The Match Review Panel (MRP) probably cops more whacks than any other body, team or player associated with the AFL. Most of the time it is rightly so.
But it’s only fair we should applaud them when they get it right, as they did in assessing the Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett incidents from Sydney’s Friday night loss to Richmond, where both players can accept a one-week ban with a guilty plea.
The hysteria that accompanied these incidents was due to two factors – Sydney’s ‘Bondi billionaires’ were involved and emotions were heightened due to the heated, often spiteful tone the match took place in.
When we look at each act – Franklin’s bump on Shane Edwards and Tippett’s elbow on Dylan Grimes – in the cold light of day, neither deserves multiple weeks.
We constantly hear about the weight given to how much damage is suffered by the victims in these sort of charges.
After all, Bryce Gibbs got given a two-match ban last week because Robbie Gray was knocked out in his tackle. If Gray had gotten up, broken away from the stoppage with ball in hand and played out the game, Gibbs would have only been guilty of not making his tackle hard enough.
The Franklin hit seems to have caused the most ire. He ran past the ball and dropped his shoulder into the oncoming Edwards, whose sole intent was the ball, collecting him high.
Given that Edwards was given the all clear to return to the ground, and played out the rest of the game, what damage was actually done? No broken bones, no bleeding from the head, no concussion.
Sure, it didn’t look great, but are we ready to make judgements on something as subjective as aesthetics?
In the other incident, Grimes was dropping back in front of a leading Tippett, who got there late and made Grimes earn his mark with a glancing blow to the head, as forwards have done to defenders dropping back into their space for a hundred years.
Grimes got straight up, disposed of the ball, and played out the game with no ill effects. Again, what damage was actually done? Again, no broken bones, no bleeding from the head, no concussion.
Australian rules football is a physical game. It takes courage to play it. Sometimes you’re going to get hurt when going for the ball. Oftentimes this will be through accidental and unavoidable contact. Every now and then it will be because an opponent wants to intimidate or send a message.
If this opponent calculates wrong due to being frustrated or angry and is too malicious, they’ll serve a suspension, as Franklin and Tippett will do this week.
We want our players to put their bodies on the line, and they do so knowing they might get injured. Shane Edwards and Dylan Grimes did exactly that, but walked away from these incidents unscathed.
Franklin and Tippett looked bad, and they could have caused more damage than they did. As such, they’ll now have a week to think about it. The Match Review Panel got this one right.
EddyJ
Guest
Some of the MRP decisions have been quite bewildering (Fyfe, May, etc). Franklin probably should have received two weeks, Tippett either one week, or a fine. Perhaps the leniency was provided based on the Richmond injury reports – ie, no injury, no concussion, the players were able to continue in the match immediately – but I think Franklin was a tiny bit lucky not to get two weeks. But in fairness to the players, these are split-second decisions in a high-paced game. These incidents are going to happen.
Dave
Guest
All the talk seems to be about players duty of care to opposition players yet Jimmy Bartell got slung into MCG centre bounce area in round 1 vs Hawthorn in dying seconds and suffered concussion missing next game. Absolutely no penalty given to offending 'unsociable' Hawks player so don't talk about consistency and mrp in same sentence please.
Jimmy
Roar Rookie
Cameron, re the Franklin incident, the MRP may or may not have handed down the right penalty, but it seems that we are at least in agreement that the MRP got it wrong in grading Franklin’s conduct as being merely ‘careless’. Some might think that this is splitting hairs on my part i.e. who cares so long as the same outcome is reached (although reaching the same outcome in this case would have depended on the MRP grading the impact as ‘low’ cf ‘medium’). Nevertheless,I think that it goes without saying that it’s important that the MRP grades conduct (i.e. ‘careless’ vs ‘intentional’) correctly in situations as uncontentious as this one. Intentional conduct of medium impact with head high contact would have resulted in 2 weeks with an early guilty plea (correct for mine). And, more importantly, it will be interesting to say the least to see how the MRP strives for some consistency in grading conduct in future in light of this decision.
Tricky
Guest
Spot on Macca, and that is what the AFL need to come to grips with instead of penalising players for playing the game
Macca
Guest
That right Tricky - I (and I don;t think any footballer) never ran out on to the ground thinking I would (or even could) get injured but I was never surprised when it happened. It is a contact sport and when 2 people want the same ball sometimes things happen.
