MRP - Your Preferred Method of Assessing Suspensions

[Devilhead]

Which method would you prefer the MRP/Tribunal to adopt when assessing player suspensions

1 - reduced sentence for a good record + loading for a bad record + reduced sentence for guilty plea
2 - reduced sentence for a good record + loading for a bad record + NO reduced sentence for guilty plea
3 - NO reduced sentence for a good record + loading for a bad record + reduced sentence for guilty plea
4 - NO reduced sentence for a good record + loading for a bad record + NO reduced sentence for guilty plea
5 - reduced sentence for a good record + NO loading for a bad record + reduced sentence for guilty plea
6 - reduced sentence for a good record + NO loading for a bad record + NO reduced sentence for guilty plea
7 - NO reduced sentence for a good record + NO loading for a bad record + reduced sentence for guilty plea
8 - NO reduced sentence for a good record + NO loading for a bad record + NO reduced sentence for guilty plea

[Devilhead]

Here I will kick it off

P66 prefers 1

I prefer 3

[Kate]

I prefer option 4.

A "good" record is too hard to define. number of seasons? number of games? fines? junior record?

Repeat offenders do need to be dealt with more harshly to get the message across.

I think all reports should go to the tribunal. I feel uncomfortable with the concept of accepting a penalty because there is a "risk" in arguing the case.

[BigMart]

Common sense would be a start

[desertsaint]

Give the guilty party a choice between 10 weeks or his victim being allowed to do the same to him. Betcha wellingham would take 10 weeks over taking what he dished out. Steven baker would've taken love taps on his knuckles over the ten, but the ten over the farmer incident.
Easy.

[perfectionist]

A vote on Saintsational, where ordinary members get one vote, plugger66 gets 10 votes and I get 1000 votes. It's the good, the bad and the ugly (not necessarily in that order of course). Can't be fairer than that.

[Devilhead]

I prefer option 4.

A "good" record is too hard to define. number of seasons? number of games? fines? junior record?

Repeat offenders do need to be dealt with more harshly to get the message across.

I think all reports should go to the tribunal. I feel uncomfortable with the concept of accepting a penalty because there is a "risk" in arguing the case.

Thanks Kate for your no nonsense anwser

[Thinline]

I'm with BM.

Common sense.

If it looks bad, it is bad.

Would anyone really argue if Wellingham got 5?

Looked a 5 to me. High, likely intent, player broken.

[Life Long Saint]

Option 1 BUT with a clause that if you have been charged with intentional conduct there is no reduction for an early plea.
If you intend to cause a reportable offence then you should pay for it.

[plugger66]

Here I will kick it off

P66 prefers 1

I prefer 3

Do you read what I say? Obviously not but thanks for answering. I wouldnt have a reduced penalty for pleading guilty in certain circumstances. Hocking and Wellingham shouldnt get a discount as they were obviously guilty. I would leave it to the MRP to say no guilty discount applies in certain cases. The first 2 parts of number one is how I would vote.

[Freebird]

Here I will kick it off

P66 prefers 1

I prefer 3

Do you read what I say? Obviously not but thanks for answering. I wouldnt have a reduced penalty for pleading guilty in certain circumstances. Hocking and Wellingham shouldnt get a discount as they were obviously guilty. I would leave it to the MRP to say no guilty discount applies in certain cases. The first 2 parts of number one is how I would vote.

Hocking low impact...what a crock of shtt....mrp can review as they please

Did not Goddard have medium impact?

[plugger66]

Here I will kick it off

P66 prefers 1

I prefer 3

Do you read what I say? Obviously not but thanks for answering. I wouldnt have a reduced penalty for pleading guilty in certain circumstances. Hocking and Wellingham shouldnt get a discount as they were obviously guilty. I would leave it to the MRP to say no guilty discount applies in certain cases. The first 2 parts of number one is how I would vote.

Hocking low impact...what a crock of shtt....mrp can review as they please

Did not Goddard have medium impact?

Yes because it is done on the doctors report from the club of the player who got hit. If you dont like low impact then you think our Doctor is a liar or incompetent.

[Devilhead]

Yes because it is done on the doctors report from the club of the player who got hit. If you dont like low impact then you think our Doctor is a liar or incompetent.

So all club doctors are part of the MRP committee now??

And all club doctors are tuned into each other and to what exactly constitutes low medium and high impact

Wow - This system is brilliant!!

[plugger66]

Yes because it is done on the doctors report from the club of the player who got hit. If you dont like low impact then you think our Doctor is a liar or incompetent.

So all club doctors are part of the MRP committee now??

And all club doctors are tuned into each other and to what exactly constitutes low medium and high impact

Wow - This system is brilliant!!

I dont think anyone said that. The doctor sends in a report on the player hit. Maybe they shouldnt. Maybe the MRP should find 3 days after they revue reports that the player hit is missing because the kick to the leg actually broke his leg or the punch to the face actually broke his nose even though on the day the player looked fine.

[Freebird]

Three weeks for breaking a jaw...2 wks for love tap - system works well.

MRP sucked in by diving players...shamefully unprofessional.

Its obvious if you make contact with a Stevie J the consequences are going to be more detrimental than the reality of the hit.

No matter what spin you put on it 66 it does not add up

[Life Long Saint]

I dont think anyone said that. The doctor sends in a report on the player hit. Maybe they shouldnt. Maybe the MRP should find 3 days after they revue reports that the player hit is missing because the kick to the leg actually broke his leg or the punch to the face actually broke his nose even though on the day the player looked fine.

I wonder what the Freo doctor said in his report two seasons ago when Judd hit Pavlich with enough force to require stitches in his cheek but not enough to warrant a report.

[plugger66]

Three weeks for breaking a jaw...2 wks for love tap - system works well.

MRP sucked in by diving players...shamefully unprofessional.

Its obvious if you make contact with a Stevie J the consequences are going to be more detrimental than the reality of the hit.

No matter what spin you put on it 66 it does not add up

5 for breaking your jaw and 3 for a behind play incident that the North Doctor obviously said hurt the player otherwise our club would have appealed unless of course our club is incompetent. Dont understand the Stevie J thing or the diving players. System has it faults. The older system had more IMO. If someone knows a better system Im sure the AFL would like to hear about it. Maybe we should be like soccer and send guys off and then find later it was an incorrect decision. There would be a 500 page thread if it cost our club a game.

[plugger66]

I dont think anyone said that. The doctor sends in a report on the player hit. Maybe they shouldnt. Maybe the MRP should find 3 days after they revue reports that the player hit is missing because the kick to the leg actually broke his leg or the punch to the face actually broke his nose even though on the day the player looked fine.

I wonder what the Freo doctor said in his report two seasons ago when Judd hit Pavlich with enough force to require stitches in his cheek but not enough to warrant a report.

Dont think they asked back then. Probably means they have made the right decision and now ask the club doctors.

[Devilhead]

I dont think anyone said that. The doctor sends in a report on the player hit. Maybe they shouldnt. Maybe the MRP should find 3 days after they revue reports that the player hit is missing because the kick to the leg actually broke his leg or the punch to the face actually broke his nose even though on the day the player looked fine.

I wonder what the Freo doctor said in his report two seasons ago when Judd hit Pavlich with enough force to require stitches in his cheek but not enough to warrant a report.

Dont think they asked back then. Probably means they have made the right decision and now ask the club doctors.

And all club doctors would come to the same conclusions??

[plugger66]

I dont think anyone said that. The doctor sends in a report on the player hit. Maybe they shouldnt. Maybe the MRP should find 3 days after they revue reports that the player hit is missing because the kick to the leg actually broke his leg or the punch to the face actually broke his nose even though on the day the player looked fine.

I wonder what the Freo doctor said in his report two seasons ago when Judd hit Pavlich with enough force to require stitches in his cheek but not enough to warrant a report.

And all club doctors would come to the same conclusions??

I doubt it. So we shouldnt ask and as i said earlier just find out how injured they are when they cant play the next week which is 3 days after the MRP meet.

[ROLS-LEE]

I say scrap that idea completely and go for an offense equals X amount of games regardless of impact, good and bad records etc. The only difference would be in play or not. Behind play should be doubled

Eg

all trips = 1 match in play and 2 match out of play.

King hit ( Hall ) = 10 matches and 20 matches out of play.

etc

This will put an end to the lotto of rubbed out games, as everyone would know what they are going to get.

[Saint Bev]

I prefer that regardless of what St Kilda players do, we should never be reported. If a player from another team hits one of our blokes its an automatic 10+ week penalty pending severity of hit. Can't be any farer than that

[St DAC]

I'm OK with 1.

A good record should mean something in your favour, a bad one should mean the opposite. The reason for the ealy plea discount is to reduce the number of tribunal sittings because of time/expense, and that's reasonable; matches a plea bargain the the judicial system.

[saintspremiers]

I'll go with 1 also.

I hate it when a player gets a suspension then the intreptation changes such that he would've got off/got less weeks but the loading carries. Can work the other way also.

Hard to sort that one out though.

[Devilhead]

As I said in the other thread - a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected - hence I am against reductions for good records