The Match Review Panel (MRP) has once again come into the spotlight this week, with a few similar actions from the weekend’s games receiving different outcomes.
Dylan Shiel (Essendon) and Brad Ebert (Port Adelaide) have been rubbed out for two weeks and one week respectively for their careless conduct.
Ben Long (St Kilda) has been sent straight to the tribunal to face the judiciary for his hit on Fremantle’s Sean Darcy. Gary Rohan (Geelong) can also accept his fine which he received from Thursday’s night clash against Brisbane.
Shiel’s bump on North Melbourne’s rising star nominee Curtis Taylor has been the most scrutinised out of the lot this far, with Shiel being charged with careless conduct, high contact and high impact.
Shiel has been in immense form since the season restart and was in Brownlow contention until the MRO officially ruled him out on Monday afternoon. Essendon have decided to appeal Shiel’s two-match ban given to the star midfielder, which will no doubt be a big talking point on Tuesday night at the AFL tribunal.
In a similar incident to Shiel’s bump on Taylor, Ebert has been given a one-match ban for his bump on GWS’ Harry Perryman. Ebert was sanctioned by the MRO with careless conduct, high contact and medium impact, which is one class down from Shiel’s bump.
Both bumps seemed very similar to the naked eye, while both players who were bumped in their respective games carried on to finish. MRO officer Dan Christian deemed that Shiel’s momentum was the ultimate decision that led to his two-match ban, saying to the AFL that “it comes down to the question of impact…[and] the intention to cause more serious injury”.
However, comparing the two side by side, it is crystal clear to see that Shiel’s was no different to Ebert’s bump. In fact, Shiel’s probably deserved less of a penalty than Ebert’s.
Shiel and Taylor were both attacking the footy with their bodies front on to the contest, where as Ebert was coming from Perryman’s blindspot and actually jumped off the ground to bump him.
Dylan Shiel of the Bombers. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Now, this is the problem the public have with the MRP. If you are going to penalise one action for one thing, you can’t penalise the exact same action with a different outcome.
Long copped a deserving punishment for his bump on Darcy, and there is no complaint at all with how that unfolded.
There just seems to be so much inconsistency and surrounding this bump rule and now players are confused of what they can and can’t do.
On Thursday night’s clash, Rohan’s bump on Ryan Lester was graded as carless conduct, low impact and high contact.
This decision to only fine Rohan $1500 was laughable. Rohan had gone into the contest with full momentum and elbowed Lester to the face which was deemed as ‘low impact’….please.
For Rohan to only receive a fine for this and Shiel to receive two weeks just gives daylight proof of how inconsistent the match review panel is.
Shiel, who is a Brownlow contender has been hard done by the MRO giving the circumstances of other bumps across the round.
It was no surprise to see Essendon appealing his two-match ban after the MRO released its findings on other incidents.
Shiel will have to wait until Tuesday night at the tribunal to understand the verdict of his action.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
Yeah I can take your points as fair from there, I also think the other thing you gotta talk about is the amount of media play shiels hot and the amount of times it was played in slowmo when compared to Eberts.
Parkside Darren
Roar Rookie
Ebert could have caused more injury as it was more of a collision. He also left the ground. But I think he was going for the ball and was late and braced - still should pay the consequences. But you can’t say it is the same bump as Shiel’s. Happy for you to argue it’s worse but not the same. What I didn’t like about Shiel’s bump is that he could have picked up three ball but went past it to bump first. That’s what they definitely need to stop.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
Yep that was enough to solidify my belief that Christian is too compromised, give him the sack I say
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
What on earth? Eberts bump is worse, he got perryman way to high at pace when he could have elected to tackle normally. If anything I see Ebert as being closer to longs bump
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
I agree that was very poor from the MRO. The MRO needs major reforms
Darce
Guest
This process is hopelessly biased. Michael Christian "decides" the impact is high without the medical evidence. Then the Kangaroo Court backs up his stupidity. Its a pity Dylan's name is not Garry or Shaun. Get rid of this dreadful system and the shockers who man it.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
The fact the appeal failed beggars belief. I could understand a 1 week penalty but to get 2 when Rohan gets slap on the wrist is so unfair it is insulting. There is no justice at the MRP, simply arbitrary and random punishment. The AFL should be ashamed of how their processes have failed so completely and publicly. Hopefully Alistair Clarkeson says something about it in public so that Gil will start fixing this broken system.
