MRP (Parker cleared but what about Sam Mitchell?)

[Bloods05]

Spot the Ball competition I believe it was called.

Sunball.

[Meg]

And:

Humphery-Smith also confirmed the MRP sent out two separate press releases with different grading.


This is exactly what I was getting at last night. This clearly shows they have engineered the decision for the lowest possible outcome, realised the lowest actually created an error, then switched it but kept the same penalty. If that's not blatant tweaking of the system to suit Hawthorn, I don't know what is.

OR: a typo/clerical error was made in the first statement released (note the phrase "low impact to the body" is used later in the statement when referring to an incident involving Blake Acres), and when this was realised the statement was corrected and re-released.

When something could involve a stuff-up or a conspiracy, stuff-up is nearly always the correct answer.

[Meg]

And:

Humphery-Smith also confirmed the MRP sent out two separate press releases with different grading.


This is exactly what I was getting at last night. This clearly shows they have engineered the decision for the lowest possible outcome, realised the lowest actually created an error, then switched it but kept the same penalty. If that's not blatant tweaking of the system to suit Hawthorn, I don't know what is.

And further to this - the bump could had been penalised (with the exact same financial penalty) if the MRP HAD determined it was a bump to the body - but that the bump was unreasonable - see words from tribunal booklet below. The booklet then goes on to describe circumstances in which it might be ruled 'unreasonable'.

I really do think it was simply a wording error in the first statement.
-------------------

"2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)"

"It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a Player may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

[Meg]

MRP (Parker cleared but what about Sam Mitchell?)

The Umpires View: Cyril should have been suspended

https://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/08-1...cW0UUm4VZgO.97

Humphery-Smith hasn't been an AFL umpire since 2003 so hasn't umpired under current tribunal/MRP guidelines. He is effectively saying that this incident should have been graded at higher than 'low impact'.

But there is plenty of recent precedent for the MRP to base the level of impact on the effect on the 'victim', taking into account whether the player had to leave the field for treatment or could play on, and taking into account the medical report from the victim's club. In this case Oliver was able to get up and play on - and the MRP had a medical report from the Melbourne club.

Humphery-Smith seems to be arguing that these criteria for assessing impact level should be changed - but as they currently stand the Rioli decision is consistent with previous MRP decisions.

[Danzar]

And further to this - the bump could had been penalised (with the exact same financial penalty) if the MRP HAD determined it was a bump to the body - but that the bump was unreasonable - see words from tribunal booklet below. The booklet then goes on to describe circumstances in which it might be ruled 'unreasonable'.

I really do think it was simply a wording error in the first statement.
-------------------

"2. Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)"

"It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a Player may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...nalBooklet.pdf

Thanks Meg, really helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk