The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

The AFL match review panel is unreliable

Roar Pro
15th July, 2015
53

There has been a lot of hype this season about Nat Fyfe and his amazing ability as a footballer. There has also been plenty of hype about his and other players’ ability to dodge suspension.

Regardless of his stellar efforts this season, is Nat avoiding scrutiny because of his excellent on-field sporting performance?

>> ROUND 16 AFL EXPERT TIPS
>> PREVIEW FOR ROUND 16

Nat recently came under the microscope from the AFL match review panel following his attempt at a late spoil on Hawthorn’s Taylor Duryea. Anyone who has seen the vision would agree that Nat should have got a suspension for rough conduct.

This isn’t the first time he has escaped suspension. He got away with only a $1000 fine for tripping Bulldogs player Koby Stevens in Round 7. Lately, there has been an air of suspicion surrounding the MRP in light of the decision not to suspend Fyfe and it’s leading me to question whether we can rely on their judgment.

In Round 12 Bryce Gibbs was offered a two-week ban for his sling tackle on Port Adelaide’s Robbie Gray. So naturally I was confused when Jay Schulz received a fine and no suspension for his identical tackle on Ted Richards.

This situation has left everyone up in arms about the reliability of the match review panel. The two tackles, almost identical in style and enactment, resulted in Gibbs taking to social media to express his confusion. Fair enough as well.

The majority of people with a brain will probably agree that Schulz is another player who deserved a suspension but slipped away with a measly fine.

Advertisement

Another prime example of the confusion swirling around the panel is the Chris Judd versus Joel Selwood ‘chicken wing’ tackle. Please, I’m sick of hearing about this. Chris Judd got a four-game suspension in 2012 for his chicken wing tackle and Selwood’s tackle looked very similar.

It’s very unfair and suspicious how the higher profile players seem to get away with bigger issues.

In conclusion, the MRP has not been everyone’s favourite panel this year with a fair few dodgy and confusing decisions. I think it’s about time results and outcomes start becoming more fair and fitting.

I’m not sitting through another season of watching players so clearly doing the wrong thing and then escaping penalties in the terms of suspension. Almost everyone would agree that Jay Schulz, Nat Fyfe and Joel Selwood each deserved at least a on- match suspension just to teach them a lesson.

In my opinion suspending players is a perfect way to ensure they learn from their mistakes and value the safety of their opponents.

close