Match Review Panel

[valleys07]

First time in my life, where as a parent I saw something that really scared me with regard to my sons one day playing footy.

These tackles that have the potential to injure a bloke for life MUST be wiped out of the game, so as a serial offender, I think Walks can consider himself lucky he's only getting 3.

Spot on JK......thats the thing that annoys me about people whigning about walkers suspension, saying "oh there was nothing in it, morris wasnt even hurt"

Its when the 1 in 100,000 tackle that does break a players neck occurs, forces him into a wheelchair for life, and then people will begin to take notice.

[PatowalongaPirate]

First time in my life, where as a parent I saw something that really scared me with regard to my sons one day playing footy.

These tackles that have the potential to injure a bloke for life MUST be wiped out of the game, so as a serial offender, I think Walks can consider himself lucky he's only getting 3.

For a bloke who deliberately pushes an oppoenent into a goal post when running back with the flight of play he deserves everything he gets... a gutless footballer who thinks its tough to take cheap shots IMO

I couldn't believe Thompson ( North Melbourne ) didnt make more of that.

Good call JK.

I think it was Grima, which probably explains the lack of reaction. Those Grima boys are pretty docile....

[CUTTERMAN]

I think most people are just pissed off at the inconsistencies of the MRP. It's frustrating that one player gets done for a "slide" then next week 3 get off, then one player gets done for a dangerous tackle (no harm to the player) and another dangerous tackle in the same round that does hurt the player goes totally free, then a few weeks later a player who does have prior convictions gets off scott free with a dangerous tackle. The system just pisses people off.

[Dogwatcher]

With this Walker one, I don't reckon there was inconsistency in the MRV. Plenty wrong with the original umpiring decision though.

[Booney]

With this Walker one, I don't reckon there was inconsistency in the MRV. Plenty wrong with the original umpiring decision though.

Agreed. Plenty wrong with the outcry from some of the more parochial fans however.

[JK]

With this Walker one, I don't reckon there was inconsistency in the MRV. Plenty wrong with the original umpiring decision though.

Actually reckon the original decision of HTB was correct, problem was it should have then immediately been reversed with report, for unduly rough play/slam tackle/whatever people want to call it.

[Dogwatcher]

With this Walker one, I don't reckon there was inconsistency in the MRV. Plenty wrong with the original umpiring decision though.

Actually reckon the original decision of HTB was correct, problem was it should have then immediately been reversed with report, for unduly rough play/slam tackle/whatever people want to call it.

Exactly and that's where the plenty of problem is.

[CUTTERMAN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQeVB4yd ... re=related
No suspension awarded. This is the MRP report from it-
"The match day report against the GWS Giants' Israel Folau for engaging in rough conduct against Richmond's Brett Deledio in Saturday’s game was assessed. Deledio has the ball and begins to jump as he is tackled by Folau. The Giants' player lifts Deledio slightly as a consequence of the Richmond player's attempt to dispose of the ball and then takes him to the ground with his tackle, but does not drive him into the turf. After speaking with the umpire who laid the report on the day, receiving a medical report from the Richmond Football Club and viewing all available footage, it was the view of the panel that the force used in the tackle was below that required to constitute a reportable offence and the tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

From this report all I can see is that they change their language to suit the outcome.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Why should he been suspended for that? Slammed him down on his side, not on his head.

[CUTTERMAN]

So how is that different to Walker's tackle on Taylor?

[RustyCage]

So how is that different to Walker's tackle on Taylor?

Hunt brought him down on his side, Walker brought him down on his head.

[CUTTERMAN]

Folau's tackle on Delidio-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQeVB4yd ... re=related
MRP Report-
The match day report against the GWS Giants' Israel Folau for engaging in rough conduct against Richmond's Brett Deledio in Saturday’s game was assessed. Deledio has the ball and begins to jump as he is tackled by Folau. The Giants' player lifts Deledio slightly as a consequence of the Richmond player's attempt to dispose of the ball and then takes him to the ground with his tackle, but does not drive him into the turf. After speaking with the umpire who laid the report on the day, receiving a medical report from the Richmond Football Club and viewing all available footage, it was the view of the panel that the force used in the tackle was below that required to constitute a reportable offence and the tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

Walker's tackle on Taylor-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMyhXSq1u0A
MRP Report-
Taylor Walker, Adelaide, has been charged with a level two engaging in rough conduct offence against Harry Taylor, Geelong Cats, during the first quarter of the round seven match between Adelaide Crows and the Geelong Cats, played at AAMI Stadium on Saturday May 12, 2012.
In summary, due to his previous poor record, his two-game sanction must remain at two matches, even with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction.

Walker's tackle on Morris-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRcapQVA ... ure=relmfu
MRP report-
Taylor Walker, Adelaide Crows, has been charged with a level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Steven Morris, Richmond, during the fourth quarter of the round 14 match between the Adelaide Crows and Richmond, played at AAMI Stadium on Saturday June 30, 2012.
In summary, due to his previous poor record, his three-game sanction must remain at three matches, even with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, 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 325 demerit points and a three-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 390 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He also has 39.06 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty by 429.06 points and a four-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 321.80 points and a three-match sanction.

For the life of me I can't see how Walker's tackle on Taylor is any less dangerous than Folau's on Delidio. Taking in addition Lovitt-Murray's tackle on Priddis and Franklins tackle, all of whom have got off, and I think it's hard to argue that the MRP is far from consistent.

[Psyber]

As a Crows and a Norwood supporter I think 3 matches was reasonable. It could have been serious.
Walker has football talent but doesn't appear to be a good thinker..

[The Sleeping Giant]

So how is that different to Walker's tackle on Taylor?

Deledio's arm isn't pinned. His head doesn't hit the ground. Falou releases Deledio before he hits the ground.

Very easy to see the difference with an unbiased eye.

[CUTTERMAN]

All have the possibility to be very dangerous, all have slung a player in a negligent manner. It's easy for everyone to see what they want. MRP is a joke.
Priddis' arms were pinned and his head hit the ground, didn't play out the game or play the next week due to concussion.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Lot of people, including some Crow supporters think the MRP got this one right.

[CUTTERMAN]

I've never said that they haven't got it right with this. The tackle had possibility to cause major injury to Morris. You just assume that I'm bias, you're wrong. My point is that the MRP is very inconsistent with these tackles and most of the other offences. Their outcomes and wording of their explanations are confusing and contradictory at best.

[Coach Bombay]

Lot of people, including some Crow supporters think the MRP got this one right.

Must admit, I got it wrong! Was biased at first with my analysis. The tackle at first was fantastic and was holding the ball, walker could have pulled out of the tackling motion earlier. I dont know of 3 weeks is correct or not, but I do know I was wrong. Suspension was needed.

[bloods08]

I said it in the little things that piss you off thread that the umpire has a lot to do with these sorts of things happening. If he got in there earlier and blew his whistle it may stop the players thinking they have to do a bit extra to get the decision. It's probably not applicable in this case though but it has been in some of the others.

Having said that Walker deserved the suspension. McInerney should have been dropped for his poor initial decision , but no, he gets rewarded with the Collingwood v Carlton game.

[Lightning McQueen]

All have the possibility to be very dangerous, all have slung a player in a negligent manner. It's easy for everyone to see what they want. MRP is a joke.
Priddis' arms were pinned and his head hit the ground, didn't play out the game or play the next week due to concussion.

Clutching at straws there mate, Walkers was far worse. Even my 9 year old daughter said immediately "you can't do that can you dad, will he get suspended?"