MRP Results

[backit]

Mon, Jul 12, 10 4:45 PM Mon 12 July, 2010The AFL wishes to advise the match review panel has reviewed the weekend’s matches. The following charges were laid:

Charges Laid
Travis Cloke, Collingwood, has been charged with a level four striking offence against Travis Boak, Port Adelaide, during the first quarter of the round 15 match between Collingwood and Port Adelaide, played at AAMI Stadium on Friday July 9, 2010.

In summary, he can accept a two- match sanction with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of one match suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 10 per cent to 357.50 points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 268.13 points and a two-match sanction.

Sam Gilbert, St Kilda, has been charged with a level one engaging in rough conduct offence against Simon Black, Brisbane Lions, during the second quarter of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

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

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing 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.

Jason Blake, St Kilda, has been charged with a level one tripping offence against Jack Redden, Brisbane Lions, during the third quarter of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 45 points towards his future record with an early plea, due to an existing five-year good record.

The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of three activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 80 demerit points and a reprimand. He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 60 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 45 points towards his future record.

Adam Pattison, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

All the same penalty - In summary, he can accept a $1200 sanction with an early plea.

Nick Riewoldt, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Lenny Hayes, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Jason Gram, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Nick Dal Santo, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Sam Fisher, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Andrew McQualter, St Kilda, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between St Kilda and the Brisbane Lions, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Brendan Fevola, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Jack Redden, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Pearce Hanley, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Ashley McGrath, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Todd Banfield, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Joel Patfull, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

Amon Buchanan, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with a first offence for engaging in a melee at three quarter time of the round 15 match between the Brisbane Lions and St Kilda, played at the Gabba on Saturday July 10, 2010.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

[Banger724]

A little miffed that Gilbert's has been brought up... would've thought they could fight that and clear his name so no points hanging over his head... nothing wrong with that tackle more than the free-kick that was paid. not as if he dumped him head first like a spear tackle.

Blake's was expected and will be accepted you'd think.

[chook23]

A little miffed that Gilbert's has been brought up... would've thought they could fight that and clear his name so no points hanging over his head... nothing wrong with that tackle more than the free-kick that was paid. not as if he dumped him head first like a spear tackle.

Blake's was expected and will be accepted you'd think.

This is where the MR system is flawed.............

Gilbert may honestly believe he is innocent and like to challenge....but risks the 1 Game

OR is basically blackmailed into pleading guilty to avoid the possibility of missing a game if his challenge is not upheld.

[plugger66]

A little miffed that Gilbert's has been brought up... would've thought they could fight that and clear his name so no points hanging over his head... nothing wrong with that tackle more than the free-kick that was paid. not as if he dumped him head first like a spear tackle.

Blake's was expected and will be accepted you'd think.

This is where the MR system is flawed.............

Gilbert may honestly believe he is innocent and like to challenge....but risks the 1 Game

OR is basically blackmailed into pleading guilty to avoid the possibility of missing a game if his challenge is not upheld.

Or if he never gets reported again it will not matter what points he has. Yes you are sometimes forced to accept guilt but another system would give Blake a week. This week we may win one and lose one.

[Banger724]

A little miffed that Gilbert's has been brought up... would've thought they could fight that and clear his name so no points hanging over his head... nothing wrong with that tackle more than the free-kick that was paid. not as if he dumped him head first like a spear tackle.

Blake's was expected and will be accepted you'd think.

This is where the MR system is flawed.............

Gilbert may honestly believe he is innocent and like to challenge....but risks the 1 Game

OR is basically blackmailed into pleading guilty to avoid the possibility of missing a game if his challenge is not upheld.

Or if he never gets reported again it will not matter what points he has. Yes you are sometimes forced to accept guilt but another system would give Blake a week. This week we may win one and lose one.

I agree that it's usually not worth fighting the charges if we can get away with a reprimand and the charge is a little iffy, but this instance shoudn't even be reportable, its just a hard solid tackle on a guy that initially had the ball. Would prefer to not have another player with points hanging over their head given we already have a few.

