Suspensions. They plague coaches at the end of the year because players do stupid things. In anticipation of finals games and during the finals, should players receive smaller bans?
It is a point that is continually debated among AFL fans.
We all love seeing the greats and talented players of our game.
It is what makes us drawn to it, these players that amaze us minute by minute, game by game, year by year. The finals series can often draw the best out of players and it can influence players to feats of higher glory.
Lance ‘Buddy’ Franklin received a one-week suspension after he hit Swans player Malceski with a high contact bump.
Many argued he should have received more than one week, and many cited that due to finals his penalty was reduced.
In terms of how the points system worked, it should have been two weeks and somehow the MRP deemed the contact low impact, when people in the media such as Gerard Whately said it was definitely medium impact.
Should ‘Buddy’ have got his suspension reduced to the one week or should he have suffered under the full weight of the law?
If he was given a leniency, then we should now enforce rules that make it clear that in finals, and prior to them, the points received for an action are downgraded.
If this didn’t happen, and it was genuinely believed to be low impact, the panel needs to have a serious rethink about what they deem to be low, medium and high impact.
Corey Enright was found guilty of striking in their loss to Fremantle.
He hit Chris Mayne in a high intense game and it was not in a brawl and in his opinion he did not mean to strike.
He believed he was trying to get to the contest.
Regardless of your opinion, it is not much worse then Mayne’s own strike – if at all.
Mayne may have gotten away and this was possibly that the MRP did not want him to miss the final, while Enright would only miss the semi.
Do people like Buddy, Enright and Mayne deserve to have penalties reduced?
Many argue it would be best that these players play for the benefit of the game.
The game of course prospers from quality performances. Can the AFL also maintain integrity and the best for the game though if players are let off because of a ‘sense of occasion’?
It is a tough and interesting argument. I myself have no particular swing with reasons for both.
Roarers, what are your thoughts?
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
In regards to my comment, which is struggling to be edited for some reason... This would not be equal for H&A naturally. It is an interesting debate. Justice or injustice? Can it be considered just for those fans who want to see these players perform but then unjust for those who want the players to be reprimanded? Indeed.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I'm starting to take the mindset of - depends on the incident. If you take a swipe at a guy and hit him - say a certain Hall may have done a few times, then you should miss a final. Missing a Grand Final - that is just unbearable. Especially if your team wins. Take a look at players that have. E.g. McGlynn last year - and that was injury. If you it is incidental and not on purpose you should miss not final. But this would need to be consistent - again MRP struggle with consistency. If we wanted to rate the MRP's form it would be 2/10.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
They can't be consistent during H&A. I watch every AFL 360 and have read articles usually done weekly by Julian DeStoop. Common ground is consistency is missing.
Gottabekidding
Guest
As previously mentioned Billy Longer committed a very similar crime to Franklin and got off. This was shown on 360 and clearly dismisses your theory. Every expert suggested Franklin would get 2, reduced to 1 with an early guilty plea and he did. Not much fun being on the review panel. Even when they get it right some fool will argue.
Mango Jack
Guest
If you take the line that "the punishment should fit the crime", then there should be consideration given to the importance of the match missed. Missing a training run against the Giants cannot be compared with missing a grand final, but that is the potential outcome for 2 players committing the same offence. I think the points system should apply to the match missed, giving greater weighting to a final, grand final, etc.
Robbie
Guest
I think Buddy got a reduced sentence because he is the biggest name in the game and the AFL wanted him to play. Had he been a young no name player he probably would've received 3-4 weeks.
EddyJ
Guest
I'd like to see a system in for grand finals where you can 'buy out' the suspension using future games – so if you are suspended after an incident in the preliminary final, you can take still your position in the grand final, but only if you make it up with a suspension of six games in the following season. This means that you still get to play in a very important game, but the future suspension acts as a deterent, so you don't just go and punch players in the prelim. Not sure how well this system would work, but it would mean that players wouldn't miss (probably) the most important game in their career, just because of a brain snap in the preceding match, as well as having some form of punishment, even if it is handed out the following season. The AFL already has a different penalty (double-suspension) for grand final matches, so no reason why something like this can't be implemented.
New York Hawk
Guest
Seriously? That Dawson smother, not tackle, was completely fine. His eyes were only for the ball. If the contact is accidental and occurs as part of a legitimate action, then no penalty applies. See Luke Hodge escaping suspension twice during the Carlton match. Dawson smother was exactly that. At the time, asmit happened, it looked bad, but upon review it looks fine. All the footy talk shows said as much. Free kick for high contact, yes. Suspension, no way.
Nev
Guest
Obviously I along with the commentators Must have watched the wrong game , as they looked sideways at each other and also queried the incident , raising their eyebrows The point in question is do the MRP judge the Reports differently in the finals from home and away games and most people on this post and media commentators agree that there is a difference and from what I have learnt from earlier reports this year , the MRP are not Consistent
joe blackswan
Guest
"tackle"? He made a legitimate attempt to smother the ball by jumping up high...the result was unintentional low impact contact when he was coming down. It is as clear as day on the footage. Perhaps you are referring to a different incident, or game.
johno
Guest
The MRP should have suspended Johnson for acting and being a sook
Nev
Guest
Take off your Freo glasses my friend , jumping off the ground ,head high into another player is a reckless tackle and has been in the past been at least 3 weeks
Australian Rules
Guest
That's right Franko. The new approach is effectively the "Alistair Lynch Rule"...and I think it makes sense. It's designed to prevent incidents like that...and ones like the Yeates-Brereton hit years earlier.
joe blackswan
Guest
Did you actually see the incidents, or take note of the rulings? Mayne was penalised, and in no way was Dawson reckless or tackling. Bewildering comment.
simmo107
Roar Rookie
Both Enright and Mayne were handed the same penatly, which was one week and 25 carry-over points, and both had the chance to reduce it to a reprimand and 93 carry-over points with an early guilty plea. Enright decided to challenge the ruling, which was upheld by the MRP, Mayne took the plea which enabls him to play in the prelim final.
Kevin Mader
Roar Rookie
They should be consistent all year long - H&A and Finals.
Gus McManus
Roar Rookie
If Buddy was Jack Ziebell he'd have got 4 weeks. In fact I'm worried that Jack will get suspended for Buddy's bump!
Connor
Guest
Since he retired after that game, did Lynch actually pay the fine? If he'd already retired i don't see how they can force him to pay a fine
hawker
Guest
the article should read " should players be suspended at all for these mickey mouse bumps???"
Rich_daddy
Roar Guru
The bottom line is fans want to see the best players out on the field. Even though opposing sides would love to see a player like Buddy Franklin sitting in the grandstands, a win over the Hawks would be somewhat hollow in this case. I know West Coast fans were miffed in 2005 when Barry Hall had his striking charge downgraded, enabling him to play in the GF. Had he been suspended though and the Eagles had won, the satisfaction would have been nowhere near as great. I definently think the MRP is softer come finals. Several incidences during the home and away seasons were far more benign than Franklin's bump but attracted far greater penalities.