Penalties out of whack

Coaches call for re-think on Match Review Panel

ROBUST discussions and changes to the match review panel should be on the AFL’s post-season agenda, according to two senior coaches.

Collingwood’s Nathan Buckley and Geelong’s Chris Scott yesterday led the charge after reports that players will seek a meeting with the league to table their concerns with the judiciary.

Buckley will be without Brodie Grundy for tomorrow’s game against the Cats as the ruckman serves the second week of his suspension for his tackle on Ben Brown.

The system simply “doesn’t seem to be consistent”, the Magpies coach said.

“Potentially we need to be careful what we wish for, because I’m not so sure that we’re seeing adequate or commensurate penalties for the right actions,” Buckley said.

“(Grundy’s suspension) was cut and dry. The rules are written and that’s exactly how it needed to be and should have been with the two-week penalty. We were not surprised by that at all, and you can’t challenge it because the way the rules are written, it’s really clear that there’s no challenge against that.

“I think there will be a few interesting discussions with the clubs and the league around where the game is going, and how we can take away some of the acts we don’t want to see in the game, but not be heavy-handed with some of those penalties as well. Some of them don’t add up to me.”

Scott said the current situation was indefensible.

“I don’t know how anyone could possibly try to defend the position that we’re in,” he said.

“Mark Evans and his team did a fantastic job of changing the system so we didn’t get good players rubbed out for innocuous incidents.

“A jumper push to the throat (like Western Bulldog Jack Redpath’s) is innocuous. Now we’ve got guys getting three weeks . . . I don’t think anyone could argue that’s not strange at the very least.”

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon also called for an overhaul of the MRP system after Redpath’s three-match ban.

“I would prefer a system where you’ve got experienced people … who simply look at a case on its merits because no degree of intent is ever 100 per cent the same with another and no degree of impact is ever the same,” he told SEN radio.

“What I think we need is judicial officers with common sense and experience in football who can . . . make a decision based generally on the facts and not in accordance with some pre-imposed paradigm about gradings of intent and gradings of impact.”

Scott said this week’s Toby Greene misconduct charge had been “strange”.

“The MRP seemed to say, ‘No, you’ve transgressed, you’ve done something wrong, but we’re only going to give you a fine’,” Scott said. “He kicked a guy in the face. We’ve got another guy who pushed a guy in the throat and gets three.”