We often don’t agree with the Match Review Panel, but we think they got it right on James Kelly’s “bump” that flattened Brendon Goddard.

And just so anyone who knows of our Bombers allegiance doesn’t think we’re miffed at our new star player copping a knock, we think the MRP’s decision on Paddy Ryder’s hit on Luke McPharlin was right too.

So, the Kelly decision was an opportunity for the Chicken Littles to come out and claim the end of civilisation. Kelly’s teammate and captain, Joel Selwood, tweeted “ 'Sad day: the bump is dead' ”. North Melbourne forward Drew Petrie joined the clamour: “It says to us all, as players, 'Don't bump' ”

No, fellas. What it says is don’t iron out a bloke off the ball with a shirtfront. Steve Johnson did a similar thing last year. At least when Kelly hit Goddard the ball is in shot — Johnson was in a different postcode.

Kelly, Johnson and Ryder didn’t execute a bump. They went into the contest with the objective of hurting their opponent. If Kelly wanted to keep Goddard away from the contest, he could have legally done so by extending his arms and shepherding.

Guys, you can bump as much as you like. Deliver a hip and shoulder bump to an opponent’s side and, as long as you keep your feet and don’t fly, there’s virtually no chance of being suspended.

The tweets could more properly have remarked on the end of the shirtfront. And good riddance.

There’s a degree of furore over the Lindsay Thomas-Ben Reid incident in the Kangaroos–Barcodes game.

As the game footage makes pretty clear, Thomas makes contact with Reid roughly 10 metres off the ball as Reid chases a North player toward the boundary. In the image above, the ball is shown against the crowd, almost directly above Alan Toovey’s head. It is clearly more than 5 metres from Reid.

Had there not been a head clash, no-one would take a scrap of notice of this incident. Despite the Laws of the Game specifying that a player cannot be shepherded unless within 5 metres of the ball, shepherds and blocks similar to this are absolutely unremarkable.

It’s also unremarkable that the Match Review Panel seems to be working to a different set of standards to the rest of us.

The only consistent aspect of the Match Review Panel is, paradoxically, its inconsistency. Jack Ziebell accidentally hits an opponent in the head whilst competing for the ball and cops a four-week holiday, courtesy of the MRP. Lenny Hayes does, essentially, the same thing and is free to ply his trade!

This system was supposed to reduce uncertainty and deliver consistency, but is increasingly delivering exactly the opposite.

AussieRulesBlog freely acknowledges that Aussie Rules is an incredibly difficult game to officiate. Those very difficulties, that we’ve acknowledged again recently, mean that there are no ‘templates’ for judging incidents like the Ziebell and Hayes cases. Nevertheless, the Ziebell ruling called into question one of the central tenets of the game and the Hayes decision makes a complete mockery of the Ziebell decision.

This open sore cannot be allowed to continue.

It’s a mark of totalitarian regimes that they do not tolerate dissent and that’s an unfortunate association for the AFL to be courting when it admonishes players or officials who comment on legitimate points of discussion in the game.

This last week, in the wake of the Ziebell-Judd equivalency, three players took to the ether to express a view and North Melbourne coach Brad Scott chose a media interview to do the same.

The three players were issued with a ‘please explain’ letter each.

Drew Petrie’s tweet: “advice for jackziebell. Stop being so courageous and playing footy hard that way it's meant to be played. Please turn into a softy!”

James Kelly’s tweet: “I was going to tweet how Zebel getting 4 weeks was a mare of a decision but decided not to so I don't get in trouble.”

The AFL has apparently determined that these comments were not in breach of Rule 23.18.2 — a rule that doesn’t appear in the AFL’s 1012 version of the laws of the game in case you were thinking of checking it out — in that they were not “unfair, unreasonable or excessive”.

It’s just too precious of the AFL to insist that players and officials cannot criticise umpires, the Match Review Panel or the Tribunal when the decisions of these AFL functionaries have a significant potential effect on how players and officials can go about their tasks.

The Ziebell decision, where even the tribunal that suspended Ziebell agreed that he’d been attempting to gain possession of the football — a fundamental tenet of the sport of Aussie Rules, surely — goes to the very heart of how players compete for the football. The tribunal has effectively said that incidentally causing injury to an opponent whilst attempting to gain possession of the ball is an infringement of the rules of the game and will carry  some penalty.

This is absolutely untenable, but even more incredible is the AFL’s response to criticism. We wonder if there’d be please explain letters for players agreeing with the tribunal’s stance?

If the decisions of umpires, the Match Review Panel and the Tribunal cannot stand the spotlight of criticism, then our game is in a pretty bad way.

And by criticism AussieRulesBlog doesn’t mean the invective hurled at umpires from the stands. The Bomber supporter (unfortunately) just below us on Friday night who commented on every umpiring decision by shouting “You idiot!” or “You moron!” is where the AFL should concentrate their efforts. We wonder if he knew he was referring to himself?

So, let’s get this straight. Jack Ziebell’s collision with Aaron Joseph in a genuine contest for the ball is equivalent to Chris Judd wrenching an opponent’s arm whilst he is pinned with a player on top of him. Of course that’s a simplistic assessment, but the similarity of the penalty — a four-week holiday each, if you hadn’t heard — invites the comparison.

The old VFL/AFL Tribunal system may have been antiquated, time-consuming and, as we then thought, inconsistent, but compared to the hotch-potch inflicted on the game by Adrian Anderson it was simply wonderful.

There is no part of the current system that delivers consistency and most parts, including basic on-field officiating, are devoid of considerations of context. The system is, quite simply, broken and it’s author cannot credibly remain in his post. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Adrian.

Regular readers will already be well aware that AussieRulesBlog has long been critical of the Match review panel system currently in place. The theory sounds just fine, but too often the practical results leave a great deal to be desired.

Sharrod Wellingham’s devastating bump to Kade Simpson last Friday night and the MRP’s assessments released today simply serve to highlight, yet again, the failings of this mathematical approach to on-field indiscretions.

‘Reckless’ is how the MRP describes the action. We’re tired of beating round the bush. Let’s call this assessment for what it is: bullshit! Wellingham had left the ground before the ball got to Simpson, did not ever even glance in the direction of the ball and was tucked into an offensive bumping shape, did not make any attempt to get the ball, was solely focussed on hitting Simpson. Reckless!

Meanwhile, Heath Hocking’s ill-considered off-the-ball block of Lenny Hayes gets assessed as ‘intentional’ — because it was off the ball. We don’t have any argument with that assessment, but it looks ridiculous compared with reckless for Wellingham’s action.

Not only does the reckless assessment give Wellingham a free break, but the system rewards him with a 40% discount because of his good record. Sorry, intentionally taking out an opponent in the way Wellingham did disqualifies him from obtaining any advantage from his lack of previous charges.

Adrian Anderson’s MRP assessment system is fine for small indiscretions, but has proved itself, time and again, demonstrably inadequate for major incidents.

Anyone who saw Simpson’s body spasming in the seconds after the collision will have had the same thoughts that ran through AussieRulesBlog’s mind — that Simpson had sustained a major spinal or head injury. We reckon Wellingham is very, very lucky that he doesn’t have a wheelchair-bound Kade Simpson on his conscience.

The tackle Taylor Walker applied to Steven Morris last weekend has been almost universally condemned, and a good thing too.

For some reason we can’t fathom, some people are describing this as a sling tackle. It’s not. It’s a spear tackle. Spear tackles are characterised by the opponent being lifted from the ground and driven forcefully into the ground, more-or-less head first.

The sling tackle is perfectly demonstrated in Jack Trengove’s tackle of Patrick Dangerfield in 2011.

Trengove holds Dangerfield’s arm and then rolls — like a crocodile death roll — so that Dangerfield’s body is dragged over the top of Trengove’s body and into the ground. The effect is similar to those plastic arms used for throwing balls for dogs to chase. The added length of the arm tends to produce a greater acceleration of the object being pulled in a (rough) circular path. This tackle is quite clearly different in form, execution and potential health damage from Walker’s tackle.

In Trengove’s case, the MRP decided, quite wrongly in our opinion, that the injury sustained by Dangerfield when his head hit the ground as part of the tackle made the offence of greater magnitude than, say, Lance Franklin’s tackle last week.

As we’ve plainly spelled out in the title of this post, there is no place for either the sling or the spear tackle in the AFL of the twenty-first century, but please, please, please people — use the correct term.

