MRP

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • annew
    Senior Player
    • Mar 2006
    • 2164

    #46
    Originally posted by Bloodthirsty
    Now Swans players are getting injured and suspended at the same time. Did we do something to anger the footy gods?
    Yes we took Tippett that upset all the oozy gods

    Comment

    • Doctor
      Bay 29
      • Sep 2003
      • 2757

      #47
      The Match Review Panel has released its findings from the weekend's games


      Apparently his hammy had him out for 2 anyway so accepting 3 weeks was a no brainer. I'm disappointed because we have such a good record in terms of suspensions and I don't like to see any of our players incur the wrath of the MRP. What counts against McGlynn here are (IMO) Scully being concussed and subbed out as the MRP have stated more than once that injury to the recipient will make a difference in the level of culpability attached to the protagonist; McGlynn's eyes, which were not on the footy; the stiff arm with clenched fist.

      As to whether it was worth 4 weeks down to 3 we have to consider a couple of things. Comparing it to the McKernan one is a red herring as that was clearly wrong and has been accepted as such by all but the MRP and the most fervent Crows fans. The next thing is you have to look at the grading of the incident. McGlynn's hit on Scully was assessed as intentional, high impact, high contact. If you think 4 weeks down to 3 is too many, you have to argue that any or more than one of those 3 are graded too high. It's hard to argue with any of them really other than possibly the intent. You could argue that it was reckless rather than intentional but the MRP disagrees and the club have obviously decided that the MRP is right or that it's not worth fighting. The above link has the details of the charge.
      Today's a draft of your epitaph

      Comment

      Working...