Incident Review Panel

Noticed that both Michael Clinch and Kane Murphy have been cited by the tribunal after incidents on the weekend.

Absolutely staggered that Peter Rolfe is not on that list. Thought it was a poor hit as the ball was long gone and deserved at least 2-3 weeks on the sidelines. Looks like we will have another year of inconsistencies but then again what's new.

Well - we are at Round 3 and the IRP has reared its ugly head already, as per the SANFL site:

NORTH ADELAIDE’S Michael Clinch has been offered a two-match ban by the SANFL’s Incident Review Panel for rough conduct on Sturt’s Nick Pearce at Prospect Oval on Saturday.

NORWOOD’S Kane Murphy has been offered a reprimand by the SANFL’s Incident Review Panel for making forceful front-on contact with Central’s Ryan Williams at Playford Alive Oval on Saturday night.

The "guilty until proven innocent" programme from the AFL's brains trust, well documented by Chambo elsewhere, has these 2 players fighting for the right to play next week. Now Adelaide Hawk can tell us what sort of mongrel, sniper Murphy is, but Clinch plays it hard, but I don't even think he would try to do "rough conduct" on someone twice as wide and twice as high.

Get rid of it! The umpires didn't see anything (but that's not unusual).

Beat me to it. Can a mod merge the 2 threads together.

B&T - we were writing at the same time - I added an entry too on this

Yes - please

Clinch has a poor record so all he has to do breathe on someone and he is in trouble.

Having said that I agree I don't like the system as it is also.

BloodnTars wrote:Clinch has a poor record so all he has to do breathe on someone and he is in trouble.

Having said that I agree I don't like the system as it is also.

I thought that last year's retaliatory hit on Gowans was his first offence.

BloodnTars wrote:Beat me to it. Can a mod merge the 2 threads together.

Maybe put them into the thread below, started for all tribunal results and discussions...

http://www.talkingfootysa.com/t1435-2013-reports-tribunal-discusion

robranisgod wrote:

BloodnTars wrote:Clinch has a poor record so all he has to do breathe on someone and he is in trouble.

Having said that I agree I don't like the system as it is also.

I thought that last year's retaliatory hit on Gowans was his first offence.

Could be right. Thought there were a couple of incidents when he was at Port but could be mixing him up with someone else.

BloodnTars wrote:

robranisgod wrote:

BloodnTars wrote:Clinch has a poor record so all he has to do breathe on someone and he is in trouble.

Having said that I agree I don't like the system as it is also.

I thought that last year's retaliatory hit on Gowans was his first offence.

Could be right. Thought there were a couple of incidents when he was at Port but could be mixing him up with someone else.

There could have been prior to 2010 but he has no record on the SANFL website, but that is only back to 2010.

I didn't see the Pearce incident, only the aftermath so I have no idea whether he was guilty or not. Given that he has been done by video you would have to think that there is solid evidence.

Yeah I saw it, but was a long way away. A free yes as it was high and Pearce went down like a sack of 'taters, but reportable? Not so sure. Really didn't see the contact properly.

I watched the Clinch incident on the SANFL website, and I am not so sure that he should have got any games let alone 2. There seemed no malice, and it was not a deliberate act to hit or injure. I ran it several times trying to see what actually hit Pearce's head - upper shoulder perhaps. But it was just in play as Pearce seemed to stumble as he was chasing a North player and Clinch came in to shepherd and hit him. Clinch did not jump into him - it was a glancing blow. It was no wonder then that the umpires took no action - they saw nothing that was not happening in the normal course of play. At worst - a reprimand. If the IRP considers that "rough conduct", we are in trouble.

Mongrel Punter wrote:I watched the Clinch incident on the SANFL website, and I am not so sure that he should have got any games let alone 2. There seemed no malice, and it was not a deliberate act to hit or injure. I ran it several times trying to see what actually hit Pearce's head - upper shoulder perhaps. But it was just in play as Pearce seemed to stumble as he was chasing a North player and Clinch came in to shepherd and hit him. Clinch did not jump into him - it was a glancing blow. It was no wonder then that the umpires took no action - they saw nothing that was not happening in the normal course of play. At worst - a reprimand. If the IRP considers that "rough conduct", we are in trouble.

I am a bit with you MP and I am not looking at it through red and white glasses. Yet North chose not to appeal, so they must be the rules now, and we just have to learn to live with it.

I think North may have been scared of the guilty until innocent proforma we now have, and that if you appeal to have your case heard, and fail by IRP standards, you end up being more guilty, and get an extra game. We need Clinch. One tackle a game like the one on Crane, can turn it.

Hence my Style over Substance thread.
If the players of the 40s were still alive and attended the footy today, they would think you're taking them to a different game altogether.

The IRP system is useless.

I am surprised he was even found guilty. Most times it seems not and if you appeal (on 2012 stats) there is a very good chance of getting the player off.
North should have appealed I think.