Worth a read.
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
![](images/button_donate.gif) |
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bob Sugar
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/avatars/10460473124de2f0a49d847.jpg)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 11 Feb 2010 Location: Benalla
|
Post subject: Worth a read. | |
|
Got this off BF.
Quote: |
Is the fundamental of the tribunal system wrong that we assume guilt, players are penalised and to not even have a chance to have their voice heard before a charge is laid.
Clubs are charged a ludicrous sum of money to appeal decisions if they are not successful in a bid by the AFL to deter appeals.
Change rulings and interpretations on the fly, manufacture law on the fly to suit their agenda and want to abstain from any accountability by creating a system of precedence so we have kangaroo courts and trial by media whipping up and having a significant impact on guilt or innocence.
Players are deemed guilty if there is an injury, less likely to be guilty if someone is not injured, guilt or innocence should not be determined based on the defendants ability to sustain impact without being injured.
There are two different sets of rules between higher profile players and the rest.
Given significantly harsher penalties just because you did not wish to challenge previous decisions and risk longer suspensions.
What kind of a mockery is our MRP/Tribunal system. Do we need to scrap the entire thing and build something fair and functional from the ground up? Why punish players and pressure them to accept guilt because attempting to clear your name risks a harsher penalty, be slandered with guilt and a judgement passed without a chance to clear your name. What a crock of bullshit.
Players deserve the same right to be deemed innocent unless proven guilty and should expect precedence and consistency, a situation where media and your profile do not stack the odds for or against you.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/guilty-until-proven-innocent.1066 |
_________________ Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AN_Inkling
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Ranting without any substantive critique.
The system is fine. I definitely don't want to go back to the days where every charge went to the tribunal, that system had become unworkable. There does need to be some more certainty around a couple of areas (particularly "the bump"), but that's nothing to do with the MRP or the tribunal and everything to do with the rules. We were all clear on the bump: hit the head and you're gone, but that's been turned on its head and submerged in muddy water over the past month and a bit. _________________ Well done boys! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Wokko ![Pisces Pisces](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_pisces.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Come and take it.
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
It's the nature of administrative tribunals, from sport to academia. Unless the AFL want to hire a retired judge and run an adversarial system with each side having an advocate/lawyer then we'll be stuck with this crap. IN fact I think I just found the solution. ![Laughing](images/smiles/icon_lol.gif) |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
35forever
![](images/transdot.gif) "I feel sick - dada dada dada da"
![](images/avatars/81344543947107d104a95f.jpg)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Location: Physical=Sunshine Coast -- Mental=Vic Park
|
Post subject: | |
|
Inkling tells us the system is fine, and then tells us why it's not.
Wokko tells us there's only one way and it's no good.
I think the article is very well written and makes a hell of a lot of sense. The MRP is a joke and most would agree it’s a joke no one gets. The penalties handed out are arbitrary and based on 3 idiotic criteria: The defendant's intentions which only the player involved can possibly know. The impact made, which is measured by the damage inflicted, a patently ridiculous method, and whether or not the Sherrin was in the vicinity, a factor which changes by the millisecond.
The guilty until proven suspended precept is plainly wrong, especially given the extra penalties attached to a suspension, and there can be zero doubt that those penalties are different depending on the marquee status of the player involved. That is incredibly & grossly unfair and goes against every tenet of jurisprudence since the time of ancient Greece.
It's a ridiculous and arbitrary system with no friends among the players, media, coaches or fans. One of the most obvious flaws is the personnel, basically whichever ex-players will take the thing on. This is guaranteed to bring up conflicts of interest and bias toward & against certain sides.
The biggest flaw however, is the brief & scope the MRP has.The game is changing, for better or worse, although the retirement of the clown who changed any rule he didn't like whenever he wanted to should slow the pace of change. Still, any kid coming through the junior ranks these days has to unlearn every basic precept his coaches taught him. So much for head down over the footy, that will see you out on a weekly basis and giving away more frees than a Sunny Boy with writing inside.
Of course most of the fuss lately has been about the bump. The good old hip & shoulder. Contact a bloke's head and you're gone (unless your footy card is a bestseller). This is obviously a disadvantage to the tall player, and a huge advantage to short-arses & duckers. And why? Oh yes, those awful head injuries we fear so greatly. They are causing mayhem, and destroying lives. Aren't they? Actually a lot more games are missed through bumping than through being bumped. The long term injuries are mostly those to limbs and soft tissue below the neck. Hamstrings, Shoulders, Calves etc.
What we do get is concussions, but the bump doesn't cause them all. Marking contests, head clashes, and sheer accidents cause plenty, as does 'friendly fire'. These can't be legislated against, so what's the answer? The obvious one is some kind of head-gear, but of course it needs to be externally soft, and very few players or fans want to see them become standard equipment. Another problem is the simple fact that players come in all shapes & sizes. What might knock a Seedsman out for a week might be a mild tap to a Cloke. As things stand a big name player will get away with high contact on Cloke while a lesser light (or one in Black & White stripes) could miss a month for the exact same hit on a more 'gracile' player.