Tricky
Guest
Good example! In this particular scenario should it have panned out as you say and Danger got weeks for it - then I'd have to disagree with the tribunals decision because the intent was to contest the ball and again......................... the risk you take playing this game. I don't any footballer would disagree with me here.
WhereIsGene
Guest
The AFL certainly cares a great deal about Gold Coast after pumping millions into the club Paul, but you're right about Brisbane they've been a tad neglected of late. I'm sure the league would never allow the club to fold however.
Don Freo
Guest
For equity of course. Why should teams like Carlton and Gold Coast have to bear the full brunt of a penalty while Sydney has them diluted? If a player breaks the rules, his team should be penalized according to the same standard. I can't believe you think there should be one standard for the expendables and another for the Million dollar players.
D.Large
Guest
The only staggering part about this debate is that footy followers want players to get suspended. The only reason I would want Buddy to get weeks would be if my team was playing them the next week, why else would I want players to miss for some of the nonsense suspensions that get handed out these days? Now that I think about it, the Barry Hall v Brent Staker incident a few years ago should have been a reprimand only.
The Original Buzz
Guest
Christo, I agree with you on Buddy getting three weeks, he has a history of going for the head. This penalty was inadequate and the MRP got it wrong again, in my book. Tippets was probably right, two down to one with a guilty plea. It would seem it all comes down to how badly the other player gets injured. What would have been the outcome if Buddy had knocked Edwards out cold with concussion and a trip to the hospital? 3 weeks easy. The same for Tippet. Deliberate head high contact doesn't matter as long as the player involved is not injured. That is the message I get from this (including Gibbs' tackle on Gray) and it really doesn't sound right to me. Players get frustrated and on an emotionally charged, testosterone fueled footy field, these things are going to happen. I am not condoning it, just pointing out that things happen in the heat of battle. It needs to be even and fair, at the moment it is neither.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
The inconsistency from the match review panel is atrocious. Truth is Buddy and Tippett's deserve worse, or they got May's, Gibbs' and such wrong.
Maggie
Guest
As above, Franklin got exactly the same penalty when playing for Hawthorn for a similar high bump on Malceski who was then playing for the Swans. So in fact the MRP has been quite consistent.
Maggie
Guest
Gibbs made an extremely dangerous sling tackle, with Gray's arms pinned, which slammed Gray's head into the ground. Players are well aware that such tackles will be penalised. The penalty was consistent with precedent. Mumford has been penalised two weeks on at least two occasions for sling tackles.
Maggie
Guest
Yes exactly the same as this incident. Negligent (now called careless), medium impact, high contact. Two weeks reduced to one by an early acceptance of the decision.
Maggie
Guest
It wasn't because the interchange official couldn't count. (Exactly that DID happen to the Swans a few years ago.) The incident referred to here was a breakdown in communication about when Edwards could go back on the ground after his concussion test. I agree with Cam though that the interchange breach penalty onfield is too severe.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
And if he's only going to get a week each time he gets charged with the same offence, it's hardly motivation to change his behaviour is it?
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Turns out you can actually...;)
Don Freo
Guest
The MRP has applied an Ambassadorial Clause called COLA; C an O blige L ance A lone
Paul D
Roar Guru
Meanwhile one of our best players in Stefan Martin gets rubbed out for two weeks, courtesy of one of those rubbish decisions where they slate it at 3, early plea gets you 2, and if you appeal and lose you get 4. All clubs suck it up given that offer. You were saying about ambassadors in league states? The AFL certainly doesn’t give a toss about them up here. Half the gold coast are nose deep in coke or bibles, and the rest of them are in the hospital ward.
WhereIsGene
Guest
Franklin would've copped 3-4 had he not been wearing a Sydney jumper. He was never treated this leniently by the MRP when he played for Hawthorn, if anything the reverse. Now that he's become the game's de facto ambassador in NSW its very important to keep him on the field, and frankly anyone who refuses to believe the MRP weighed that into their considerations is probably either a Swans supporter themselves or doesn't realize how much weight the AFL attaches to financial outcomes when making decisions. All punters want from the MRP is consistency. Well, I guess when the perpetrators are Swans they are fairly consistent!