Its more than just interpretations that come into it.
The MRP does not review games. It reviews incidents referred to it by the AFL. This has been discussed before. If they had to review every game,the panel would need to spend, at 2 hours playing time per game, a minimum of 36 hours uninterrupted viewing, plus of course time on and replay times for incident reviews. All that by Monday afternoon.
That simply will not happen.
So, a panel of former players, with links to some clubs and carrying their own playing days baggage, gets to look at incidents referred to them and if its not referred, its not reviewed. This impacts in several different ways.
First, if an incident is constantly highlighted by the media, it will get reviewed. A big thanks to channel 7 for highlighting some indiscretions and burying others.
The result of the review is also often dependent on the media stance but not completely. The AFL is nothing if not extremely tetchy about negative publicity and if the media is calling for your head or calling for 'common sense' to prevail, its amazing how that just seems to happen.
The you have the aspect of interpretation. These blokes get to decide week in and week out, whether an act is intentional or careless, as well as somehow measuring how much impact occurred. As we have all seen that interpretation can vary dramatically, especially when the AFL consistently refuses to be bound by precedent and that is a telling factor.
Having no precedents means you can decide what the rules mean week by week and not be held responsible for massive inconsistencies......how very convenient.
The MRP will never be consistent or fair until each and every one of those points are addressed, which to say it will never be consistent or fair while run by the AFL
