Do you think its right that a player receives a suspension when the MRP did get it right the first time?

Question

The Adelaide Crows have been labeled as being "DOBBER'S" after a sling tackle that was laid on Crows player Andy Ottens,by Richmond's Jake King. that was missed by the MRP the first time around. has now come back to haunt this player.

Do you think that it's fair that this one,that was missed by the MRP the first time round. but then when they reviewed the game again. after they were advised to do so. decided to hand out a 2 week suspension to poor Jake King?

I reckon that the AFL have proved this season. that they are getting very sloppy.

Now they have to rely on the clubs to do their dirty work for them too!

Your thoughts on this one please?

Answer 1

On Melbourne news radio today Brad Scott wanted Brendan Goddard sanctioned for comments he made re the Ziebell bump on Riewoldt. Scott said the MRP should not be "influenced in anyway"!

I find Scotts comments most interesting ! Commentators on 7 during the Collingwood - Freo game replayed the the Thomas incident at least a dozen times, and the commentators convicted and sentenced him on air to at least 2 games suspension ? I would expect the MRP members would have enough interest in footy to attend games or be watching most match's on TV, rather maybe than attending a weekend garden parties, so surely they had to be influenced by the 7 coverage. I thought at the time is there really a MRP, or do the 'commentators' give their opinion and its later acted on. The Adelaide incident now also interests me, was the game televised and if so, was the incident 'not' considered bad enough to be highlighted, while given the game was in Adelaide and commentator bias, surely could also have existed ? If Brad Scott believes Goddard has influenced the Ziebell case,when apparrently not allowed to do so, why then do commentators continually have access to replay these incidents continually, or in fact do they actually "work" for the MRP highlighting possible incidents. The rule on this should be for commentators to say , "that could be looked at",at the time, and leave it at that. The MRP is just another AFL stuff up, that continually seems to haunt that strange little football operations manager. I still find the AFL system absurd when a player like Maxwell of Collingwood can be maimed,hospitalsed for 3 days, miss 4 games and his aggressors front on hit is considered low impact and not worthy of suspension. Thomas hits front on, gets 2 weeks and the player hit is "not injured".

Answer 2

Shifty you'd reckon with the multitude of cameras ( with their huge telephoto lens ) giving surveylance to everything that goes on the field of play, the Andy Ottens/ Jake King incident would have been picked up ? If not someone on the match revue panel is not doing his job properly , so I would say, suspend the person/persons responible for a week for doing a shoddy job. As much as i am against dobbing as the next person, I reckon the Crows had every right to bring this incident to the attention of the MRP as a form of appeal .

Answer 3

Yep, dobbing in the workplace is really frowned upon (unless it's a criminal act), so I think the same thing applies here.



Sorry for Andy Ottens, but the Crows have nothing to gain by getting King suspended. Except bad blood between the clubs might be created.

Answer 4

It is a disgrace. If it is not picked up then that is that. Adelaide should be ashamed of themselves. Even Eddie said is was nothing more than a free kick.