Josh Moffitt
Guest
Great read. Nailed what’s wrong with the MRP at the moment. Was surprised to read this young journo was a “roar rookie”. Definitely see a bright future and looking forward to more articles soon
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
He should have got 6 for that, it was vicious.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Agree, Agree, agree. I couldn't believe how much stock Christiansen puts into the outcome of the bump, it really is about how badly the player gets hurt and has nothing to do with the action according to him, go and read his statement about the 4 incidents on the weekend, I was shocked. Why does everybody else see it's about the action and protecting the head, not the outcome? The AFL are treading dangerous ground on this point and I don't know why. If you run past the ball, choose to play the man and hit them head high it's weeks no matter the outcome, it really is that simple. What's it going to take for the AFL to get serious on this point, a player in a coma? A broken neck? It's pure stupidity and recklessness.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
Nah, the medical report and the amount of time the player is off the ground (which might be taken as evidence of injury) are being used as proxies for impact, alongside other proxy measures like speed and momentum (which can account for the "massiveness" or "nothingness" of the contact), and potential to cause injury (the action, e.g. closed fist v. open hand). It would be absurd not to factor impact into the assessment. The problem is that you could only ever assess it according to such proxies. Not factoring in the medical report and time off ground (or injury) wouldn't lead to more consistent assessments; it would only make it harder to determine (and justify) level of impact.
XI
Roar Guru
Remember when everyone was so happy that they changed the system a couple of years back because it would be more consistent than the old one?... The more things change the more they stay the same
DTM
Guest
Both very valid examples of the favoritism given to some players.
DTM
Guest
Personally, I think there should be two penalties. The first one for the action. The second penalty should be for the result (ie what injury it caused). If the player played on without a problem then no secondary penalty. However, if the player is out of the match then the penalty should equal the number of games the injured player misses (counting the current game as one). So, assuming Darcy plays this weekend, Long would get 2 for the action and one for Darcy missing Saturday's game. If Darcy misses the Derby, it should be 2 + 2. I have always held the belief that this secondary penalty should be applied to the next game St Kilda vs Freo as Fremantle were disadvantaged by the taking out of their player.
Wayne
Roar Guru
Problem is they include if the player was injured or not in the decision making process. So if a nothing bump causes concussion, it's treated differently to a massive hit that the player continues on with their life.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
He got two weeks. I was thinking more of Burgoyne's sling tackle that he got off for a few weeks ago, to cite the most recent example. Cotchin's PF waiver in 2017 stands out as well.
Clay
Roar Pro
Didn't Hodge not get suspended for elbowing Wingard's head into the behind post a few years ago? That boggles the mind.
Parkside Darren
Roar Rookie
I think Ebert could have also got two weeks but I don't agree the two bumps were the same. Even in your article you point out the differences. I see Ebert's more as a collision when the ball was in dispute. The fact he left the ground and hit the head means the penalty should be higher than one week. He is probably lucky there was no concussion otherwise I think the action was dangerous enough to warrant 2 weeks. Shiel's was a worse action from my point of view. He ran past the ball and chose to bump a player with his head down. He is lucky the injury was not worse as he would have got 3-4 weeks.
Rissole
Roar Rookie
Shiel deserves his two weeks, but so do Ebert and Rohan. I understand the appeal, not because of Shiel's innocence, but because of the inconsistency of the assessment of the incidents. I thought at the time it would be 0-2 weeks which shows just how unclear it is.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
The MRP is very consistent. If it's a player who's a name or considered a good bloke the MRP consistently lets them off.