Advanced  

Latest Result

Round 22 Perth Stadium
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 • 13:20 WST
West Coast Melbourne
14.7 (91) 16.12 (108)
Game Focus

Next Game

Round 23 Gabba
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 • 0:00 WST
West Coast v Brisbane Lions
Game Focus



MRP/Tribunal troubles

Discuss the AFL, other clubs and the game in general

Moderators: Mr Q, DALBY

MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby Fat Side on Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:17 am

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-03/m ... -houli-ban

Last week revealed that there is a disparity between the MRP and the Tribunal. I don't think there is any doubt that the Tribunal got the Houli decision wrong. It required an appeal to correct it. In the Houli case there was significant discussion about the use of referees during the process. Clearly Bartel believes that referees should not be used during the process.

I believe that decisions made by the MRP/Tribunal must be made in accordance with the laws of the game, not the character of the player. Character (good or otherwise) does not change the facts of the case, it just comes down to applying the facts to the rules (laws).

Referees should only be used after a decision has been handed down. I do think that character should be a factor in determining the penalty not guilt. Again, how much the character should impact on penalty should be determined by the rules. I don't believe a player like Barry Hall for instance, should receive the same penalty as a Houli for the same incident. Clearly Houli should be given a discount on penalty because this rewards good behaviour and sets a standard for all players to be guided by.

The MRP ought to be able to carry out their function without interference from the AFL (save for exceptional circumstances). The AFL has set the rules and should leave the MRP to follow them. The AFL has a habit of changing the rules/interpretation during the season and, as we have seen lately with the punching issue, it just leads to confusion within the system and angst among players and clubs where harsher penalties apply later in the season. Not to mention the absolute scrutiny placed on these issues by the media. It often appears that media commentators (usually former players) are having far too much influence over the AFL.

It's time for the AFL to back off and let their judicial process take its course. If a review is required, leave it until the end of the year.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby farmer joe on Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:37 am

Fat Side wrote:I don't believe a player like Barry Hall for instance, should receive the same penalty as a Houli for the same incident. Clearly Houli should be given a discount on penalty because this rewards good behaviour and sets a standard for all players to be guided by.

Hall should only get a heavier penalty than Houli because of prior on field transgressions. Anything and everything else is irrelevant. Houli and his supporters were a joke. "Good" blokes occasionally make stupid decisions, Houli clearly made one and should always have been penalised as such. The fact that he knew Waleed Aly, Turnbull and others is unrelated to anything that happens on the field.
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:20 pm

There is already something in place to ensure players don't get the same penalty as known thugs, the loading. So character references should be completely ignored. No matter how many charities a bloke helps out it doesn't mean that he should get a lighter penalty for knocking a bloke out (but if it is the fifth time he has done it he should definitely get a heavier penalty) If anything the higher his ranking in the community should lead to heftier penalties. No one will remember a rookie knocking out a bloke and fading away to nothing, but if someone who is high in the community is seen to knock a bloke out and then given a slap on the wrist it leads people to believe that the act is acceptable.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA

Re: MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby Fat Side on Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:07 pm

farmer joe wrote:
Fat Side wrote:I don't believe a player like Barry Hall for instance, should receive the same penalty as a Houli for the same incident. Clearly Houli should be given a discount on penalty because this rewards good behaviour and sets a standard for all players to be guided by.

Hall should only get a heavier penalty than Houli because of prior on field transgressions. Anything and everything else is irrelevant. Houli and his supporters were a joke. "Good" blokes occasionally make stupid decisions, Houli clearly made one and should always have been penalised as such. The fact that he knew Waleed Aly, Turnbull and others is unrelated to anything that happens on the field.


Hard to disagree with that. Good behaviour is on field behaviour.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby Fat Side on Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:11 pm

WCE Booka 89 wrote:There is already something in place to ensure players don't get the same penalty as known thugs, the loading. So character references should be completely ignored. No matter how many charities a bloke helps out it doesn't mean that he should get a lighter penalty for knocking a bloke out (but if it is the fifth time he has done it he should definitely get a heavier penalty) If anything the higher his ranking in the community should lead to heftier penalties. No one will remember a rookie knocking out a bloke and fading away to nothing, but if someone who is high in the community is seen to knock a bloke out and then given a slap on the wrist it leads people to believe that the act is acceptable.


Yes. It seems with the Houli matter that the references were handed up during the hearing not during consideration of penalty. This is the flaw in the system if it is permitted. If it is I suspect that it is broadly used by players fronting the Tribunal. In the end it appears that Houli paid a penalty for the references because had he been given a fair penalty (3 weeks) there would have been no appeal and he wouldn't have copped four.

It will be interesting to see how the Bugg matter plays out.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: MRP/Tribunal troubles

Postby WCE Booka 89 on Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:03 pm

Fat Side wrote:
WCE Booka 89 wrote:There is already something in place to ensure players don't get the same penalty as known thugs, the loading. So character references should be completely ignored. No matter how many charities a bloke helps out it doesn't mean that he should get a lighter penalty for knocking a bloke out (but if it is the fifth time he has done it he should definitely get a heavier penalty) If anything the higher his ranking in the community should lead to heftier penalties. No one will remember a rookie knocking out a bloke and fading away to nothing, but if someone who is high in the community is seen to knock a bloke out and then given a slap on the wrist it leads people to believe that the act is acceptable.


Yes. It seems with the Houli matter that the references were handed up during the hearing not during consideration of penalty. This is the flaw in the system if it is permitted. If it is I suspect that it is broadly used by players fronting the Tribunal. In the end it appears that Houli paid a penalty for the references because had he been given a fair penalty (3 weeks) there would have been no appeal and he wouldn't have copped four.

It will be interesting to see how the Bugg matter plays out.


End of the day there is no need for references here though. Can clearly see he hit him. His prior MRP record will speak to his character here and decide whether he gets a base penalty or gets a heavier penalty.

The only time I see references/referees needed during a tribunal case is if it is an allegation of verbal abuse and the player is trying to deny they said anything where you would then call upon people to give character references to say that is not what he would do. Outside of that why do we need to know he is an upstanding citizen? He still clearly hit a bloke causing him to be KO'ed.
WCE Booka 89
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Mandurah WA


Return to AFL Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron