AFL football boss Steve Hocking has today told media that the league will abandon the match review panel format in 2018, instead appointing Collingwood premiership player Michael Christian as a sole match review officer.
Much-maligned over recent years by football fans for supposed inconsistency and poor understanding of the nature of the game, the match review panel was previously the independent body assigned to combing match footage for reportable offences and subsequently issuing penalties.
But today, general manager of football Steve Hocking announced – alongside a number of sweeping changes to the disciplinary system – that the panel would be scrapped, with longtime MRP member and former Channel 10 commentator Michael Christian to take the reins as match review officer.
Where the MRP was an independent body, Christian will report directly to Hocking and the AFL and will be also be made more widely available to media inquiries than the somewhat-opaque MRP was.
Christian will consult directly with Hocking before issuing any penalties, but the process will reportedly take far less time than it did previously.
Hocking claimed this move would help make the match review process far more understandable for the general public.
“Through the recent 2017 season there was regular public uncertainty on the rationale for key decisions, with only a small number of incidents receiving an explanation or assessed via a full open examination at the AFL Tribunal,” he said.
In order to encourage more tribunal challenges in 2018, the AFL will also remove the penalty reduction for an early guilty plea, meaning players won’t be punished on the field for challenging their suspension.
Failed appeals will, however, incur a $10,000 club fine that will come out of the their football department spending cap.
Other changes to the disciplinary process were announced in Hocking’s conference, including a general increase in all fines for low-level offences and automatic fines for staging, but a removal of the one-match suspension issued for receiving three fines in a season.
Leonard
Guest
"AFL to abolish Match Review Panel in 2018" - and good riddance, too. Now, what should be the next to fill the [ ]s in 'AFL to abolish [whatever] in [whenever]? My first nomination: pre-season inter-club games, no matter what fancy-nancy name some acned PR parasite has dreamed up. YES to pre-season intra-club games, but NO to pre-season inter-club games. Inter-club games have meant not a goddam thing since 75,000 saw the Bombers play the Tigers in 1993's GF at Waverley; nothing in terms of pre-season team / player preparations and club management operations would be lost if such games went solely intra-club. There could even be a 24-game season, with a 17 opponent matchups + one derby / blockbuster rematch + six other rematches more evenly allocated - PROVIDED that gametime was 4 x 15 minute quarters + time on, which many fans would prefer in their time-poor lives, as would the 'media partners'. Maybe, even, less 'junk time'?
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Yep WCE! We are now working on Daicos judging Goal of the Year and maybe Billy Picken mark of the year.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Absolutely worth trying Birdman, an ex Pie premiership player in charge means we may finally get the rub of the green. Now, if we can just get Chrisso judging mark of the year too. :)
Daz
Roar Pro
I agree that there should be a distinction between in play and out of play events. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to simply classify any off-play non-football related incidents as ""deliberate", "intentional", "reckless", or whatever the highest category is. I think if you are careless in play and do serious damage (ie sling tackle, chicken wing or bump and take their head off) and you get rubbed out, that should still disqualify you from Brownlow contention though.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I struggle to see how this will improve decision making over the longer term. This role is all about perception, both in the categorising of incidents and the accumulative perception of the media and fans. I can see how doing something flashy to the process results in a PR win now, but I reckon they'll be creating a rod for their backs once the tricky situations roll in and there's all the more ingredients for people to see this as an agenda driven process. In fact the more I think about it, with the pressure brought to bear on one person, the more this is prone to being a process not driven by reasoning, but rather the prevailing opinion of the media and footy public.
Daz
Roar Pro
Perhaps they should have brought in a former umpire as a consultant.
Daz
Roar Pro
That's always been the issue that I've seen. The MRP only ever seemed to pick up the incidents that were talked about by the media ad nauseum. There were rarely incidents that were discovered during the MRP. There were multiple occasions during the year, where an incident was shown on camera in play, but the commentators didn't notice, didn't care, or thought there was nothing in it. The MRP never seemed to pick those up.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
Someone here suggested two tables of penalties, one for football-related infringements (tackles, trips, bumps, etc.) and one for non-football infringements (strikes, bites, and the like), with only the latter leading to disqualification from the Brownlow. Disappointed to see that something like this hasn't been taken up.
Cat
Roar Guru
All has to be signed off by Hocking too.
PeteB
Guest
Well clearly the current system was failing so changes had to happen. Hope it works !
Damien
Guest
Yeah, because when I think of umpires and their decision making words like sensible, common sense and accurate spring to my mind ?
Virgil Starkwell
Guest
Agreed. Surely a former umpire would’ve been preferable.
WCE
Roar Rookie
so we have eddie everywhere smashed all over our tv screens and ex c/wood player scrutinizing the reviews = WTF ????? so there is no independent non bias human available then ???
spruce moose
Guest
"I particularly like the removal of lengthier suspensions for failed appeals" I hate that part. It undermines the point of the process. Now it will be risk free appealing...$10,000 is nothing for some clubs. You needed the risk of an increased penalty - that's what the legal system is like too.
Mattician6x6
Guest
I know, would consider it was a push but each to his own.
Cat
Roar Guru
He quit before last season concluded anyway.
Cat
Roar Guru
No mention that he'd be the only one looking for incidents, only that he will be the sole adjudicator (with approval from Hocking).
Mattician6x6
Guest
Worth a try and thankfully means we don't have to listen to Bartel stammer his way thru match review question anymore
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
You'd think he might be glazed over by the end of eighteen hours of watching every round The commentators' bias will have to be discounted and extra footage invited from the public... I don't think one man's view will necessarily be enough. Still worth a try
Birdman
Guest
will Christian actually watch every single game to find incidents for review or does he get a package of incidents from the media outlets? Other than that it seems worth trying.