MRP Round 19

[bornadog]

Jordan Roughead, Western Bulldogs, has been charged with a level one engaging in rough conduct offence against Brad Symes, Adelaide Crows, during the third quarter of the round 19 match between the Western Bulldogs and the Adelaide Crows, played at AAMI Stadium on Sunday August 8, 2010.

In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record with an early plea.

The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.

[Remi Moses]

That couldn't possibly be that down field bump?if it is give me a frigging break:eek:

[bornadog]

That couldn't possibly be that down field bump?if it is give me a frigging break:eek:

If thats the one its a joke.

[ledge]

Or is it the one where the player ran into Jordan, which would also be a joke because Jordan had stopped and the player ran into his legs.

[G-Mo77]

I'm pretty sure it was the downfield free kick. It should have been thrown out. What a joke!

I'm surprised, sorry I should say not surprised David Hille got a reprimand when Robinson cannoned head first into him. What was Hille to do? Run away?

[Topdog]

Take it and run. Was a clumsy challenge which deserved the downfield free and the report.

[Doc26]

Kieran Jack and the Swans can count themselves damn lucky that he is free to play after his so called 'negligent conduct / low impact' hit on Suckling. If Barry had commited a similar act there would be a public and media crucifixion of him.

[Flamethrower]

Watched the replay a number of times in slow motion and from the 2 different angles show by Fox Sports, but neither show any contact to the head of the Crows player. Unless there is another angle that does show this, the club should take it to the tribunal and get it downgraded to body contact.

[Mantis]

I thought Hudson would be in more strife for his elbow fend than Roughead.

Roughy pulled out of the incident and only brushed Symes, the MRP have NFI.

[Scraggers]

On the Herald Sun website it says ...


Young Bulldog ruckman Jordan Roughhead is also risking suspension after deciding to challenge his reprimand for rough conduct against Brad Symes.

I was hoping the Bulldog Football Dept. would challenge the MRP findings with this one

[G-Mo77]

On the Herald Sun website it says ...



I was hoping the Bulldog Football Dept. would challenge the MRP findings with this one

So was I, he'll get off this one. Ludicrous decision by the MRP.

[Remi Moses]

I think they are

[Doggy]

The MRP had ruled Roughead made high contact with Symes, and that view was backed up by a report from the Adelaide club doctor, who said Symes had needed attention from trainers after a “blow to the head”.

But the tribunal found the contact was not high and a not guilty verdict was the result.

[LostDoggy]

The MRP had ruled Roughead made high contact with Symes, and that view was backed up by a report from the Adelaide club doctor, who said Symes had needed attention from trainers after a “blow to the head”.

But the tribunal found the contact was not high and a not guilty verdict was the result.

Meaning?

[AndrewP6]

Meaning?

Meaning he's been cleared of the charge, and is free to play this week. Happy days are here again :)

[LostDoggy]

Meaning he's been cleared of the charge, and is free to play this week. Happy days are here again :)

Happy happy days :)

[Flamethrower]

If the original charge was the result of inaccurate evidence from an Adelaide official, then the AFL should investigate that - if it was the club Doctor, then the AMA will be very interested.

[LostDoggy]

The MRP has gone from bad to worse. Maybe OPSM need to start sponsoring them as well -- blind Freddy could see that there was no contact from Jordy to the head even on the day, with the benefit of slow-mo, multiple replays at their leisure, and that was the charge they came up with? What the hell do they do? Sit around downing shots and throwing darts at a pin-board to come up with 'verdicts'?

Oh, but Juddy's elbow is made of cotton-candy covered gold unicorn bone, and Pav's cheekbone should actually feel privileged that blood was spilt in its honour. Fkn joke.

[ledge]

Was it Adelaide or West Coast who were the first team to dob in players at the tribunal many years ago?
I remember the good old days when players remembered nothing until that happened.
Now its trainers and doctors even lying to get players suspended?

[The Coon Dog]

Was it Adelaide or West Coast who were the first team to dob in players at the tribunal many years ago?
I remember the good old days when players remembered nothing until that happened.
Now its trainers and doctors even lying to get players suspended?

It was David Polkinghorne at Hawthorn who in 1982, dobbed in Wayne Johnson of Carlton that first broke the 'players code'.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Polkinghorne)

[mjp]

Now its trainers and doctors even lying to get players suspended?

The doctor just said he needed treatment...not sure he tied the incident too it.

Footy is a contact sport and Symes could have received a knock preceding the Roughead incident that required attention. Pretty long bow that the Adelaide Dr is not telling the truth - what reason would he have to do that?

[ledge]

I dont know what reason, I am just going on a previous post saying a doctors statement about a blow to the head.
It does insinuate it was that incident though doesnt it?
Maybe he should have added I dont know if that was the incident that caused it.
Why would he say it you tell me?

[LostDoggy]

I dont know what reason, I am just going on a previous post saying a doctors statement about a blow to the head.
It does insinuate it was that incident though doesnt it?
Maybe he should have added I dont know if that was the incident that caused it.
Why would he say it you tell me?

We need to get a good lawyer onto that panel if there isn't one already -- it's basic logical reasoning that if:

a. a doctor says that the guy was treated for a blow to the head, but
b. the video shows CONCLUSIVELY that the blow to the head didn't happen in said incident, and
c. we assume that the doctor is telling the truth, then
d. the player must have been hit in the head in a different incident from the one seen on the video

It's really not that hard, but the rocket scientists on the panel seem unable to unravel basic logic and tie themselves in knots over what is pretty obvious evidence. Like I said, I don't know how they do it.. it's not like they have hundreds of cases to decide a week, only a handful at most.

It's almost like they court controversy to stay in the limelight, but all it is really doing is showing them up to be a little bit slow. It's been a terrible year for the MRP.

[ledge]

Does Geish have anything to do with this panel because some of the decisions seem to follow along his line of thinking.

[ledge]

Just for future reference can anyone post the members of the MRP and in what order of importance each one hold?

[ledge]

AFL Match Review Panel
Chairman
Mark Fraser[1]
Members
Peter Carey; Paul Broderick

AFL Appeals Board
Chairman: Peter O'Callaghan
Members:
Brian Collis QC
Brian Bourke
John Schultz
Michael Gree

AFL Grievance Tribunal
Chairman: Jack Rush QC
Members:
Kevin Power
Michael Moncrieff
Darren Baxter
James Dowsley
Roger Berryman

Wow I did it!

[LostDoggy]

Thanks for that Ledge.

There are QCs on the Appeals and Grievance board, the appeals board being the one that threw out the Roughie charge. They would have taken one look at the video and swore at the MRP for wasting their time.

It's like the MRP are trying to apply every esoteric principle of judgment to every single case without using the most obvious one -- flippin' common sense (it's what happens when you put laypeople in charge of something that has some complexity to it, they end up thinking that they have to use the full extent of that complexity at every chance to prove their competence). If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, don't go looking for evidence that it's a chicken, then conclude that it's a chicken because it has a beak.