MRP needs to accept precedent !!

Eastern · Post: # 950047Post **Eastern** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:39pm

Jack Riewoldt had NO CASE TO ANSWER after hitting the injured hand of Tayte Pears at least 3 times and two of these appearing to be of greater force than the Baker hit on Johnson's hand. Precedent suggests that;

The developer of the MRP system, Adrian Anderson is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT;or

The MRP, and more so its head, Mark Fraser is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT; or

The clause that does not allow precedent is in place as an attempt to hide the above !!

You choose !!

stmac35 · Post: # 950049Post **stmac35** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:41pm

Precedent would change everything, without doubt.

Thinline · Post: # 950051Post **Thinline** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:42pm

Or corrupt, or open to corruption, or whim, or flight of fancy.

The whole thing's f***ed.

Eastern · Post: # 950059Post **Eastern** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:46pm

I'm not sure that corruption comes into it but the longer the AFL stays quiet on this the more the conspiracy theories and perception will become reality !!

Gracie · Post: # 950063Post **Gracie** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:49pm

What is the story with Mark Fraser? And why does a Friday night match get more scrutiny than other matches"? And does a weekend with only three matches get more scutiny than other weekends? What about natural justice? procedural fairness?

"Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts."

realdeal · Post: # 950065Post **realdeal** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:49pm

Eastern wrote:Jack Riewoldt had NO CASE TO ANSWER after hitting the injured hand of Tayte Pears at least 3 times and two of these appearing to be of greater force than the Baker hit on Johnson's hand. Precedent suggests that;

The developer of the MRP system, Adrian Anderson is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT;or

The MRP, and more so its head, Mark Fraser is COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT; or

The clause that does not allow precedent is in place as an attempt to hide the above !!

You choose !!

what is even the reason for not accepting precedent anyway? its crazy and gives the MRP an excuse not use any consistantcy what so ever!! Its utterly crazy!

degruch · Post: # 950069Post **degruch** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:50pm

Only a club taking it to a court outside the AFL will change this...we should have nipped the anti-Baker precedent in the bud by taking the 2007 charges further.

Eastern · Post: # 950073Post **Eastern** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:53pm

Gracie wrote:What is the story with Mark Fraser? And why does a Friday night match get more scrutiny than other matches"? And does a weekend with only three matches get more scutiny than other weekends? What about natural justice? procedural fairness?

"Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts."

Mark Fraser is the head of the MRP that was developed by Adrian Anderson. This isn't about scrutiny. The Jack Riewoldt incident got plenty of air time and was worse than Bakes incident. Riewoldt doesn't have a case to answer whilst Bakes gets weeks. IT'S ABOUT CONSISTENCY or the lack of it !!

Sainterman · Post: # 950082Post **Sainterman** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:57pm

The whole thing is a complete farce. There is no rhyme or reason to it. They choose the result based on who the player is. Those that are liked are fine, Judd et al, and those that are not are dealt with severely, Baker et al.

Don't try and make sense of the system, it is nonsensical! Pissing into the wind really.

Anyway, on we go without Bakes. Bring him back for finals, and if we make that last Saturday unleash him with all his fury. Tell him he can do what he likes.

One thing after the next in the AFL, year after year. Always involves us.

Over it.

Thinline · Post: # 950085Post **Thinline** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 8:59pm

Sainterman wrote:The whole thing is a complete farce. There is no rhyme or reason to it. They choose the result based on who the player is. Those that are liked are fine, Judd et al, and those that are not are dealt with severely, Baker et al.

Don't try and make sense of the system, it is nonsensical! Pissing into the wind really.

Anyway, on we go without Bakes. Bring him back for finals, and if we make that last Saturday unleash him with all his fury. Tell him he can do what he likes.

One thing after the next in the AFL, year after year. Always involves us.

Over it.

We bring him back and they'll unveil a send off rule. You watch.

Gracie · Post: # 950095Post **Gracie** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 9:02pm

My point is the evidence and process is different depending when you play...

Bernard Shakey · Tue 29 Jun 2010 9:15pm

Gracie wrote:What is the story with Mark Fraser? And why does a Friday night match get more scrutiny than other matches"? And does a weekend with only three matches get more scutiny than other weekends? What about natural justice? procedural fairness?

"Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts."

A Friday night game gets more scrutiny because 7 use more cameras and love looking at contentious matchups. They watched Bakes because he is predictable. All the more reason he should have behaved himself last week.

Bernard Shakey · Tue 29 Jun 2010 9:17pm

They should not look at precedent. They should look at each case on it's merits. However the tribunal should look at precedent.

Gracie · Post: # 950149Post **Gracie** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 9:31pm

Shouldn't every player and every incident be looked at in the same way - no matter when or where you play?

Bernard Shakey · Tue 29 Jun 2010 9:34pm

Gracie wrote:Shouldn't every player and every incident be looked at in the same way - no matter when or where you play?

Say it to the TV channels, not St Kilda supporters.

MRP needs to accept precedent !!

MRP needs to accept precedent !!

Re: MRP needs to accept precedent !!