[starsign]

Yep they've got you over a barrel with one like Gilbos

Nothing in it other than a vigorous tackle within what I would have thought spirit of the game and caused no resultant injury

(the likes of old N03 from Footscray would be disgusted at this crap )

Too risky to challenge their verdict with an important game pending , but you gotta wear the seemingly unjust penalty in terms of points

Verdict : Accept....

but it BLOODY STINKS!!

[backit]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

[35...LEGEND]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

[plugger66]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

[backit]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Could have been (watching too much footy at the moment) but was untidy and worth a review I thought, but there you go, the inconsistencies of it all, same as the Daisy Flower Thomas did not even rate a mention by the MRP but was worthy of talking about by the so called professional footy commenatators.

[backit]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

What people are saying P66 defender of the almighty AFL is that there are too many inconsistencies in what or what not does the MRP actually review and take into account at arriving at their decisions or non-decisions whatever the case maybe.

People just want to understand the system, this is nigh impossible at it currently stands. It fails in fairness, equality and transparency.

[plugger66]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

What people are saying P66 defender of the almighty AFL is that there are too many inconsistencies in what or what not does the MRP actually review and take into account at arriving at their decisions or non-decisions whatever the case maybe.

People just want to understand the system, this is nigh impossible at it currently stands. It fails in fairness, equality and transparency.

Yes it is inconsistant but unless someone comes up with a better system we are stuck with it. Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.

[Sainterman]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

What people are saying P66 defender of the almighty AFL is that there are too many inconsistencies in what or what not does the MRP actually review and take into account at arriving at their decisions or non-decisions whatever the case maybe.

People just want to understand the system, this is nigh impossible at it currently stands. It fails in fairness, equality and transparency.

Yes it is inconsistant but unless someone comes up with a better system we are stuck with it. Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.

The much maligned old system was better than this one. And surely, the best run comp in the land should be able to come up with something....it should not be up to us to work it out.

It couldn't be more flawed if they tried as it currently stands.

[backit]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

What people are saying P66 defender of the almighty AFL is that there are too many inconsistencies in what or what not does the MRP actually review and take into account at arriving at their decisions or non-decisions whatever the case maybe.

People just want to understand the system, this is nigh impossible at it currently stands. It fails in fairness, equality and transparency.

Yes it is inconsistant but unless someone comes up with a better system we are stuck with it. Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.

Easy go straight back to the tribunal system, let it be decided there. It is about time the umpires actually started reporting incidents that they witness not leaving it up to the MRP. Anything deemed reportable straight to the tribunal. Anything is better than the MRP at the moment as I said in my previous post, it doesn't fill you with confidence each week on what is viewed and decided upon.

[plugger66]

There was a tackle laid yesterday in a game I watched(can't remember which one) that the player pinned the other players arms then body slammed him into the ground with his head making hard contact on the ground. This does not seem to be in any MRP review. I thought this was outlawed now.

Someone might also remember the incident.

Mcphee on Nason ?

Yep so thats makes Mummy unlucky and he plays for the AFL backed Swans.

What people are saying P66 defender of the almighty AFL is that there are too many inconsistencies in what or what not does the MRP actually review and take into account at arriving at their decisions or non-decisions whatever the case maybe.

People just want to understand the system, this is nigh impossible at it currently stands. It fails in fairness, equality and transparency.

Yes it is inconsistant but unless someone comes up with a better system we are stuck with it. Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.

The much maligned old system was better than this one. And surely, the best run comp in the land should be able to come up with something....it should not be up to us to work it out.

It couldn't be more flawed if they tried as it currently stands.

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured. There was also no reprimands so guilty meant weeks.

Of course it is up to the AFL to design a system and this may be the best they can come up with. Like I said why would the AFL want wrong decisions.

