For AFL fans, Monday is a day most can’t wait for. Not because we are closer to the next round, but because we can’t wait for the Match Review Panel to hand down its findings from the weekend.
Come 3:00 on a Monday afternoon and the AFL releases its findings. Social media lights up with debate as it dissects the very findings from the weekend.
If you follow it with interest, the hashtag #MRPlotto will be used quite frequently, indicating that no one really knows what will be handed down due to inconsistencies handed out previously.
As funny as some people’s reactions may be, no one thinks it is funny when verdicts such as the Tyrone Vickery swinging arm to the face of Dean Cox and then teammate Reece Conca’s blatant and deliberate elbow to the back of Devon Smith’s head as he was walking off the ground can be given a guilty or good behaviour discount.
Under its definition, guilty is determined if someone has committed an offence, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law.
In AFL terms, it constitutes an action that can be found guilty of suspension.
Both cases were deliberate and high contact. There was no grey area for conjectures, merely the force in which they were delivered.
Yet in both cases, the force should not be factored into the end result. The fact they were deliberate acts that were meant to cause harm to a player mean that there should be no discount warranted.
In Vickery’s case, he was sent directly to the tribunal, therefore not being able to plead either way before the case being heard. Even though the tribunal found him guilty, he was still gave a 25 per cent discount as a result of not being able to plea, reducing his suspension from five to four matches.
The question that must be asked is how can a deliberate act get a reduced suspension? A morally wrong action should be not treated with leniency or good favour. Instead, the full punishment should be served.
Had this same act occurred outside the boundary of an AFL match and in the streets on a Saturday night, Vickery would be facing a court hearing. Had Cox hit his head on the concrete and not the soft grass of Pattison Stadium, who knows what the end result may have been.
On Saturday, just a week after the Vickery incident, Reece Conca decided that it was okay to run up behind someone and throw a swinging elbow into the back of the head.
This was again a deliberate act in which the player, Devon Smith, had no way of defending himself or be expected to think contact would be made.
The MRP deemed that it was a three week incident, yet with a good behaviour clause, was reduced to two matches.
The question again should be asked in the same way it was for Vickery. How can a morally wrong act that was deemed to be deliberate without questions be handed leniency because of a good record?
The incident was even bought into questions by David Galbally QC, who believes Conca’s hit should be deemed bad enough to be charged with assault.
The MRP has handed down some shocking findings this year and the rule changes that have occurred may see Nathan Fyfe miss out on a Brownlow for incidental head contact.
His suspension caused him to miss two matches, the same length suspension that Reece Conca faces.
One was for incidental head contact by laying a bump to the head which is deemed to be sacrosanct.
The other, a deliberate elbow to the back of the head (remember that it is sacrosanct), off the ball without the player having any reasonable thought of contact was to be made.
We all know what was worse, however with Fyfe’s bad record, he was unable to get it reduced, despite being a complete accident and in no way done to cause damage to the opponent.
With an overhaul of the MRP to be done at seasons end, there will be no doubt changes that will appease many AFL fans.
Without questions though, the one that must be changed for the better of the game and for the AFL’s image, any player found guilty of a deliberate act should not be given a guilty plea or good behaviour discount.
Don Freo
Guest
Olivia, the deliberate choice to bump is the issue. It is a football action that is second nature. Just because a clerk in an office says it can be controlled, doesn't mean it can be. The first point of impact was the shoulder to the shoulder (which is still legal...probably won't be soon) and it was the momentum that then resulted in the head collision. All of you backyard lawyers who keep arguing it is the law, end of story, also need to acknowledge it is a law made on the run and can easily be changed. Look at how easily they changed the venue to Geelong in last year's final once they knew Freo was playing. The rules are fluid. They stopped applying the rule when a precious AFL family was going to be the victim of the rule. One look at the potential mockery of Charlie Brownlow would suggest a few derogatory comments now about a turn around would be preferable. They would actually be praised for courage and sense...a fresh change from the arrogance that refuses to admit error. How can you eliminate a winner because he wasn't the 'fairest' and give the medal to a player who wasn't the 'best'? At least the umpires vote for the best. They never vote for the fairest. Lenny Hayes or Harry Taylor would win it every year.
Don Freo
Guest
Isn't that what Radelaide is saying, Gene?
