When something equals nothing equals something

Regular readers will know that AussieRulesBlog has something of a penchant for scrutinising Match Review Panel assessments. This week we discovered that, for the MRP at least, nothing can indeed be more than something. (This post follows our investigative process.)

 

We found ourselves bemused that the Barcodes’ Ben Johnson “has no existing good or bad record”. This is a crucial statement because a bad record effectively adds points in the MRP’s assessment system, whilst a good record allows a discount of points before a penalty is calculated.

 

A bad record is defined as having been “found guilty of a reportable offence or reportable offences or taken an early plea resulting in suspension” within the preceding three years.

 

A good record is defined as not having been suspended or reprimanded for any reportable offence in the AFL competition or a State League competition associated with the AFL in the previous five years. A good record attracts a 25% discount on base points.

 

If Johnson, according to the MRP’s own report, “has no existing good or bad record”, we’re quite curious as to how one might gain a good record. Has he been suspended or reprimanded in the previous five years? It’s a fairly black and white question (if you’ll pardon the Barcodes pun). Was he suspended or reprimanded?

 

We’ve seen this statement before, in connection with newer players if we recall correctly. We’d assumed that a player has to have played for five years to get the benefit of a discount. According to the Barcodes’ own website, Johnson debuted in round one, 2000. AussieRulesBlog isn’t a world-class mathematician, but we make that an eleven-year career, so he certainly has five years’ service up.

 

In August 2007, Johnson received a six-game suspension (after an early plea). The savants among our audience will have quickly calculated that this incident was a hair under four years ago. The bad record consideration is within the preceding three years. The good record consideration relates to the receding five years. Johnson falls somewhere in the middle. Now we come to the point of decoding the MRP’s semantics.

 

Johnson hasn’t been naughty in the past three years, so we can’t slap an extra penalty on him, but he also hasn’t kept his nose clean for at least five years, so he can’t claim a discount for good behaviour. Why the euphemisms? Why “no existing good or bad record”?Why can’t they just say he ironed a bloke out four years ago and got six weeks with an early plea?

 

There will be those who will suggest that the previous offense shouldn’t be raised in the same way that prior convictions can’t be raised during a courtroom trial. That’s all well and good, except that suspensions within the preceding three years are counted and a clean record for the preceding five years earns a discount. So there’s no parallel with the civil legal system.

 

So, we ask again. Why can’t the MRP just say that he ironed a bloke out four years ago and got six weeks after an early plea and be done with it? To paraphrase British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, there are three kinds of lies: lies; damned lies; and semantics!