Mcphee one week!! a joke

terry smith rules · Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:16pm

this is where the system breaks down completely

and that is intent

it was only good luck that gilbert was not seriously injured as McPhee ran in maliciously and with every intention of inflicting pain

the fact that Gilbert was not injured is in this case irrelevant because there seems to be intent

dragit · Post: # 1117470Post **dragit** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:22pm

far-out, it's fair to say that the system will need an overhaul at the end of the year.

bergholt · Post: # 1117471Post **bergholt** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:24pm

if it was slightly worse than roo's in intent, it was slightly less bad in outcome. seems like a pretty fair comparison to me.

Thinline · Post: # 1117472Post **Thinline** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:25pm

So on your page, TSR.

Nonsensical.

He charged at the head of an opponent and went out of his way to ensure contact.

He should be strung up.

Conversely Riewoldt gets stuck in two minds, makes incidental contact, an cops the same stretch.

It's an insane system.

plugger66 · Post: # 1117476Post **plugger66** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:30pm

Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.

SainterK · Post: # 1117477Post **SainterK** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:31pm

He left the ground, with an intent to hit....how can his intent have been good?

Saint_Ash · Post: # 1117478Post **Saint_Ash** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:32pm

It's quite simple these days.

You are allowed to commit a dog act...just don't accidentally injure someone doing something that has been a part of the game since day 1.......

Thinline · Post: # 1117479Post **Thinline** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:34pm

plugger66 wrote:Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.

Yep. Agree. that would be FAIR.

And as with K...FFS the guy left the ground and stuck out his elbow...

Who is watching the videos and what on earth are they ingesting beforehand?

Dr Spaceman · Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:36pm

Thinline wrote:So on your page, TSR.

Nonsensical.

He charged at the head of an opponent and went out of his way to ensure contact.

He should be strung up.

Conversely Riewoldt gets stuck in two minds, makes incidental contact, an cops the same stretch.

It's an insane system.

And got the same as Zac.

Dawson's opponent also wasn't injured and at least his action had a semblance of attempting to spoil a mark.

saintspremiers · Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:37pm

Clearly someone at the MRP is retarded.

How that F*** can it be anything OTHER than intentional is farking madness.

Time someone bong at the MRP sees a shrink ASAP IMHFO.

bigcarl · Post: # 1117488Post **bigcarl** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:47pm

They make it up as they go along. Clearly a worse act than Riewoldt's but same penalty. Plus Franklin got off again for high contact.

Riewoldt is a special player, but clearly Buddy is considered more special

plugger66 · Post: # 1117490Post **plugger66** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:49pm

bigcarl wrote:They make it up as they go along. Clearly a worse act than Riewoldt's but same penalty. Plus Franklin got off again for high contact.

Riewoldt is a special player, but clearly Buddy is considered more special

Did you see the Buddy one? Buddy has got weeks for things that havent seemed much at all. You would be one of few that thinks he gets a good deal.

SainterSoul · Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:56pm

What a joke. McPhee is a dog.

fingers · Post: # 1117494Post **fingers** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:59pm

plugger66 wrote:Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.

Agree.

Regardless of the lack of injury as to Gilbert as a result - isn't this the exact type of act the AFL is trying to get rid of? I get Roo's one had injury attached to it but the intent is very different.

terry smith rules · Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:59pm

Saint_Ash wrote:It's quite simple these days.

You are allowed to commit a dog act...just don't accidentally injure someone doing something that has been a part of the game since day 1.......

You summarised what I was trying to say in the op

SaintPav · Post: # 1117496Post **SaintPav** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 4:59pm

plugger66 wrote:Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.

By defenition, sticking your elbow out should nearly always be deemed as intentional. It's nearly as bad as punching someone in the head with a clenched fist.

maverick · Post: # 1117498Post **maverick** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:04pm

plugger66 wrote:Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.

100% agree, intentional, definitely more than low impact, he was stunned.

oh when · Post: # 1117499Post **oh when** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:12pm

Depends on the colour of the jumper how many weeks a player gets!

python · Post: # 1117501Post **python** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:13pm

Baker got the same last year for slapping Johnson's hand. It's a farce. Kosi got more for a tackle.

