MRP assessment

With much recent furore over Match Review Panel assessments, it’s worth taking a look at the system on which those assessments are based.

 

The first part of the process consists of the MRP reviewing match video and assessing incidents according to this first table.

 

Relevant Factors			Activation Points	Level
Conduct (3 To 1)	Impact (4 To 1)	Contact (2 To 1)
Intentional	Severe	High/Groin	9	TRIBUNAL
Intentional	Severe	Body	8	5
Intentional	High	High/Groin	8	5
Intentional	High	Body	7	4
Intentional	Medium	High/Groin	7	4
Intentional	Medium	Body	6	3
Intentional	Low	High/Groin	6	3
Intentional	Low	Body	5	2
Reckless	Severe	High/Groin	8	5
Reckless	Severe	Body	7	4
Reckless	High	High/Groin	7	4
Reckless	High	Body	6	3
Reckless	Medium	High/Groin	6	3
Reckless	Medium	Body	5	2
Reckless	Low	High/Groin	5	2
Reckless	Low	Body	4	1
Negligent	Severe	High/Groin	7	4
Negligent	Severe	Body	6	3
Negligent	High	High/Groin	6	3
Negligent	High	Body	5	2
Negligent	Medium	High/Groin	5	2
Negligent	Medium	Body	4	1
Negligent	Low	High/Groin	4	1
Negligent	Low	Body	3	1

 

Once the level of the offence has been determined, a second table defines the demerit points accruing to the player.

 

Reportable Offence	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Striking	80	125	225	325	425
Kicking	125	250	400	550	750
Charging	125	225	325	425	550
Rough conduct	125	225	325	425	550
Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball	125	250	400	550	750
Tripping	80	125	225	325	425
Attempt to strike/kick/trip	N/A	80	N/A	N/A	N/A
Misconduct (kneeing)	125	225	325	425	550
Misconduct (headbutt or contact using head)	80	125	250	400	550
Misconduct (eye gouging/unreasonable and unnecessary contact to the eye region)	125	250	400	550	750
Misconduct (unreasonable and unnecessary contact to the face)	125	225	325	425	550
Misconduct (stomping)	125	225	325	425	550
Misconduct (scratching)	80	125	225	325	425
Misconduct (unreasonable or unnecessary contact with injured player)	80	125	225	325	425
Any other act of serious misconduct	Tribunal
Misconduct (spitting on another person)	Tribunal
Intentional contact with umpire	Tribunal
Striking or attempting to strike or spitting at or on an umpire	Tribunal
Behaving in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards or in relation to an umpire	Tribunal

 

In essence, each 100 demerit points signify a one-match suspension penalty, with any balance carried over. There are deductions, such as a 25% discount for an early plea in most cases, and some additions, such as carryover demerit points from previous offenses.

 

What emerges from a brief examination of the system is the crucial nature of the MRP’s assessment of the incident.

Let’s look at three recent incidents and examine how the MRP’s classifications affected the final result.

 

Campbell Brown — Striking

After considering the medical report lodged by the Western Bulldogs, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of two matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 20 per cent to 270 demerit points. He also has 2.50 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 272.50 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 204.38 points and a two-match sanction.

An assessment of ‘intentional’ would have raised this to a level 4 offence, and together with an assessment of ‘high impact’ the offence would be level 5. We can’t imagine that many would have argued about intentional and high impact (as distinct from high contact which was already included). Level 5 striking offences attract 425 demerit points, plus a 20% penalty and carryover points is 512.5, less 25% for an early plea is 384 points, or three weeks’ suspension and 84 carryover.

 

AussieRulesBlog still finds three weeks to be a bit of a flogging with wet lettuce given the actions involved. Without high impact, the total is 294 demerit points and two weeks. It matters not that Brown was also involved in the Hall incident in the same game and demerit points accrued.

 

Jack Trengove — Rough conduct

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 points and a two-match sanction.

AussieRulesBlog has previous expressed our opinion on this assessment. In our view, the high contact assessment was inappropriate since Trengove grabbed Dangerfield well below the shoulder. Without high contact, and then there would not have been a report in all likelihood, 225 demerits less 25% (168) would probably have seen Melbourne and Trengove bite the bullet and accept the penalty.

 

In the event, an unsuccessful challenge sees Trengove on the sidelines for three weeks.

 

It is worth noting that the Tribunal Booklet includes the following:

The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without limitation, regard may be had to:
– whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
– whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle;
– whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

 

Heath Hocking — Striking

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of eight activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Five offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.

In this case we’re looking for some consistency, or at least it’s appearance. Brown’s back elbow to the head of a player who would not have been expecting it was rated reckless and medium impact. Hocking is defending himself against a vigorous physical charge by Polkinghorne and gets intentional and high impact — the double whammy, as it were. Was Hocking’s action 2 weeks’ worse than Brown’s?

 

A level 3 offence for Hocking — 225 less 25% = 168 — seems more appropriate in the circumstances and more in tune with other similar results and consequent injuries.

Summary

Of course there are unique factors and circumstances in each incident that the MRP reviews. There is never going to be uniformity, but the assessments being handed down seem to be from a different parallel universe each week. As with umpiring, getting it right would be nice, but we’ll settle for a consistent approach — even if it’s the wrong one.

 

Access the AFL’s 2010 Tribunal booklet for full details of the MRP system, including detailed definitions.