Oddly enough, if we challenge, he gets to play the last few games with us AND the VFL GF if we make it.

I would have thought if the MRP can't prove he caused the injury he gets off.

That could have been very hard to prove from the vision I saw, after the incident finished, where Sexton appeared not to have suffered the injury yet.

Maybe one of the "conditions" of the financial package is that we don't challenge?

Maybe one of the "conditions" of the financial package is that we don't challenge?

Don't think the AFL would care less if we challenged.

A rudderless ship and no one manning the guns!!

I just dont think this club has the stomach for confrontation.. Its the 'rollover' Demons.

Yes, I know you and everyone else many others in this thread think that. That's the simple and obvious answer, but it doesn't sit well with me. I know we like to think the club is an abject failure in every single element imaginable, but I find it hard to believe that the club would pee its pants at the prospect of going to the tribunal. It's just too amateurish for me to believe.

A rudderless ship and no one manning the guns!!

A rudderless SHIP Bb? More like the SS Minnow!

Given how the executive producer of that show arrived at the name of the famous leaky boat, we might wish to call ours the SS Lyon or SS Schwab

Yes, I know you and everyone else many others in this thread think that. That's the simple and obvious answer, but it doesn't sit well with me. I know we like to think the club is an abject failure in every single element imaginable, but I find it hard to believe that the club would pee its pants at the prospect of going to the tribunal. It's just too amateurish for me to believe.

You mean to tell me it's taken you this long to even entertain the thought Nasher?

Reading this topic makes me realise why I take breaks from the board now and again, hairshirts, paranoia, whoa is me..........we have had innumberable posts on this board whingeing and whining about how MFC always stuffs up Casey when Casey gets to finals....

on this occasion the Club seems to be putting Casey first....question how many successful appeals have there been this season?......obviously they think it will be more benefiical for Clisby to have a break, freshen up, and ply his trade in a finals campaign for Casey than run the risk of getting another week and having his season end prematurely......good thinking I would have thought.....along the same lines of giving Jesse Hogan the week off to do the same so he can 'attack' the last couple of games and the finals..........ongoing development of Clisby despite the hiccup, assume he will excel in the finals after playing in the AFL.......and lead the way

You mean to tell me it's taken you this long to even entertain the thought Nasher?

Everybody is a tough guy sitting behind a keyboard, taking potshots without knowing the full facts

And loving it.

Yes, I know you and everyone else many others in this thread think that. That's the simple and obvious answer, but it doesn't sit well with me. I know we like to think the club is an abject failure in every single element imaginable, but I find it hard to believe that the club would pee its pants at the prospect of going to the tribunal. It's just too amateurish for me to believe.

Good for you.

So give us the way out from left field less obvious suggestion as to why?

In the meantime I'll just stick with we have no bottle come this sort of thing. Cant wait to see the list of examples over say even the last 5 years where we've taken it up to them. Be a very very short list.

Make no qualms of this we'd all like to think there's some hidden reason, its just that so often there isnt.

Everybody is a tough guy sitting behind a keyboard, taking potshots without knowing the full facts

a certain irony in that !!

Good for you.

So give us the way out from left field less obvious suggestion as to why?

In the meantime I'll just stick with we have no bottle come this sort of thing. Cant wait to see the list of examples over say even the last 5 years where we've taken it up to them. Be a very very short list.

Make no qualms of this we'd all like to think there's some hidden reason, its just that so often there isnt.

That's my point - I don't know the answer. You and I are both in a position where we don't know the answer, and we can only think of one conceivable answer. In that position, you've assumed that that must be the answer; I've assumed there must be some other answer that is hidden from me because that one answer just doesn't sound right.

That's my point - I don't know the answer. You and I are both in a position where we don't know the answer, and we can only think of one conceivable answer. In that position, you've assumed that that must be the answer; I've assumed there must be some other answer that is hidden from me because that one answer just doesn't sound right.

fair enough

Occam's razor ??

That's my point - I don't know the answer. You and I are both in a position where we don't know the answer, and we can only think of one conceivable answer. In that position, you've assumed that that must be the answer; I've assumed there must be some other answer that is hidden from me because that one answer just doesn't sound right.

If the vision on the club website is the whole incident, then I can't understand this decision not to challenge.

The original MRP decision makes no sense.

But that will be the legacy of the MRP.

Let's just hope it's disbanded soon.

The answer is that what should be a simple, workable system of penalties has been totally corrupted.

MRP.......Sense

Occam's razor ??

Is an exercise in logic which states that when faced with competing hypotheses you should stick with the one with fewer assumptions until there is sufficient evidence to make a more accurate assessment. It is a rough guide and can in no way be considered as evidence in and of itself.

Is an exercise in logic which states that when faced with competing hypotheses you should stick with the one with fewer assumptions until there is sufficient evidence to make a more accurate assessment. It is a rough guide and can in no way be considered as evidence in and of itself.

you do understand why I suggested it ??

It annoys me how the MRP instantly equate injury with reckless play. Therefore pay out penalties accordingly. It's a contact sport and injury can be incidental.

It also annoys how the club didn't go to the tribunal when apparently (i haven't seen the footage) there was no footage on this incident. The club had nothing to lose. It just takes me back to how this club stands for nothing. How can the supporters stand up yelling to be heard while club just goes on without any balls. I was hoping PJ would bring in a culture that increased testosterone levels.

Why are posters so certain there is no other footage?

The MFC have explained why they decided to not challenge, apparently after some wavering on the issue. You may not like the explanation, but it is not unreasonable. The decision doesn't prove some incapacity to stand up for the club. I suspect our challenge ratio is not much worse than other clubs. Anyone have the data?

I haven't read the explanation Sue. I'll go back and read it.

No one has yet explained what the charge is for.

Rough play? The footage to me looks like what everyone else gets fined for when wrestling. Is the injury the only difference?

Also is like to understand what was reckless about it. Should he have been more careful in his wrestling? The wrestling and roughness looked intentional to me.

Maybe they are saying the injury was reckless, he meant to wrestle but the bloke got injured which means Clisby took it too far.

Doesn't make any sense.

you do understand why I suggested it ??

I do indeed. In this case I agree with you too.

There is indeed video footage on the club's website. It clearly shows that there was no injury at the time that the two players were pulled apart. I would say it is conclusive evidence that he is innocent. Hence my stance that it is [censored] weak of the club to back down and cough up a pathetic excuse that he might get to play a final assuming Casey are still afloat in four weeks which history suggests is highly unlikely.

At least the thugs appeal has been turned down and it's now 4 weeks.

from the MFC website:

The club decided on Tuesday morning to contest it, but then opted to accept the three-match penalty, meaning Clisby will miss the rest of the AFL season.

But by accepting the three-match penalty, he will now have a greater chance to play in the VFL finals, hence why the decision was reversed.