AFL football operations boss Mark Evans wants ongoing debate over the match review panel (MRP) put on hold until the end of the season.
Evans last week briefed club chief executives over potential changes to the league’s judicial system, floating the prospect of carry-over points being reformed and fines replacing bans for lower-level offences.
The commission will need to approve any adjustments to the status quo and that won’t happen mid-season.
With seven weeks to run until the grand final, there’s likely to be no shortage of hard-luck stories among charged players who feel they would have avoided suspensions under the new system.
Starting with Hawthorn key forward Jarryd Roughead, whose carry-over points put him at risk of missing Sunday’s clash with Fremantle due to suspension.
“Can you activate it this week, get Roughy off?,” Hawks coach Alastair Clarkson joked on Monday when sitting alongside Evans at the launch of an anti-smoking campaign backed by the AFL Coaches Association.
Evans said MRP changes weren’t a fait accompli, and that any conjecture was unfair given the new model hadn’t been fully detailed yet.
“It’ll be difficult for people to make an assessment of the system until we’re ready to reveal it,” Evans said.
“This is for debate at the end of the year.
“The system that is in place for 2014 stays in place all the way through the season.”
Fremantle gun Nathan Fyfe’s two-week suspension for an accidental head-high bump has been highlighted by many pundits as one of the MRP’s most glaring failures this season.
Evans suggested it was unlikely the new set of rules would have saved Fyfe.
“For head-high contact incidents, I think they’re always going to come under scrutiny in whatever system you have,” he said.
“(The changes look at) the very low end of the grading scale, and how the match review panel goes about grading an incident to come up with a set number of weeks.
“It looks at when you would then refer that onto the tribunal.”
And there are no plans for Brownlow medal eligibility rules to be looked at, despite recent rancour that has coincided with Fyfe’s sparkling form.
“I can’t imagine that changing,” Evans said.
Bosk
Roar Rookie
I don't remember the Tribunal system which the MRP effectively replaced as being all that flash either. Ultimately it always comes down to three guys coming up with their own interpretation and then reaching for whatever rules they can to justify it, not that they really need to justify their decisions to anyone which is part of the problem. What the new system needs is to embrace the concept of precedence because all the fans & players really want is consistency and I don't think we'll ever get it unless the panel making the decisions is encouraged to look at each incident with a fresh set of eyes. The game's laws needs to be predictable and so do the verdicts, but right now they're subject to weekly swings of interpretation. Most of the time I honestly can't tell if the umpires & MRP are corrupt or just a bunch of f***ing amateurs.
Don Freo
Guest
Our discussion is what should or could happen, not what has happened. That discussion then gets railroaded by your restatement of a rule we all know. Are you saying that those on this site, who are not me, are all incapable and lack literacy or comprehension skills?
Cat
Roar Guru
I keep quoting the rule because its bleedingly obvious you and others have no clue what they actually say. I've come to expect you to ignore reality, its okay, its who you are, but there may be hope for others who just don't understand or read things closely enough to understand.
Don Freo
Guest
Suspend the one who spills the least blood. Gene, you never enter into the argument of the post you are responding to...you just re-state your reading of a rule. That's not what is being said. We all know that rule. Freo should seek leave to appeal his ineligibility. Not because it will be lifted but because it will bring the issue to a head now (not somewhere in the off-season when we're all raving about Mitch and Shaun Marsh)...and hang the AFL and its ineptitude out to dry. Embarrassment will work.
Kev
Guest
Carry over points are fine, just as long as they add extra weeks of suspension to a player who would have been suspended for the charge they were brought up on and not the current farce where an incident that didn't have enough points to warrant a suspension, gets tipped over.
Cat
Roar Guru
“Separately, as a reminder to all media, in late 2013 the Commission approved a key change to a current interpretation of the Laws to further protect players from head injuries: Rough Conduct, Head Clashes – A player electing to bump will be cited for rough conduct if contact comes via a head clash, and players will be instructed a head clash should be reasonably foreseen when bumping.” Fyfe chose to bump, a head clash happened because of the bump ... fits the rule to a tee. You can't argue he didn't choose to bump, not when Ross Lyon came out and said afterwards that the reason Fyfe chose to bump instead of tackle was because of a sore shoulder.
Gaz
Guest
It wasn't a bump. It was an accidental head clash. Every accidental head contact is a suspension? Should then both players of been suspended? These blokes are going flat out at the footy, and in a split second they are expected to pull up/stop their momentum? C'mon.
Cat
Roar Guru
Why should it have been thrown out, the MRP followed the rules it was given. It was a textbook case. Thats not to say I agree'd with the rule, I didn't and don't but the MRP is not supposed to ignore rules.
Gaz
Guest
Should be no carry over points. Judge each case on it merits. As for Nat Fyfe, it was an accidental bump that created a head on head clash. Should of been thrown out. Again we see the MRP dealing out harsh punishments at the start of the season then gradually as the season progresses, leniency is given. AFL is a bit of a joke atm.
Axle an the guru
Guest
I'm not arguing for notebooks,all I'm saying is cite the player,he fronts the tribunal,argues his case,they look at his record and decide if it warrants punishment or not,if so then they give him his penalty. Simple,no missing a wk because of carryover points bullsh:t when it only deserves a fine.
Peter Baudinette
Roar Guru
We've gone away from umpires with notebooks because of technology and also because the AFL wants to totally clean the game up. Because of this, we have all this footage available to us and so we can now pick up every little incident and replay it over and over. This won't change. And therefore, there needs to be a system in place that would eliminate the amount of incidents that reach a tribunal. I would expect due to the cost of running it. The current system only requires a few people to watch the game again, make the relevant charge, punch out the points and the charge is laid. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can't see them dramatically changing it.
Axle an the guru
Guest
They should get rid of this MRP rubbish and stop creating jobs for mates. Go back to the simple old reliable tribuneral system. All this points rubbish is BS.