According to Match Review Panel chairman, Mark Fraser, Essendon’s Leroy Jetta behaved in an unsportsmanlike manner which could have triggered a melee by falling to the ground feigning a blow to the face and a staging charge was therefore appropriate. Fraser admitted there was a slight contact to Jetta.

A week earlier, the Saints’ Brendon Goddard also fell to the ground after feigning a blow to the head. The MRP found that Goddard’s exaggeration of contact didn’t cross the threshold of unsportsmanlike conduct. The saving grace for Goddard appeared to be that Mitch Robinson had gripped his guernsey and was pulling it down. What’s missing is that Goddard was already exaggerating the head contact before whatever tiny force Robinson applied assisted Goddard groundwards.

Sorry, Mr Chairman, but was Goddard’s action any less likely to incite a melee than Jetta’s? No. Was there contact in both instances? By your own admission, yes. So, where does such a different result come from? Was Goddard’s action any more sportsmanlike than Jetta’s? A resounding No! But we get a different result. Why?

At its commencement, a Match Review Panel with a codified table for assessment of severity, impact and intent seemed like a perfectly reasonable idea. OK, it didn’t, but we could see where the thinking was coming from — remove seemingly capricious judgement calls and provide a greater degree of consistency.

And what have we seen from the MRP over five or so years? Seemingly capricious judgement calls and a decided lack of discernable consistency.

This Match Review Panel is the one the Monty Python team might have dreamt up. But then they would have thrown the idea out because it was too far-fetched. . .

Tomorrow morning’s meeting between Vlad and Adrian Anderson should be stirring stuff. AussieRulesBlog is rather glad we’re not in Anderson’s shoes.

In recent weeks, the hue and cry over the deficiencies of his much-vaunted goal line decision video referral ‘system’ has risen in a crescendo. It’s not that a few times it has actually worked: it’s more that the holes in the process make a Swiss cheese look solid.

Now, that other video obsession of the AFL’s football operations boss, the Match Review Panel, has been shown to be guessing when it charged the Saints’ Leigh Montagna with striking based on a review of game video footage.

“The MRP charged Montagna based on video footage, although the point at which Magner's eye was cut was inconclusive.”

It’s interesting that an inconclusive ‘goal line’ video apparently automatically reduces the score to the lesser option, but an inconclusive video at the MRP results in a charge and a penalty. That’s consistency for you, just like we get from the umpires week to week, quarter to quarter and decision to decision.

Still, we shouldn’t be surprised. It’s pretty clear from watching games that the AFL umpiring department is quite happy to have their field umpires guessing, so why should the MRP miss out on the fun?

Confidence in the video referral ‘system’ and the MRP is at just about rock bottom.

Here’s an idea, Vlad! If we have to have  video referrals and reviews, let’s base our decisions — goal line and Match review charges — on what we can actually see.

Well, it’s official. With tonight’s Tribunal clearing Lindsay Thomas of a rough conduct charge, the Match Review Panel members must be wondering why they bother — and why the guidelines they work to generate such ludicrously incorrect assessments.

As AussieRulesBlog noted yesterday, the MRP’s awarding of a three-week penalty to Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was rather graphically broken was flat-out wrong. The matter should have been thrown out at the MRP stage and the Kangaroos would now be well-entitled to demand compensation from the AFL for their time and effort in defending Thomas.

But, as much opprobrium as the MRP deserve, some media figures deserve truckloads more, notably ex-Swans coach Paul Roos (and the Herald-Sun’s Mark Robinson not too far behind).

Prior to Roos joining Fox Footy Channel’s On the Couch last year, we considered him a moderate and rational person. We found him so irritating and irrational that within a few weeks last year we stopped watching On the Couch, previously a must in our weekly footy schedule.

Roos out-did himself on Monday night’s On the Couch [which we watched because James Hird was on prior to tomorrow’s Anzac Day game]. We can only think that jet lag hadn’t yet cleared Roos’ mind after his recent trip to the US. He said [and we’re paraphrasing here] he had watched the Thomas incident and then watched the previous week’s Goodes slide tackle. Then he said, if Goodes was suspended, Thomas had to be suspended because he’d injured an opponent.

The logic on display here is breathtaking. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we are in a marking contest and an opponent makes a spectacular, but mistimed, leap and crashes to the ground injuring himself in the process, we should be penalised by the Match Review Panel. Why? We, inadvertently, injured an opponent.