[Moods]

Gilbo's is a joke. Black actually appeared to leave the ground and almost jumped into Gilbert's arms. Gilbert then threw him on the ground WITH THE BALL It looked bad, but when you analyse it - what the hell did he do wrong? IMO it shouldn't have even been a free kick.

The fact that the MRP are not held up to precedent is a joke as well. What justice system refuses to even consider precedent?

All the Daisy Thomas decision highlights is how hard done by Baker was. I agree THomas should have got off. You'd go mad if you thought about it too long.

[degruch]

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured.

This is the old system you're referring to?

[35...LEGEND]

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured.

This is the old system you're referring to?

[backit]

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured.

This is the old system you're referring to?

and P66 you dont think the new system is like this? look at some decisions which seem to favour certain players ie Judd verus others. It is too inconsistent to be deemed fair the way it is and yes the AFL probably doesn't like it but they get paid the big bucks so let them fix it.

[plugger66]

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured.

This is the old system you're referring to?

and P66 you dont think the new system is like this? look at some decisions which seem to favour certain players ie Judd verus others. It is too inconsistent to be deemed fair the way it is and yes the AFL probably doesn't like it but they get paid the big bucks so let them fix it.

Well at least under this sytem we get to see why they made the decision even if we think it is wrong. This system also has reprimands. Imagine under the old system we would have lost Lenny, Joey twice, Blake and Gilbo if they were found guilty. I am pretty sure this system is better but like every tribunal system in sport, it is inconsistant. You talk about money. How is the biggest game in the world's tribunal system going?

[backit]

Well I remember the other system completely differently. It seemed if the person giving the decisions was in a good mood or liked you, you were a chance to get off and sometimes the opposite occured.

This is the old system you're referring to?

and P66 you dont think the new system is like this? look at some decisions which seem to favour certain players ie Judd verus others. It is too inconsistent to be deemed fair the way it is and yes the AFL probably doesn't like it but they get paid the big bucks so let them fix it.

Well at least under this sytem we get to see why they made the decision even if we think it is wrong. This system also has reprimands. Imagine under the old system we would have lost Lenny, Joey twice, Blake and Gilbo if they were found guilty. I am pretty sure this system is better but like every tribunal system in sport, it is inconsistant. You talk about money.
How is the biggest game in the world's tribunal system going?

What are you on about, people can be found not guilty because it is an evidence based system, the MRP is a review system that does not take any evidence from those involved. Same as if you elect to take a matter to court you provide your evidence as does the defence and it is decided by an arbitrator or independent body based on the evidence provided. This is a system that is been in throughout time in all countries and continents like it or lump it, it is the universal judicial system of life.

and I fail to see what the biggest game in the world which I assume you mean to soccer has got to do with this. Their system is known, you get one yellow card it is noted, you get two yellow cards it becomes a send off and a suspension, you get a red card you get sent off and suspended, it's not rocket science.

More than happy to go toe to toe on this.

[stinger]

anthony. goldsack anfd thomas were all involved in incidents far worse than the two saints boys.....where are their charges ffs...

[SainterK]

Happy with the results, Gilbert could of easily gone, and Sydney would consider themselves unlucky that Mumford missed for his tackle.

[WinnersOnly]

Gilberts in MRP result is another joke ! How ordinary are the AFL all he did was tackle Black with a perfect rugby technique. They want to attract league and rugby supporters to the code and then the MRP hand out out penalties like a bunch of girls...

[Thinline]

anthony. goldsack anfd thomas were all involved in incidents far worse than the two saints boys.....where are their charges ffs...

Yep.

I honestly believe they self-rationalise.

Let's see then, what's this weeks schedule. Oh. Saints v Pies. Gee that's a big drawing clash. So who've we got. Oh, we've been toughish on Cloke but neither of the Saints will miss. Best be forgetting about Anthony and Thomas then.That way the perception seems even-handed. What? Inconsistent, you say? Oh well. No precedent in this little system of ours so we aren't accountable. NEXT.