2 weeks (after his poor record is included and he pleads guilty early) after throwing a left hook (and connecting) from behind his opponent whilst they were both on the ground.
Which act was more deliberate - King or Hall?

If it's not the MRP's fault then it is Anderson's as he is the total architect of this ridiculous system that doesn't seem to be logical in the way it determines penalties.

(and all of this doesn't even go into the Baker decision of 4 weeks for 'stopping' in his tracks - the action he took according to the tribunal)

The whole system needs to be thrown out and someone with an actual knowledge and understanding of the game needs to devise a new system. Unfortunately just because you are a lawyer mate of Demetriou doesn't necessarily give you the required knowledge to bring in a MRP/Tribunal system.

Whilst you blame Anderson it is basically the system the NRL use. What ever system we use there will always be issues. Hall should have probably got off under no force rule . Both Hall and King were deliberate but one hurt the guy the other didnt even slightly hurt anyone.

He punched someone, with a closed fist, intentionally ... in the face...

And he should have gotten off?

If that's the case theirs some extremely serious problems with our system...

He didnt get off. He got 2 weeks and that is the most it deserved so the system was right in this case. I think he could have got off under the no force rule because the hit wouldnt have hurt my grandmother.

[Sainter_Dad]

I understand the points system etc and if applied properly seems the best deal - the thing that gives me the absolute pips is that carry over points attract the 25% reduction as well as the penalties - after they have already been reduced by the 25% on the previous incident.

Halls latest indescretion is a perfect example - if he takes the 2 weeks - he gets 96.25 carry over points. If he then gets 150 points on his next offence you would assume that 2 weeks even with an early plea ie 150 x .75 + 96.25 = 208.75 points, but with the reduction on the reduced points it becomes 246.25 x .75 or 184.6875 only 1 week penalty.

[saintspremiers]

I understand the points system etc and if applied properly seems the best deal - the thing that gives me the absolute pips is that carry over points attract the 25% reduction as well as the penalties - after they have already been reduced by the 25% on the previous incident.

Halls latest indescretion is a perfect example - if he takes the 2 weeks - he gets 96.25 carry over points. If he then gets 150 points on his next offence you would assume that 2 weeks even with an early plea ie 150 x .75 + 96.25 = 208.75 points, but with the reduction on the reduced points it becomes 246.25 x .75 or 184.6875 only 1 week penalty.

Well Anderscum is a complete dill and farkwit to boot, so do you think the dipstick has even considered adding on the WHOLE points loading onto the 25% reduction as you have quite sensibly suggested?

I doubt it.

[ace]

Hall's punch was reflex, ineffective and harmless.
Cotchin's punch was calculated, effective and hurt.

Who do the imbeciles at AFL HQ suspend, the harmless one of course.

AFL an abbreviation for corruption and incompetence.

[ace]

So Plugger, you're happy for an accidental head clash to receive the same penalty as a deliberate punch if they both cause temporary unconsciousness?

If the injury is the same should it make no difference to the penalty how the injury occured?

No the punch should get more for sure. When didnt that happen?

Are you seriously suggesting that all MRP penalties handed out have been consistant?

West on X Clarke last season.

How was it different to King's this year?

AFL admitted they got that wrong (was on the DVD this season).

King got pinged because that was highlighted last year. Cant complain when the AFL actually fix a problem.

"got that wrong" is that the new excuse for "we deliberately got that wrong because we are corrupt".
Fix the problem suspend West now.