- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The AFL’s match review panel (MRP) is meant to review the week’s incidents and judge whether they are within the rules and spirit of the game. It is failing to live up to the task.
The Jay Schulz tackle shows the MRP really has no idea what it is doing.
Schulz was cleared for his tackle on Ted Richards, which left the Swans defender unable to finish the match and in doubt for this week’s clash against the Lions.
Bryce Gibbs was suspended for a sling tackle on Robbie Gray less than two weeks before Schulz’s tackle. Gray was also concussed and could not play out the game. Whether or not he was fit for the following week is unknown, given the Power had the bye.
Last week, Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett were rightfully suspended for incidents that were ugly, but fortunately did not injure any players.
Franklin regularly bumps players out of the way, but as long as he doesn’t get head-high contact, has not been suspended. Tippett, realising he was late to the ball, had a hit at his opponent in which he probably made more forceful contact then he meant.
Both suspended. Fair enough.
Which leads us to the issue: what are the MRP actually suspending people for?
Bryce Gibbs tactfully tweeted “I’m confused”, while Leigh Matthews and Kevin Bartlett were also bewildered.
Bartlett is chairman of the rules committee, and carries a bit of weight on these issues. Meanwhile, if an extraordinarily tough player like Matthews thinks the issue was wrong, I would listen.
The MRP can’t seem to decide what it wants to suspend for. All four incidents were described are ugly and not the best image for the game. Yet three resulted in suspensions while one remains curiously innocent.
Concussion has serious, medical, often life-long consequences and should not be taken lightly. Some players have had to retire as a result of being concussed too many times.
Two tackles resulting in concussion in three weeks seems to me that we need a review sooner rather than later. But will the AFL have the guts to review this immediately or wait until the end of the year?
Gibbs, Franklin and Tippett were all penalised for incidents near the head. Schulz escaping for a dangerous tackle, despite the repercussions being less than Franklin’s and Tippett’s, is a joke.
Schulz did admittedly see if Richards was alright, but if I hit someone with a bottle and it knocks them out and I go and check on them, it’s still my fault.
The MRP has seemed to grade on potential to cause harm. So Franklin gets one week (although with a good record), Gibbs gets two and Schulz gets none. It makes no sense. I’d say potential to cause harm was equal across all of them. Where’s the consistency?
Hawks Luke Hodge and Jordan Lewis were suspended earlier in the year for ugly incidents where there was little intention other than to hurt an opponent. While neither player affected was actually injured, the possibility of injury was high, and thus Hodge and Lewis received three and two weeks respectively.
How these two got bans while Schulz didn’t for a tackle that left his opponent out cold is baffling. Surely if Richards is concussed and neither of the Hawks’ opponents were injured, than it should be graded the same?
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.