The MRP and a more democratic A-League

Despite some negative comments over last weekend’s refereeing decisions, there were no incidents from Round 1 that warranted the A-League’s match review panel to convene and sit in judgement.

We can be sure, however, that there will be some incident during the year that will warrant the attention of the MRP and further consideration by the disciplinary committee.

So I am going to make the big call here and now – before we get hot under the collar, and while our minds are still clear – and suggest we throw out the match review panel as it stands and with it, throw out the disciplinary committee.

The MRP is a three-man group consisting of one ex-referee, one ex-player, and currently one lawyer. They have occasionally been referred to as ‘the three wise monkeys’ due to the fact that whenever Sydney FC are involved they collectively see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

The MRP makes rulings and occasionally forwards incidents to the disciplinary committee, which has the role of issuing additional sanctions. The disciplinary committee is a vague star chamber. Under FFA Disciplinary Regulations point 4.3 the committee is convened “from time to time (with) a chair, a deputy chair and the number of members deemed necessary”.

It is a superbly vague regulation that would make Sepp Blatter and the FIFA executives proud. The FFA know that as no decision is ever black and white, rule 4.3 allows it to appoint a committee of its choosing and numbers as “deemed necessary” to achieve a given outcome.

The FFA preaches “We are football” and this year’s promotion includes “Our #BeautifulGame”. Not for the first time it also features an energetic video highlighting the atmosphere, colour and noise of the crowd.

At this year’s high-tech launch at a Telstra hub, the FFA crowed about having “over than 100,000 rusted-on members” and the “most tech savvy and connected fans”.

Those 100,000 tech-savvy rusted-on members present a marvellous opportunity for the FFA to be innovative and achieve several benefits for the game in one fell swoop. My proposed initiative would fix the broken MRP process and ensure fans get the spectacle they want to watch, delivering an improvement in the long-term quality and status of the game.

We, the members, know what we want to see on our football parks. We know right from wrong. We have more total football expertise than any MRP regardless of the wisdom of the three people involved. (By the way, do we know if the incumbents even go to A-League matches on a regular basis? I’ll bet they don’t.)

And the members surely have more football expertise than an unknown, inconsistent, last-minute selection of whoever is available to sit on an urgently convened disciplinary committee.

The decisions of the MRP and disciplinary committee often determine the direction of the game as their rulings define what behaviours players can get away with. As a consequence they also significantly affect the stature of the game in the broader community.

Why should we, the rusted-on members, the ones putting our hands in our pockets every week, be forced to swallow to the decisions of a few unelected people who can have such a huge influence on the game we love?

It’s time the FFA became more democratic – not in their election processes, no, we are not asking for miracles here – but in the determination of match issues (MRP) and in the sanctioning of players, officials or clubs (disciplinary committee).

It wouldn’t be hard. The process as it stands sees the referees’ reports and any other issues brought to the attention of the MRP. The same methodology could see issues and relevant information collated and published online.

The MRP then review and consider these issues and cast a vote based on the applicable regulations published by the FFA. Voting by its very nature is a simple choice of options and usually comes down to questions like:

‘Did the referee make an obvious error or judgement?’

‘Was that (a) simulation or (b) a foul or (c) just incidental contact that caused a player to tumble or take evasive action in a reasonable manner?’

‘Was the red card worthy of more than the mandatory one-week suspension?’

‘How many weeks suspension should the player receive?’

It’s time to take responsibility for answering these questions out of the hands of three men and let the members of A-League clubs dissect, argue and weigh up their opinions and vote accordingly.

To avoid the most obvious of potential biases the members of the two teams involved in the match might be unable to vote. Perhaps only members of three years or more – i.e. the committed ones, those over 16 years, or members with ID – to avoid cat and dog memberships.

However you determine the final eligibility, you’d still have tens of thousands of A-League loving people eligible to cast their collective judgement over contentious issues.

Clearly not all members will have the same opinion, and forums like this one (or a new MRP forum) allow for argument, debate and comment. Regardless of the outcome of any vote, I would more happily accept the collective decision of fellow members than the decision of three people – regardless of how wise or unbiased the ‘three wise monkeys’ may be.

The members who, having found players or officials guilty, would also take on the role of the disciplinary committee in determining the relevant sanction based on the applicable laws and sanctions published by the FFA. The applicable sanction alternatives need only be presented to them in a manner that allows a vote to take place.

I believe the members would regulate match day incidents far more even-handedly, far more consistently, and far more accurately than a randomly appointed star chamber whose interest in the game and whose biases are unknown to us.

Of course such a process may never happen. Not in my lifetime anyway. But wouldn’t it be great if before there was an incident – before all the chest beating and moaning of the coaches, players and supporters begins – we could have a serious discussion about the other ways of running the process and ask ourselves ‘is there a better way?’.

As a challenge to the FFA I say why not try it? Why not run the current broken system in parallel with a new tech-savvy rusted-on member initiative? Let’s see how far apart the members are when compared with the few wise men of judgement. And from the comparison and any outcry we’ll quickly see which group proves better at overseeing match incidents and in whose hands the decisions should rest.

I’m sure that a vote of members is a better way. It would transform the words “We are football” from an empty slogan into a statement charged with real meaning. After all, it is our #BeautifulGame and wherever possible we should be the guardians of it.