Anyway, while I have some ideas on the matter, I certainly don't have the answer to the problem, however the first step in solving any problem is admitting one exists, then seeking solutions from people involved in all areas of the game
One exists!
. _________________ "If at first you dont succeed...
... oh who cares, we did it!!!!!"
-me, 2010
"The pies are going to the big dance!"-P.Daicos 2010
Visit My Website! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
35forever
![](images/transdot.gif) "I feel sick - dada dada dada da"
![](images/avatars/81344543947107d104a95f.jpg)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Location: Physical=Sunshine Coast -- Mental=Vic Park
|
Post subject: | |
|
Inkling tells us the system is fine, and then tells us why it's not.
Wokko tells us there's only one way and it's no good.
I think the article is very well written and makes a hell of a lot of sense. The MRP is a joke and most would agree it’s a joke no one gets. The penalties handed out are arbitrary and based on 3 idiotic criteria: The defendant's intentions which only the player involved can possibly know. The impact made, which is measured by the damage inflicted, a patently ridiculous method, and whether or not the Sherrin was in the vicinity, a factor which changes by the millisecond.
The guilty until proven suspended precept is plainly wrong, especially given the extra penalties attached to a suspension, and there can be zero doubt that those penalties are different depending on the marquee status of the player involved. That is incredibly & grossly unfair and goes against every tenet of jurisprudence since the time of ancient Greece.
It's a ridiculous and arbitrary system with no friends among the players, media, coaches or fans. One of the most obvious flaws is the personnel, basically whichever ex-players will take the thing on. This is guaranteed to bring up conflicts of interest and bias toward & against certain sides.
The biggest flaw however, is the brief & scope the MRP has.The game is changing, for better or worse, although the retirement of the clown who changed any rule he didn't like whenever he wanted to should slow the pace of change. Still, any kid coming through the junior ranks these days has to unlearn every basic precept his coaches taught him. So much for head down over the footy, that will see you out on a weekly basis and giving away more frees than a Sunny Boy with writing inside.
Of course most of the fuss lately has been about the bump. The good old hip & shoulder. Contact a bloke's head and you're gone (unless your footy card is a bestseller). This is obviously a disadvantage to the tall player, and a huge advantage to short-arses & duckers. And why? Oh yes, those awful head injuries we fear so greatly. They are causing mayhem, and destroying lives. Aren't they? Actually a lot more games are missed through bumping than through being bumped. The long term injuries are mostly those to limbs and soft tissue below the neck. Hamstrings, Shoulders, Calves etc.
What we do get is concussions, but the bump doesn't cause them all. Marking contests, head clashes, and sheer accidents cause plenty, as does 'friendly fire'. These can't be legislated against, so what's the answer? The obvious one is some kind of head-gear, but of course it needs to be externally soft, and very few players or fans want to see them become standard equipment. Another problem is the simple fact that players come in all shapes & sizes. What might knock a Seedsman out for a week might be a mild tap to a Cloke. As things stand a big name player will get away with high contact on Cloke while a lesser light (or one in Black & White stripes) could miss a month for the exact same hit on a more 'gracile' player.
Anyway, while I have some ideas on the matter, I certainly don't have the answer to the problem, however the first step in solving any problem is admitting one exists, then seeking solutions from people involved in all areas of the game
One exists!
. _________________ "If at first you dont succeed...
... oh who cares, we did it!!!!!"
-me, 2010
"The pies are going to the big dance!"-P.Daicos 2010
Visit My Website! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
35forever
![](images/transdot.gif) "I feel sick - dada dada dada da"
![](images/avatars/81344543947107d104a95f.jpg)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 23 Feb 2005 Location: Physical=Sunshine Coast -- Mental=Vic Park
|
Post subject: | |
|
Inkling tells us the system is fine, and then tells us why it's not.
Wokko tells us there's only one way and it's no good.
I think the article is very well written and makes a hell of a lot of sense. The MRP is a joke and most would agree it’s a joke no one gets. The penalties handed out are arbitrary and based on 3 idiotic criteria: The defendant's intentions which only the player involved can possibly know. The impact made, which is measured by the damage inflicted, a patently ridiculous method, and whether or not the Sherrin was in the vicinity, a factor which changes by the millisecond.
The guilty until proven suspended precept is plainly wrong, especially given the extra penalties attached to a suspension, and there can be zero doubt that those penalties are different depending on the marquee status of the player involved. That is incredibly & grossly unfair and goes against every tenet of jurisprudence since the time of ancient Greece.
It's a ridiculous and arbitrary system with no friends among the players, media, coaches or fans. One of the most obvious flaws is the personnel, basically whichever ex-players will take the thing on. This is guaranteed to bring up conflicts of interest and bias toward & against certain sides.
