Worth a read.

[Bob Sugar]

Got this off BF.

[AN_Inkling]

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.

[Wokko]

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.

[35forever]

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!

.

[35forever]

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!

.

[35forever]

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!

.

[Albert Parker]

^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.

[AN_Inkling]

[Wokko]

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.

[AN_Inkling]

^^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.

[Bob Sugar]

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.