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
Gibbs was hilarious on Thursday night. Running around like a meringue, trying to look hard but you knew he has no heart for the physical stuff. Instead he resorted to late shots from behind, elbows and words in front of the umpire. That'll be stored in the memory bank for next year.
johno
Guest
Nope, don't agree. Fyfe's suspension showed how ridiculous the new rule is. Fair bump, accidental head clash ... Opponent not concussed. Rischitelli played out the match and played the following week. The rule is there to protect players from concussions, yet when a concussion has not occurred a player gets suspended? Wrong! Every other rule checks the medical reports. Look at Stevie J getting off last weekend after he deliberately dropped his knee into his opponent. That was not an appropriate football act, yet he's free to play! Why - because Thompson came forward and said he was fine, and its all good because where he was hit was already injured .... WHAT? Add to that Gibbs deliberately elbowing Ballantyne in the head on the weekend and that was not even looked at. You can start to see into the mindset of the Freo fan. As for not rating him in the Brownlow .... well he's running 1st in the AFLCA award, third in the Age FOTY award and he's leading the Herald Sun as well ..... so he's a fair chance to be up there in the Brownlow count. In fact he would be one of the favourites if not for this suspension
DJW
Guest
What rubbish. Fyfe applied a textbook bump to his opponent, didn't leave the ground, didn't raise his elbow. Head contact was completly incidental. You can't suspend players for that. What if Fyfe tackled instead of bumped and in the process clashed heads? Suspension as well?
Anthony
Guest
The High Court have thrown out criminal laws that were designed to increase punishments if the accused pleaded not guilty but failed in trial. Everyone has the right to request a trial or a hearing in a civil sense and must not be prejudiced against by insisting on their right.
Cat
Roar Guru
Disagree, everyone has a right to defend themselves without increasing the penalty.
slane
Guest
I completely disagree. Fyfe suspension was wrong. All the other non-suspensions were right. Incidental contact does not merit a suspension.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
There should be truth in sentencing, Radelade. None of this carry over points nonsense is required. Five weeks is five weeks and if a player wishes to challenge their sentence let them do so in the knowledge that losing their challenge will mandatorily see at least a week ADDED to the initial penalty. You would need to be very sure of your innocence before risking that.
Cat
Roar Guru
You've got it wrong. The early guilty plea is to avoid going to the tribunal, which would fulfill your courtroom analogy. Plea or no plea the MRP will still meet, the plea has absolutely no affect on the MRP.
Olivia Watts
Roar Guru
Whilst I agree the points in this article are well made and join in with the criticism of the MRP, I wish we could all get past the Nathan Fyfe suspension. Whilst the head clash was a complete accident, Fyfe made the deliberate, if split second, decision to bump his opponent. The outcome of that decision was a head clash of sufficient impact to the head as to leave the bumped player dazed and bleeding. Fyfe can be seen as desperately unlucky if he misses a Brownlow over this (and I doubt he will, but that's pure conjecture) but his action DID constitute a breach of the rules and DID warrant a penalty. This was one of the few decisions the MRP actually got right; the controversy is there have been far too many incidents not held to the same standard, not that this decision was the wrong one. I apologise to Don Freo in advance, Don, you are right that Franklin et al deserved penalties if Fyfe received one, but it was THOSE decisions the MRP erred on, not Fyfe's. Fyfe is a superb, brave and fair player but broke the rules this one time. All the others who have done the same, including Gibbs on Crowley last week and those from my much loved Swans throughout the season, should have been punished as well. That they weren't is why the MRP needs a complete overhaul at the bare minimum.
Radelaide
Guest
In a court of law a guilty plea is (partly) designed to get a quick result and not tie up the courts resources but the mrp is already meeting so to have a plea system is a waste of time especially considering the damning evidence is already there when the ground cameras caught the incident.
DJW
Guest
At the end of the season the MRP and Tribunal jury should be relieved of there duties. They have been utterly incompetent and inconsistent this season. I would also replace Wayne Campbell as umpiring director for the farce he has presided over this season. The Conca incident is exactly what the AFL should want to stamp out. He should have received the harshest penatly possible for that dog act. The impact criteria they use has to be adjusted to know what the impact was but the impact it could of caused. Just because Conca didn't knock the GWS player out or seriously injury his neck doesn't mean its any less a reckless and dangerous act or capable of causing injury. The fact that through good fortune the GWS player wasn't injured should have no bearing or reduction to the penalty.