If it hadn’t already come under enough scrutiny, the MRP hit an all time low this week.
Mark Robinson hit the nail on the head tonight on AFL 360 when he made reference to Nathan Fyfe. Here we have a player, likely to poll extremely well in the Brownlow, ineligible due to the MRP’s appraisal of what most in the footy world labelled a textbook hip and shoulder. He received two weeks.
Just last week, Tyrone Vickery blatantly stiff arms Dean Cox in the jaw, knocks him out, and receives four weeks.
Yesterday Reece Conca was handed a two-week suspension for chasing someone down on his way to the bench and elbowing him in the back of the head.
Please.
Nathan Fyfe is an angel compared to the guys in the above example.
To make matters worse, Johnson was looking at one week for a knee to the stomach, but got off.
And let’s not forget Daniel Merrett – whose elbow is still being recovered from Pederson’s face – will be allowed to play this week.
Tell me I am wrong, but there is a massive issue with the system.
Barry Hall received seven weeks for his hit on Brent Staker. At the time, there were enough people calling for a similar ban for Vickery due to the severity of the hit. I personally felt Conca deserved every bit of four to five weeks for his act of stupidity.
The problem with the system is that it leaves out one very import factor when arriving at the activation points.
Stupidity.
We learnt that Conca’s hit was intentional, low impact and high contact resulting in seven activation points. As a result it drew 325 points which is three matches and that can be reduced to two weeks with an early plee.
I think it is time we add in a behavioural scale that looks at the stupidity level of these guys. Conca would get 10 out of 10, another 100 odd points and that would see him rubbed out for 4-5 as he should have been.
Vickery gets the 5-6 weeks he should have. Nathan Fyfe gets a reduction for a text book bump that was a 0 out of 10 on the stupidity scale and he gets off with a reprimand.
I can hear people saying, “what a farce? A stupidity level”. Well it could not be more farcical than what we are being dished up at the moment.
Don Freo
Guest
Oh, it's a disaster. It is just a matter of when it changes. I heard last night that Gillan Mac's office has been trialling a new system against the current system over the time he has been in office. There has been nothing successful about it. It doesn't add consistency, predictability, justice or common sense. Why the AFL ever takes an idea from another code is beyond me. They are usually world's best practice in sporting administration and this time they stuff it up really badly.
Michael huston
Guest
Like I've said before, the MRP isn't the disaster people are msking it out to be, but they do need to stand by their rules. Prime example is the bump. The first third of the season, it was frowned upon by the MRP and any player who elected to bump was sidelined. (Not just Fyfe, Freo fans). Then the uproar commenced, and following that, any player who committed the same offenses as those in the first two months were let off the hook, including Franklin, Viney etc. If the MRP is going to introduce a rule - no matter how ridiculous or controversial it may be - it must stand by those rules. They can't be changed mid-season just because of some backlash. And for the ludicrous comments I still hear peopls saying about Sydney being favoured by the MRP because of the Goodes, Buddy bumps, you only have yourself to blame for them being let off the hook. So many people complained about the bump being taken out of the game, and the MRP (stupidly) responded accordingly.
Don Freo
Guest
You'd have to say the MRP beats the video goal referral system as the AFL's greatest under-achiever this year. That would be the first time that the umpires and Melbourne FC have not been in the bottom two.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
Fyfe's "victim" as you put it was Rischitelli and he suited up for Gold Coast the very next week. In fact, he had no concussion, but just a nick on his cheek that required some first aid under the blood rule so he could go back out there a minute or two later.
Natalie Swansfan
Guest
Nate Fyfe becoming ineligible for the Brownlow with a two week suspension and Reecy Conca getting 2 weeks for the elbow to the back of the head??? Definitely something wrong.
Pillock
Guest
Difference between them is also what happens to the player they smack. Staker was out for months in the Hall case. Merritt was lucky, Fyfe's "victim" was out for a few weeks from memory as well. Vickery & Conca victims missed a bit of game time. Seems to me the consistency seems to relate to the injury imparted by the act. Thought Conca deserved more time and know I will get shouted down for this but didn't think Vickery's was as bad as it was made out. The system is not perfect and will always be anomolies, it's the nature of the beast. One other point don't know why your polling in the Brownlow should have any influence on the penalty.