Roos’ credibility is absolutely shredded, as is Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system.

One thing’s for sure: Aussie Rules stirs passions and passionate opinion. And then there’s what you can see with your own two eyes.

Both sliding tackles and ‘drive’ tackles have generated a fair degree of hyperbole since the weekend and, frankly, AussieRulesBlog is bemused by it all.

If you can take your eyes off Gary Rohan’s leg being snapped, it’s as clear as day that Lindsay Thomas isn’t executing a slide tackle, albeit that his right knee is on the ground as his left foot impacts Rohan’s leg.

Contrast Thomas’ position with that of Adam Goodes executing the definitive slide tackle that saw him suspended.

The clear difference is that Goodes is leading the ‘tackle’ with both knees and using his knees and legs to impact his opponent. Thomas’ position is clearly and obviously not a slide tackle.

Rohan’s awful injury was nothing more than unfortunate circumstance. Not only are the media guilty of hyperbole, the Match Review Panel seem, most unfortunately in our view, to feel bound to cite almost any incident that excites controversy.

The other incident sending some into overblown hyperbole — especially Brett Ratten — is Sam Lonergan’s tackle of Andrew Carrazzo. Regular readers will already be aware of our affection for the Bombers, but we declare it again here.

Lonergan no more drove Carazzo into the turf than we are the blogging equivalent of William Shakespeare! Fell into his back? Yes. Drove him into the tackle? Absolutely not. It was unhappy circumstance, once again, which saw Carazzo’s arm in such a position when it crashed into the turf that it caused a fracture in the shoulder blade.

Ironically, the player AussieRulesBlog would most associate with tackles intentionally driving an opponent’s shoulder into the turf is none other than the Blues’ own Jarrad Waite.

Simply, much of the florid controversy is knee jerk reaction, often driven by passionate support of one team or player or another. We can forgive fans, although the AFL should be taking steps to educate people, but overblown media reactions from the footy journalists is quite another thing.

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!

Adrian Anderson’s Tribunal ‘system’ for the AFL just keeps throwing up decisions that fail to meet anybody’s expectations. This week we see Brad Ottens being flogged with a wet lettuce leaf for one of the more blatant behind the play strikes in recent years.

Quite how the system can let Ottens off with a week when Campbell Brown got two and Heath Hocking, after contesting his assessment, got three beggars belief.

Ottens was clearly looking at Nicoski and, equally clearly, cocked and threw the point of his elbow to strike Nicoski’s head. Dog act though it was, Campbell Brown wasn’t facing Callan Ward when he felled him, so there may have been an element of ill luck involved. AussieRulesBlog continues to contend that Heath Hocking was attempting to brush by Polkinghorne to continue his pursuit of Simon Black and did not intentionally strike Polkinghorne — not to mention Polkinghorne’s illegal block of Hocking.

Adding a weighting factor for incidents behind the play doesn’t sort this issue out, since all three were off the ball.

The system works tolerably well for more minor infractions, but simply doesn’t consistently provide results that meet football community expectations for more serious matters. The Tribunal can take account of factors in a way that the inflexible points system can’t. On any objective review, Ottens should be serving a longer penance than either Brown or Hocking.

The MRP’s Round 15 report makes fascinating reading. The sling tackle is OK as long as  the tackled player’s head doesn’t impact the ground and give him a headache.

Here’s the ‘report’ on Trengove’s latest sling tackle:

Contact between Melbourne's Jack Trengove and the Western Bulldogs' Callan Ward from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Ward had taken possession of the ball when he was wrapped up in a tackle by Trengove. Trengove pivots and takes Ward to the ground. It was the view of the panel that while the action was a slinging motion, the impact on this occasion was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. The majority of the contact to the ground was to Ward's shoulder and there was no significant impact on Ward's head/neck area. The Western Bulldogs' player was immediately able to continue in the game when play proceeded. A medical report from the Western Bulldogs said Ward had sustained no injury and required no treatment after the incident. No further action was taken.

Looking back to the AFL Tribunal Booklet 2010, the section on dangerous tackles includes:

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 an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

So, we can now confidently say that a sling tackle is perfectly OK as long as there is no discernable impact to the head.

AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure that the MRP has made things any easier for the players here. Did Trengove intend his opponent’s head to hit the turf in the tackle he was suspended for? Probably not. Did he mean Callan Ward’s head to hit the turf in this tackle? Probably not. The difference between no case to answer and a short enforced holiday? Luck.

Someone has to get fair dinkum about this issue. It’s one thing to tackle an opponent and drag them to the ground. It’s quite another to sling the opponent with the intention of hurting them, and with a much greater likelihood of causing an impact to the head.

We disagreed with the MRP’s assessment of Trengove’s first tackle being ‘high contact’. The high contact was incidental. Had the tackled player’s head incidentally struck a player’s boot, would the MRP have charged that player with kicking? We think not. Logically then, the high contact should not have been a factor in the assessment.

Assessing the danger of the tackle on the basis of head trauma leaves every player in the competition free to roll the dice and continue to sling tackle with the intent to injure. A better solution would be to penalise the sling tackle at every opportunity, regardless of head trauma.

In the first part of AussieRulesBlog’s look at Match Review Panel assessments, we focused on the two tables where relevant factors are weighted and result in activation points and demerit points being decided.

Crucial to the first part of that assessment is the MRP’s view on the conduct which a player has engaged in. This conduct is graded, in ascending severity, Negligent, Reckless or Intentional.

To try to gain some insight into how the MRP assesses players’ conduct, let’s look at the definitions provided for these conduct assessments in the AFL Tribunal Booklet 2010.

Negligence

A player negligently commits a reportable offence if the relevant conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the player to all other players. Each player owes a duty of care to all other players to not engage in conduct which will constitute a reportable offence being committed against that other player. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Negligence is constituted by a person’s breach of duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reportable offence. While Australian Football is a contact sport, players owe a duty of care to others not to cause and to avoid illegal contact.

An extra onus applies to protect players from serious neck injuries when they have their head down over the ball and to protect players from bumps to the head. Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:

a.	the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
b.	the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

The definition of negligent also contains specific wording relating to bumps to the head (see rough conduct section starting page 12).

An example of negligent contact may be where a player collides with another player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a reportable offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes negligent.

So, pretty much anything then is negligent!

Recklessness

A player recklessly commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed.

 

This does not require proof that the player turned his mind to the risk.

A player who without looking swings his arm backwards in a pack and strikes an opposing player in the face may be said not to have intended to strike his opponent but his conduct was reckless because it can be inferred from his action that he realised that his arm might make contact or alternatively a reasonable player in his position would have realised that  such contact might be made. The guideline relating to inferring a state of mind with respect to intentional offences has application to determining if the player acted recklessly. However, even if it is not established that the player realised the risk, he will have acted recklessly if a reasonable player in his position would have realised the risk.

 

In the example given under negligent above, if a player collides with another player who has marked the ball, in circumstances where there is some further time after the mark has been taken, and where he blindly continued on, to contact the player taking the mark, then the act would best be described as reckless.

What’s really interesting here is the section we bolded, and it’s most pertinent to the Campbell Brown–Callan Ward incident earlier in 2011.

Intentional

A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the player engaged in the conduct.

 

For example, where a player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him. Whether or not a player intentionally commits a reportable offence depends upon the state of mind of the player when he does the act with which he is charged. What the player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind. In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he may say about it afterwards. If the immediate consequence of an act is obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequence. Thus it could not realistically be concluded that a player who behind the play and whilst facing his opponent punched him to the face did not intend to
strike him. The state of a player’s mind is an objective fact and has to be proved in the same way as other objective facts. The whole of the relevant evidence has to be considered. When considering the issue the Tribunal Jury must weigh the evidence of the player as to what his intentions were along with whatever inference as to his intentions can be drawn from his conduct or other relevant facts. The player may or may not be believed by the Tribunal Jury. Notwithstanding what the player says, the Tribunal Jury may be able to conclude from the whole of the evidence that he intentionally committed the act constituting the reportable offence.

 

Video examples of respective incidents which are negligent, reckless or intentional, are available. The Laws provide for various categories of permitted contact which shall not constitute a reportable offence.  Such contact includes legally using a hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open arms, providing the football is no more than five metres away, and contact which is incidental to a marking contest where a player is legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football. Tackling and shepherding in accordance with the Laws obviously do not constitute a reportable offence.

With the definition of intentional, the framers of these rules have encouraged the MRP to embark on post-incident mind-reading to determine intent. And this really throws up the capricious nature of the MRP’s deliberations.

