I’m with you hypen. I’ve always thought the make-up of the MRP and Tribunal was a bit suspect, as is the idea of a collective decision.
I reckon you’d get a clearer result if you had a three-person panel made up of a former player, someone from head office, and an independent QC. Each could attempt to persuade the other on the merits, but if there is a dissenting voice they just issue their own judgement and short reasons. You might get some split decisions, but at least then the players and public would get a sense for where the line was, and which of the MRP members were being too strict or lenient. You might get a clearer indication of when to appeal.
The subsequent year you could either turf the person who handing down dud decisions or issue a direction that they were interpreting the rules incorrectly. If every decisions was split, then you’d get some indication the existing rules are too confusing or open to interpretation.
It seems the current approach just protects the MRP/Tribunal members under a cloak on anonymity.