The biggest flaw however, is the brief & scope the MRP has.The game is changing, for better or worse, although the retirement of the clown who changed any rule he didn't like whenever he wanted to should slow the pace of change. Still, any kid coming through the junior ranks these days has to unlearn every basic precept his coaches taught him. So much for head down over the footy, that will see you out on a weekly basis and giving away more frees than a Sunny Boy with writing inside.
Of course most of the fuss lately has been about the bump. The good old hip & shoulder. Contact a bloke's head and you're gone (unless your footy card is a bestseller). This is obviously a disadvantage to the tall player, and a huge advantage to short-arses & duckers. And why? Oh yes, those awful head injuries we fear so greatly. They are causing mayhem, and destroying lives. Aren't they? Actually a lot more games are missed through bumping than through being bumped. The long term injuries are mostly those to limbs and soft tissue below the neck. Hamstrings, Shoulders, Calves etc.
What we do get is concussions, but the bump doesn't cause them all. Marking contests, head clashes, and sheer accidents cause plenty, as does 'friendly fire'. These can't be legislated against, so what's the answer? The obvious one is some kind of head-gear, but of course it needs to be externally soft, and very few players or fans want to see them become standard equipment. Another problem is the simple fact that players come in all shapes & sizes. What might knock a Seedsman out for a week might be a mild tap to a Cloke. As things stand a big name player will get away with high contact on Cloke while a lesser light (or one in Black & White stripes) could miss a month for the exact same hit on a more 'gracile' player.
Anyway, while I have some ideas on the matter, I certainly don't have the answer to the problem, however the first step in solving any problem is admitting one exists, then seeking solutions from people involved in all areas of the game
One exists!
. _________________ "If at first you dont succeed...
... oh who cares, we did it!!!!!"
-me, 2010
"The pies are going to the big dance!"-P.Daicos 2010
Visit My Website! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Albert Parker
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
Post subject: | |
|
^I agree with the premise of the OP. The tribunal system is a farce.
While we do not want players challenging every single decision and dragging things out, it is clearly not a just system and the post identifies a few of its flaws.
Sidebottom gets 3 weeks with a plea despite no priors and no particular malice because he collects him in the wrong spot.
Glass crudely charges a player, dazes him but doesn't knock him out and gets one week.
Ablett deliberately elbows a player out of frustration, when the ball is not in play, to hurt them and gets let off completely
Fyfe gets two weeks for a high bump, in play, with his shoulder tucked in
Jay Viney original decision was a poor one too. Justice prevailed in the end.
Current solution is not working effectively for mine.
Too much emphasis on final injury and less on intent. Still remarkably inconsistent. _________________ One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AN_Inkling
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Albert Parker wrote: | ^I agree with the premise of the OP. The tribunal system is a farce.
While we do not want players challenging every single decision and dragging things out, it is clearly not a just system and the post identifies a few of its flaws.
Too much emphasis on final injury and less on intent. |
This is the only valid flaw pointed out in the OP, and even this is a matter of opinion, the rest is just conspiracy theories and inaccuracies.
At the moment there are two issues: the stance on the bump has been softened since the Viney decision. This has caused some real confusion and has caused more players to get off where they should not have. And, decisions, particularly on guilt not just sentencing, have shifted further towards outcome than intent.
Neither of these are a problem with the system. One is a rule problem which needs to be clarified ASAP. The other is an issue of focus. Whether it's the correct focus is debatable, I personally don't agree with it but it does have some merit.
On inconsistency? I really don't see much of it, other than the shift we have seen in interpretations of the bump since the Viney decision. Even there, decisions since that bump have been pretty much consistent. A lot of what I see is people complaining about very different incidents and asking why one was let off and the other not.
No one is ever going to fully agree with any system, but I do not see any glaring flaws in the existing one, and none have been pointed out in the OP. _________________ Well done boys! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Wokko ![Pisces Pisces](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_pisces.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Come and take it.
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
A big problem is some people are 'chinny' and get knocked out cold when a stiff breeze hits them. Others have an iron jaw and can take hit after hit from professional fighters and just keep standing and coming forward. Same goes for breaking bones or other assorted injuries, some are robust, others are held together with tape and rubber bands.
The MRP system is a farce because it attributes force of impact based on injury caused. Also hitting in the head is considered worse than say, hitting someone in the kidneys when this isn't necessarily the case. |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AN_Inkling
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
^^As I say, this is the only valid point of criticism I've seen. Still, you can make arguments either way, and it's not a problem with the system per se, but with the weighting of decisions. _________________ Well done boys! |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Bob Sugar
![](images/transdot.gif)
![](images/avatars/10460473124de2f0a49d847.jpg)
![](images/transdot.gif) Joined: 11 Feb 2010 Location: Benalla
|
Post subject: | |
|
Fact is the AFL want the big bumps, but they want to able to blame anyone but the game if someone gets hurt, it's pathetic really. _________________ Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|