Herkes tarafından bilinerek sevilen site olan 1xbet canlı adresi sizlere büyük avantajlar ile farklı bahis imkanları sunmaktadır. Bilindik bir firma olması nedeni ile her defasında yeni bir 1xbet güncel adrese taşınıyor. Paylaşılan adreslerden sizlere en uygun 1xbet türkiye giriş güncel adresine kolaylıkla hemen ulaşabilirsiniz. Sizlerde kolaylıkla her cihazınızda aktif olan 1xbet mobile ile bahis yaparak, üyelik oluşumunu halledebilirsiniz. Büyük promosyonlardan yararlanarak üyelik açmak için 1xbet live adresini kullana bilirsiniz. Üyelik oluşturduktan sonra kolaylıkla yatırım yapmak için mobil ödeme bahis kabul gördüğünü anlayabilirsiniz. Hiç bir yerde olmayan canlı bahis özelliklerini sizlerde hemen kullanın. Aktif bir şekilde işlem yapan canlı bahis sitesi editörler tarafından özenle araştırılarak seçilmiştir. Ülkemizde resmi yayın yapmayan sitelerin çoğu kaçak bahis adı altında görev yapmaktadır. İnternetten yayın yapan kaçak bahis siteleri kullanıcılarına yüksek oranlar sunan bir adrestir. Hemen sizlerde casino oyunun farkına ve eğlencesine varmak için kayıt oluşturun.

TOPIC: MRP

shane Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #57

shane
So maybe they should have some sort of system where by, if you believe that the tribunal ruling was flawed or incorrect in some way, you can appeal the decision to another tribunal.

Oh, wait. They do.
Login to reply,

Drubbing Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #58

Drubbing
So why does no one ever take anything to the appeal trib? I don't see anyone using this process.

Granted, we should.
Login to reply,

Blue1red1 Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #59

Blue1red1
The Ballas knee thing has me baffled? It looked more like a dukes of hazard jump over the car slide than any sort of strike?? The fist to Shaw what ever way you look at it was just a brain snap and you can't blame the MRP for sighting that when you drop the bloke to his knees with the love tap. I can understand Rolly being ticked by that in the current circumstances. As For Fyfe's two weeks, there was a whole lot of pillow biting going on from the club there, that was disappointing. Even more so when I watch the Glass incident, I can not understand how that wasn't intentional, medium impact at least and high?? The fact a bloke went to hospital for head scans meant it hurt and was high - derrr! One week? Something stinks.
Login to reply,

Morgan Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #60

Morgan
There's different schools of thought about how you deal with what you consider to be an unfair result from the powers that be. At one end, you fight city hall at every opportunity, and create an 'us against them' atmosphere at a club. At the other end, you take your lumps, and focus on the things you can control.

Most coaches these days tend to hold the view that the players (and coaches) should focus on the things they can control. No-one at Freo can control the MRP. If people want to suggest the MRP is biased, or incompetent, or both, that's all well and good. There might even be some truth to it. Fans at every club feel the same way. But at the end of the day, there is nothing that can be done about it. We're stuck with the current members for the rest of the year. You may think that taking it up to them will help us somehow, but it could equally go the other way. There is no way to know. It's out of our control.

Ross wants our players to focus on their actions. Does the MRP panel give Ballas a tough run? Sure. If there are conscious or unconscious biases against Ballas, it's because he has proven himself to be someone who will likely sneak in a cheeky one now and again. As coach, do you want Ballas focusing on how unfairly he has been treated (which is questionable and outside of his control) or on the things he does on the footy field that put himself in a position to be treated harshly. Frankly, he is too important a player for us now to be constantly engaging in that sort of shenanigans.

As shane points out, there is an appeal process. Fyfe was aggrieved at his kicking charge last year, and if memory serves he requested we appeal. We did, and lost him for an extra game. So coming out in support of your player isn't always the best thing (in the short term). Appealing is a long shot, but it seems we have form in supporting the player at their request. That's all you can ask for. It doesn't matter what we think.

As for people being upset Rosich is taking a break, I reckon that is a bit churlish. He's there mostly to manage the commercial operations of the business. The sponsors are locked in, the members are locked in, the stadium deals are locked in, the merch is on the shelf, the players are (mostly) locked in. I'd dare say rounds 6-10 aren't the busiest for the CEO, when the focus is on players.
Login to reply,
Flag_2005, OK chief, DockerKnockers said You Beaut

Bizkit Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #61

Bizkit
Appealing Fyfe's kick last year was the right thing to do. Using the 'good bloke' defence was stupid and has seemingly scared them off fighting any charges. Instead of fighting them on points of law opposed to the character of the player, they're now gun shy at the tribunal.
Nathan: When did you get balls?
Simon: I've always had balls you've just never seen them.
Nathan: That's the gayest thing I've ever heard.
Login to reply,
OK chief said You Beaut