Can there be any doubt that Campbell Brown intended to strike Callan Ward? We think not, yet we can only conclude that the MRP relied upon the phrase bolded in the recklessness definition and applied it very literally. In contrast, in one of the other incidents we highlighted in the first part of our MRP assessments discussion, the MRP was able to see into Heath Hocking’s mind and conclude a firm intent to commit a reportable offence despite the clear fact that the opposition player was in the process of applying an off-the-ball block — need we add again that this is illegal?

This is the real nub of the problem with the MRP. These assessments of intent, recklessness or negligence simply fail to match the expectations of disinterested fans. As a result, we’re constantly left scratching our heads over MRP decisions, trying to figure out how a group of apparently sane and rational human beings could get things so wrong.

AussieRulesBlog hopes that we’ve shed a tiny glimpse of light on the process. It is, of course, still more complex, but let’s take a little while to digest this new information.

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.

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

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.

Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system continues to defy reasonable expectation.

Early in the season, Campbell Brown’s “reckless” backward elbow got him only a two-week holiday (albeit followed by another two-week penalty for his high tackle of Barry Hall).

Last week it was the Trengove/Dangerfield incident where Trengove was charged with “high contact” — which he didn’t make, as we noted in the previous post. We agree that sling tackles are dangerous, but it seemed the MRP had decided to use Trengove to make a statement about sling tackles and loaded up the charge.

This week it’s the Bombers’ Heath Hocking who has been the subject of the MRP’s capricious assessment. Hocking’s contact with Brisbane’s James Polkinghorne has been labelled “intentional”. For those who’ve not seen the video, Hocking was tagging Simon Black. Black was running from the centre of the ground to the forward flank, trailed by Hocking. As Hocking approached him, Polkinghorne made a clear motion to block the running Hocking.

MRP matrix

Intentional

definition of ‘intentional’ – A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. [Our italics]

AussieRulesBlog is at a loss to understand the furore over the suspension handed out to Melbourne’s Jack Trengove for his tackle of Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield. We’re also struggling to understand the footy club’s statement that the tackle was executed “to a tee”.

The simple fact is that Dangerfield was slung to the ground rather than being dragged to the ground. The extra force associated with the slinging action makes that sort of tackle potentially very dangerous — as exhibited by the resulting concussion experienced by Dangerfield.

If Melbourne, or any other club, are teaching their players to sling their opponents in tackles, they’re exposing their players to enormous legal risk should the tackled player sustain a serious injury. If Melbourne, or anyone else associated with AFL football, thinks that a sling tackle is an appropriate action, they’re sadly mistaken.

We do have one area of dispute with the initial citing of the incident however. Contact was deemed to be high, and that wasn’t the case. It was the result of the slinging action that caused Dangerfield’s head to contact the turf. One less activation point in the initial report may have convinced Melbourne not to contest the charge.

Umpires and tribunals are a necessary part of our game. Without them, the game we Aussie Rules aficionados love would be little more than a brawl in a paddock. So, with that responsibility, it’s verging on disastrous that footy officialdom is so out of touch with practical reality.

Few would argue that the out of bounds on the full and deliberate out of bounds rules have generally improved the game as a spectacle. Few also would argue that there are countless occasions in each game where players ‘deliberately’ take the ball over the boundary line where there is no practical means for them to stop or otherwise keep the ball in play.

Jeff Gieschen’s spin on the Montagna kick last Thursday is as pure an example as could be imagined of defending the indefensible. If that kick is penalised, then every player who crosses the boundary while ‘fumbling’ the ball must also be penalised.

To add to the AFL’s woes, the MRP decides that Matthew Scarlett’s headcrashing elbow is a "legitimate spoiling action" that caused "accidental" high contact. For goodness sake! The only accidental contact was the contact Scarlett made with the ball!

Worse, the MRP’s analysis of Scarlett’s actions brings into question the whole rationale for free kicks paid for incidental contact. Surely these too should be deemed “accidental” and free of penalty?

Both the MRP and the umpiring department have utterly lost the confidence of the paying customer. The game may appear to be healthy after a bumper round of tight and interesting games, but umpiring and tribunal decisions that defy common logic risk the game’s ongoing health.

Release the Giesch!!!  . . .and the MRP!

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.