Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 25 to 35 of 35

Thread: MRP (Parker cleared but what about Sam Mitchell?)

  1. #25
    I'm doing ok right now, thanks Site Admin Danzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sunny Inner West
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Billericay View Post
    The Umpires View: Cyril should have been suspended

    https://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/08-1...cW0UUm4VZgO.97
    And:

    Humphery-Smith also confirmed the MRP sent out two separate press releases with different grading.


    This is exactly what I was getting at last night. This clearly shows they have engineered the decision for the lowest possible outcome, realised the lowest actually created an error, then switched it but kept the same penalty. If that's not blatant tweaking of the system to suit Hawthorn, I don't know what is.
    Last edited by Danzar; 9th August 2016 at 10:12 PM. Reason: Whoops, my bad for posting the article
    Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector

  2. #26
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    MRP decision:



    Rioli is still moving forward, the ball is behind him, and he's knocked a bigger player than himself backwards and off his feet.

    Conclusion: Low Impact
    Photos can be deceptive old mate. Years ago the Football Record had an action photo each week without a football in view. The competition was to cut the photo out and put a cross where you thought the footy was and send it in. I think the prize was a Sherrin. The pic with the footy was posted in next week's record. It was very hard to pick where the footy was.

  3. #27
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Blaxland
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    Photos can be deceptive old mate. Years ago the Football Record had an action photo each week without a football in view. The competition was to cut the photo out and put a cross where you thought the footy was and send it in. I think the prize was a Sherrin. The pic with the footy was posted in next week's record. It was very hard to pick where the footy was.
    Spot the Ball competition I believe it was called.
    ‘It’s very hard to live in a studio apartment in San Jose with a man who’s learning to play violin.’ That’s what she told the police when she handed them the empty revolver.
    The Scarlatti Tilt – Richard Brautigan

  4. #28
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    Photos can be deceptive old mate. Years ago the Football Record had an action photo each week without a football in view. The competition was to cut the photo out and put a cross where you thought the footy was and send it in. I think the prize was a Sherrin. The pic with the footy was posted in next week's record. It was very hard to pick where the footy was.
    You caught me out, mate. I was just showing off my Photoshop skills. The original photo showed Rioli on the ground with Oliver standing over him. Not bad, eh?

  5. #29
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    You caught me out, mate. I was just showing off my Photoshop skills. The original photo showed Rioli on the ground with Oliver standing over him. Not bad, eh?
    And sticking the boots in. Fair dinkum Rioli gets a bad rap.

  6. #30
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Nico View Post
    And sticking the boots in. Fair dinkum Rioli gets a bad rap.
    I love Roili. Everyone loves Rioli. He certainly doesn't get a bad rap. The effusive praise he receives may not even be excessive, but just relentless and boring.

    To he honest, I think the penalty on Rioli was fair. It's just that whenever there seems to be a benefit of the doubt to be given or not given, Hawthorn always seem to get the benefit. It was a good week to make that point.

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by snajik View Post
    Spot the Ball competition I believe it was called.
    Sunball.

  8. #32
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Danzar View Post
    And:

    Humphery-Smith also confirmed the MRP sent out two separate press releases with different grading.


    This is exactly what I was getting at last night. This clearly shows they have engineered the decision for the lowest possible outcome, realised the lowest actually created an error, then switched it but kept the same penalty. If that's not blatant tweaking of the system to suit Hawthorn, I don't know what is.
    OR: a typo/clerical error was made in the first statement released (note the phrase "low impact to the body" is used later in the statement when referring to an incident involving Blake Acres), and when this was realised the statement was corrected and re-released.

    When something could involve a stuff-up or a conspiracy, stuff-up is nearly always the correct answer.

  9. #33
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Danzar View Post
    And:

    Humphery-Smith also confirmed the MRP sent out two separate press releases with different grading.


    This is exactly what I was getting at last night. This clearly shows they have engineered the decision for the lowest possible outcome, realised the lowest actually created an error, then switched it but kept the same penalty. If that's not blatant tweaking of the system to suit Hawthorn, I don't know what is.
    And further to this - the bump could had been penalised (with the exact same financial penalty) if the MRP HAD determined it was a bump to the body - but that the bump was unreasonable - see words from tribunal booklet below. The booklet then goes on to describe circumstances in which it might be ruled 'unreasonable'.

    I really do think it was simply a wording error in the first statement.
    -------------------

    "2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)"

    "It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a Player may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

    http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...nalBooklet.pdf

  10. #34
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,937

    MRP (Parker cleared but what about Sam Mitchell?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Billericay View Post
    The Umpires View: Cyril should have been suspended

    https://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/08-1...cW0UUm4VZgO.97
    Humphery-Smith hasn't been an AFL umpire since 2003 so hasn't umpired under current tribunal/MRP guidelines. He is effectively saying that this incident should have been graded at higher than 'low impact'.

    But there is plenty of recent precedent for the MRP to base the level of impact on the effect on the 'victim', taking into account whether the player had to leave the field for treatment or could play on, and taking into account the medical report from the victim's club. In this case Oliver was able to get up and play on - and the MRP had a medical report from the Melbourne club.

    Humphery-Smith seems to be arguing that these criteria for assessing impact level should be changed - but as they currently stand the Rioli decision is consistent with previous MRP decisions.

  11. #35
    I'm doing ok right now, thanks Site Admin Danzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Sunny Inner West
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    And further to this - the bump could had been penalised (with the exact same financial penalty) if the MRP HAD determined it was a bump to the body - but that the bump was unreasonable - see words from tribunal booklet below. The booklet then goes on to describe circumstances in which it might be ruled 'unreasonable'.

    I really do think it was simply a wording error in the first statement.
    -------------------

    "2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)"

    "It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a Player may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

    http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...nalBooklet.pdf
    Thanks Meg, really helpful.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO