TOPIC:

A post I have put on my face book page.
The AFL have to get rid of Christain as the MRO.It is not very often that I agree with the self opinionated David King, but I have to stand along side of him in regards to the weak penalties being handed out by the MRO.
It is only round one, we have had three head high incidents that have been seen as almost non relevant.
Buddy, the recidivist head hunter,runs past the ball to deliver a head high shoulder to Sam Collins. Collins goes down,but gets up and plays on. Later taken from the ground for assessment.Penalty... one week. Buddy has used upmore than his 9 lives.
Kossie Pickett jumps, leaps off the ground to flatten Bailey Smith. Smith gets up and plays on. Pickett gets two weeks.He isn't going to appeal because he knows he would more than likely finish up with a four week penalty.
These resulting penalties are because the player who were attacked, went down, but got up and continued playing.
What would have happened had Collins returned from his assessment as being concussed?
What happens if during the week both players begin to have signs of concusssion,headaches, not being able to sleep,feeling fuzzy? Will the MRO revisit the actions of the attackers, or is it the victim that carries the entire burden?
I noted as well that Scott Pendelberry has said that the MRO needs to look at the actions, not the injury.
The AFL has hundreds queueing up with court cases, yet allow one man to adjudicate on players being attacked in a manner that does not fit todays game.
The AFL must sit down with the MRO and medical staff of all clubs and come up with some form of penalty that fits the crime.A new set of rules for the MRO to go by.
If nothing is done, then the AFL will be looking to find billions of dollars to pay out the sufferers. It is not only about the money, but like the number of former players that will take their own lives, as has already happened.
Actions need to be taken.
[img]data:image/svg+xml,%3csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' xmlns:xlink='http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink' viewBox='0 0 16 16'%3e%3cdefs%3e%3clinearGradient id='a' x1='50%25' x2='50%25' y1='0%25' y2='100%25'%3e%3cstop offset='0%25' stop-color='%2318AFFF'/%3e%3cstop offset='100%25' stop-color='%230062DF'/%3e%3c/linearGradient%3e%3cfilter id='c' width='118.8%25' height='118.8%25' x='-9.4%25' y='-9.4%25' filterUnits='objectBoundingBox'%3e%3cfeGaussianBlur in='SourceAlpha' result='shadowBlurInner1' stdDeviation='1'/%3e%3cfeOffset dy='-1' in='shadowBlurInner1' result='shadowOffsetInner1'/%3e%3cfeComposite in='shadowOffsetInner1' in2='SourceAlpha' k2='-1' k3='1' operator='arithmetic' result='shadowInnerInner1'/%3e%3cfeColorMatrix in='shadowInnerInner1' values='0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.299356041 0 0 0 0 0.681187726 0 0 0 0.3495684 0'/%3e%3c/filter%3e%3cpath id='b' d='M8 0a8 8 0 00-8 8 8 8 0 1016 0 8 8 0 00-8-8z'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cg fill='none'%3e%3cuse fill='url(%23a)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e[/img]


 

There is no consistency in the rulings of the MRO, it almost seems like Christian changes his interpretations from week to week. If often appears that it comes down to who has committed the offence as to what penalty applies
The tribunal also makes confusing and contradictory rulings. The Cripps case last year was an example of that where he got off on what appeared to be a legal technicality

The Cripps decision was obviously wrong on so many counts.
Readers I apologise for all the junk at the bottom of my post. I took it from my FB page.

Maybe take a leaf from the NRL who appear to have set penalties for high contact irrespective of any injury sustained, but if an injury is sustained the penalty is increased accordingly. They regularly dish out 4 week penalties for high contact, that should be the base minimum penalty if direct head contact

Just watched the McAdam incident. I really cannot understand why Adelaide are appealing the 3 week penalty. McAdam had time to pull out of the contact but he went ahead and still hit the GWS player hard and unnecessarily. I think he should have got 4. Pickett also. As SS said, I think this should be the minimum penalty for dangerous head high bumps no matter what the impact on the other player. Of course if severe damage is done, the penalty should increase.

I think the thread should be player stupidity.

There are two things - first is if you leave the ground, you lose control over your body and any subsequent impact, dumb really, second is bumping a player front on opens up their whole body to the collision and the head comes into play.

If the MRO suspends a player for doing both of those actions and I was the coach I would suspend the player for another week and then perhaps he and the rest of the squad might learn what is not a hard thing to get your head around!

Yeah good call Grump. But the MRO, Christian, needs to get more right than he gets wrong.
How Buddy only gets one week fo running past the ball and dropping his shoulder into Sam Collins head is well beyond my comprehension.Buddy has been doing the same thing for a long time.
As to the McAdam hit, the tribunal should double the penalty for wasting the tribunals time.
All were head high and intentional. make penalties longer.