MRP woes

Campbell Brown’s brainsnap has served as the exclamation point to a litany of Match Review Panel misjudgements over the past five or so seasons.

 

It’s worth revisiting the claims that were made for the MRP process when it was introduced. It would, we were told, remove the subjectivity that had been criticised in the old Tribunal system and replace it with documented certainty.

 

Well, with five years’ experience, AussieRulesBlog thinks we can now say, with certainty, “Hogwash!”

 

Assuredly, there were no (publicly-documented) guidelines that the Tribunal used in coming to its judgements. The Match Review Panel has documented (but publicly-inaccessible) guidelines for severity of contact, intent and protection of head and groin. That’s all very well, but the assessment of incidents and application of those guidelines scales to them is just as subjective as anything that came out of the tribunal.

 

How else to explain that Campbell Brown’s strike on Callum Ward was rated reckless rather than intentional? As has been pointed out in a number of public fora, this change would still have seen Brown receive only a two-week penalty.

 

It’s fair to say that the bulk of MRP judgements are met with knowing nods. Those that they get wrong, however, are met with gales of scorn and ridicule. There’s more than a little of The Little Girl who Lives Down the Lane about the MRP — when it’s good, it’s very good, but when it’s bad . . .

 

There can never be a wholly objective process and it would be silly to demand one. What we can demand is a system that more accurately reflects the football community’s expectations. And we can demand that the AFL demonstrate its seriousness about issues like staging by making sure the body charged with implementing it does so according to the publicly-released guidelines.

 

So, how about it Adrian and Andrew? There can be no doubt that the MRP, in its current form, is found wanting when it is most needed to perform.