McPhee's action on Friday cannot be excused, he lined Gilbert up from 15 metres away, he wanted to hurt Gilbert and his actions was exactly what he wanted to happen. A week, bloody hell.

plugger66 · Post: # 1117503Post **plugger66** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:18pm

oh when wrote:Depends on the colour of the jumper how many weeks a player gets!

Yep because they would really want to look after Freo.

degruch · Post: # 1117516Post **degruch** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:37pm

maverick wrote:
plugger66 wrote:Probably should have been intentional but then again it could have been low impact. I would have gone High contact, medium impact and intentional which would have given him an extra week. That would be right to me.
100% agree, intentional, definitely more than low impact, he was stunned.

This is the part that needs addressing next season. If the umpires can judge a deliberate out of bounds by summising the players intention, surely the MRP can do the same with the benefit of video review???

Intent.

Had McPhee's elbow made contact when it was supposed to, Gilbert would have probably woken up today...luckily for both of them, the elbow was a fraction of a second too late, and contact a little higher on the arm.

Compare it to Roo, no intention of malice whatsoever and unlucky that any damage was caused, they should not attract the same penalty.

gringo · Post: # 1117519Post **gringo** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:42pm

Just a s*** system based on keeping the financial impact for the AFL down. Very silly outcome and compared to the Riewoldt charge just shows how ridiculous the whole thing has become. If you are waiting for a change good luck. Gieshen will come out and dribble out some kind of excuse that proves that the charge had no intent or malice and Sam Gilbert should have given him time to move his elbow away from his head significantly contributing to the incident blah, blah...

If speeding fines were dished out similarly there would be lynchings of public officials, lucky the dictators at AFL house don't have to answer to anyone.

plugger66 · Post: # 1117520Post **plugger66** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:44pm

gringo wrote:Just a s*** system based on keeping the financial impact for the AFL down. Very silly outcome and compared to the Riewoldt charge just shows how ridiculous the whole thing has become. If you are waiting for a change good luck. Gieshen will come out and dribble out some kind of excuse that proves that the charge had no intent or malice and Sam Gilbert should have given him time to move his elbow away from his head significantly contributing to the incident blah, blah...

If speeding fines were dished out similarly there would be lynchings of public officials, lucky the dictators at AFL house don't have to answer to anyone.

No wonder people dont think Gieshen is any good if we have him answering for the MRP. He has as much to do with it as you do.

joffaboy · Post: # 1117523Post **joffaboy** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:45pm

Oh dear

This is why Anderson should be sacked. he is totally incompetent and has devised a system that is a complete laughing stock of all football codes.

I heard on radio this morning that this would be the test of the MRP and the system when comparing it to Riewoldts penalty.

Well the system has failed, completely and comprehensively.

It is saying that if you accidently hit someone and they are injured you willg et more week than an intentional elbow to the face.

The AFL is basically saying that they want to stamp out incidental contact but you are allowed to elbow someone in the face and get a minimial penalty.

What a farce.

Says something if P66 thinks the penalty is wrong.

SaintPav · Post: # 1117529Post **SaintPav** » Mon 08 Aug 2011 5:49pm

joffaboy wrote:Oh dear

This is why Anderson should be sacked. he is totally incompetent and has devised a system that is a complete laughing stock of all football codes.

I heard on radio this morning that this would be the test of the MRP and the system when comparing it to Riewoldts penalty.

Well the system has failed, completely and comprehensively.

It is saying that if you accidently hit someone and they are injured you willg et more week than an intentional elbow to the face.

The AFL is basically saying that they want to stamp out incidental contact but you are allowed to elbow someone in the face and get a minimial penalty.

What a farce.

Says something if P66 thinks the penalty is wrong.

Agree 200%. It's friggin bullsh!t.

Mcphee one week!! a joke

Mcphee one week!! a joke

Colours

Re: Colours