The AFL's match review panel system is ten years old. How is it faring?
Fairfax football writers Rohan Connolly and Jesse Hogan here put the AFL's MRP under the microscope, arguing for (Hogan) and against (Connolly) why the system either needs to be scrapped or tinkered with. And Jesse runs the rule over a season of good and bad calls.
"A one-size-fits all policy simply can’t be applied to a game with as many variables as AFL football has in terms of the context of incidents and the vastly different circumstances in which they occur."
"The MRP can be significantly improved with just a few tweaks - and a refresher course for those ticking the boxes."
Jesse Hogan casts his eye over the year in match review and tribunal decisions, reminding us of the good, the bad and the contentious.
The AFL's match review panel. Just the sheer mention of that AFL-created quasi-legal body usually has footy fans venting their frustration, either by reaching for their phone to push out an SMH or to call talkback on any sports show at any radio station in Australia.
In 2005 the league introduced the concept of a panel of former players to adjudicate reportable (or not-reportable) incidents from the previous weekend of matches as a fundamental way of reducing the number of tribunal hearings.
On that score alone, they have succeeded.
But the model of measuring players' indiscretions with predetermined categories (and points matched with each 'grading') has been bathed in controversy ever since.
Weigh up what Rohan and Jesse have to say and tell us about your verdict.