Flag_2005 Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #62

Flag_2005
Couldn't agree more with your assessment of the way Fyfe's appeal was run last year Bizkit. However, I don't see that as now causing the club to be gun shy with other matters at the tribunal this season. Sadly, I think the new rule that slotted Fyfe couldn't be argued against and Ballas got nicked doing what he does a little too frequently.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #63

Raglan Matt
Flag I don't think to many people are arguing that the players are guilty as charged side of it, the problem as we see it is the selective application of the laws by umpires, MRP and tribunal.
We are all created equal, but Freo players seem to be treated much differently. Most of us wouldn't have a problem if everyone that was guilty of a "love tap" to the guts had of been reprimanded or suspended, but some didn't even get cited or investigated, then there is Buddy's off the ball bump on Ballas who would "not reasonably have been expecting contact", and the Glass decision reeks of corruption. Therein lies the problem. Not a level playing field.
Whether we take the "he's a good bloke defence" or the "you have applied the laws wrongly" defence, we are still going to get the sharp end where we don't want it so what option is there?
Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn said You Beaut

Bizkit Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #64

Bizkit
Apart from preferring SCOS to Dawson in the side, that the club didn't challenge that suspension is a joke. It was nothing, a slight bump and he got done for tripping? Could definitely have been challenged. Ballas knee could be argued as just part of him falling to ground, there certainly looked nothing in it. Impact was minimal and not worthy of a report which is how you'd likely argue Balllas love tap, especially if the 30 other love taps over a round of footy aren't deemed reportable.

As for Fyfe's suspension, that was covered at the time and I wont go over it. Needless to say I didn't enjoy RL condemning Fyfe for choosing to bump instead of backing him in as executing it well bar Rischitelli's uncoordination. Stand up for your players rather than condemning them in public.
Nathan: When did you get balls?
Simon: I've always had balls you've just never seen them.
Nathan: That's the gayest thing I've ever heard.
Login to reply,

Rookie Magic Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #65

Rookie Magic
It appears that all of a sudden slow motion replay of scrimmages is being guinea pigged.

I bet that slow talking former long haired geelong fwd who now boundary rides for tv media is glad it didn't happen in his day.

It begs the question: how much intense inspective surveillance of in close play is going to occur?

This could push ticket prices up if they want to hold the new standard.
Login to reply,

Mushroom Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #66

Mushroom
Fyfe deserves better. And I'd be surprised if there was one footy fan who wants what Fyfe did in the way he did it removed from the game. To me, there's no difference in the bloke who causes lateral contact in a pack that leads to an awkward landing and a cruciate ligament injury that ends a season, seasons or a career.

I lost a significant amount of respect for Lyon when he did not back his player in as a fair, ball-focussed and possibly the most skilled exponent, in general and in aggregate, of each and every facet of the game that history has seen.

I still get cranky when I think about it.

As for the match review panel, the system is such a mish-mash of procedures, history, constantly-changing edicts, freaky grammatic forensic language describing simple events and a massive dose of flavour-of-the-moment issue syndrome being squished by an odd and irrational requirement for expedient decisions with pre-determined outcomes in preference to practical ones that it is not surprising it is inconsistent.

Yes, the glass one is wrong. Very wrong. But it has nothing to do with Freo. Ballantine did a stupid thing and I am extremely disappointed in him. He deserves a week out. Douglas deserves his couple. Fyfe and Dawson were assessed harshly. The match review panel wer not wrong, given what they had to apply, just harsh in the application. The bigger wrong was from my Club in not challenging the obviously fluid boundaries.

I hate that it seems to hit my team frequently in strange ways but I can't truthfully convince myself that it is fundamentally more than coincidence brought on by an overly-complicated protocol.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #67

Raglan Matt
Mushroom the Glass decision does show a bias against Freo when you compare it to decisions against Freo players. Pavlich and Michael Johnson are only 2 examples of how there are 2 sets of rules and 2 sets of penalties for the same offense.
As for the Fyfe decision, 1 of the Swans players in the head clash Saturday night should have been charged if the rule is taken to the extreme it was taken to charge Fyfe. The swans made contact with another player in such a manner as to cause a head clash. I don't recall the rule saying it had to be an opponent. But they are waiting for Dawson and Mcpharlin, or Mayne and Mundy to clash heads before that part of the rule is bought into play.
Login to reply,

Freolifer Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #68

Freolifer
Didn't that already happen with Mc Pharlin & Mundy against GC?
Login to reply,

Mushroom Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #69

Mushroom
Do you really think they were thinking about whether Glass played for Freo or not when they were looking at the Glass clash?

I think they are just stupid and looking at technicalities rather than practicalities and the big picture.
Login to reply,

freofan61 Re: MRP 10 years 1 week ago #70

freofan61


Feels a bit like deja-vu. Rd 5 WC v PA in 2013 though.

Glass initially got a 2 week suspension for rough conduct on Paul Stewart with an early plea but WC took it to the tribunal and he got off as it wasn't deemed to be high contact.

Check out the footage about 1.05 or 1.08 in.
Login to reply,
rogerrocks said You Beaut