You caught the bit where it was Clisby's decision didn't you?

cmon Nash...hes got ears...others have mouths 2+2

You caught the bit where it was Clisby's decision didn't you?

I'm not sure it should have been Clisby's decision to make in the first pace. The club decides to fight yet the club is over turned by a rookie listed payer. Hmmm

I'm not sure it should have been Clisby's decision to make in the first pace. The club decides to fight yet the club is over turned by a rookie listed payer. Hmmm

Yes I think this is a club decision not an individual's unless he has added new evidence that adds to the video.

I too am pretty [censored] that after years of not giving two shits about VFL finals, we now decide not to contest on those grounds. Smells like horse crap to me.

Maybe GC in retaliation for our treatment of little Gary have cracked the sads and had medical reports that prove Clisby caused the injury?

At least that piece of crap Brown got four weeks. And let's hope we never see his face again.

I'm not saying Essendon is a club to support if the MFC falls over, but the fight they are currently taking to the AFL is admirable. I'm not suggesting they are in the right in any way either. But they are what MFC isn't in many ways. Most importantly the fight they are prepared face. It seems both on and off field

I hate the pricks but I'm starting to realise it is because they have what we don't; respect. They earned it by taking no prisoners and quite literally doing "whatever it takes"- not like us who just think "whatever it takes" is a snazzy catchphrase to throw around. This is why they are one of the big 4, and we (the oldest club in the world) are the weakest. Heartbreaking really.

Interestingly enough, in the AFL's own video "The Verdict" where Matt Thompson goes through each charge that week with Mark Fraser, and Fraser gives the MRP's justification, the Clisby incident was the only one not discussed.

Even the Rioli and Duncan incidents where no charges were laid, were gone over and discussed the reasoning, but no Clisby...

Conspiracy?

Anyway, ignoring all of this, I was of the opinion that for Clisby's challenge to suddenly disappear, it must've taken a call from AFL HQ reminding him of how few challenges get overturned.

It definitely doesn't smell right.

Yes I think this is a club decision not an individual's unless he has added new evidence that adds to the video.

In what world does an individual not get to choose how to plea to a crime he is charged with?!

Anyway, ignoring all of this, I was of the opinion that for Clisby's challenge to suddenly disappear, it must've taken a call from AFL HQ reminding him of how few challenges get overturned.

It definitely doesn't smell right.

Yes, I thought something might have made it just go away as well, but the thing that makes me doubt it is the club explicitly pointing out that Clisby made the decision. When there are so many other ways to spin it, they surely wouldn't point at a first year player and say "don't look at us, look at him" unless it was the truth. It wouldn't be much of a way to look after your players.

Anyway, I believe the explanation that has been offered. I think it was the wrong call from Clisby as I thought he had a strong case, but I also believe it's his right to make that call and it's drawing a long bow to blame the club for it.

Yes, that's plausible.

Potentially someone like Caig Lees or Josh Mahoney said "Look mate, so you know what you're in for, this is how many get challenged and this is how many actually get overturned. So you know, adding the extra week for a failed challenge will mean you miss any possibility of playing VFL finals."

That'd probably be enough for me.

I just find it annoying the incident was omitted from that video.

I wanted to hear the MRP's justification.

I honestly believe it was left out because it was so difficult for them to justify without saying "we received a complaint from the Suns."

The advice from the club to Clisby would have been that, whilst there was a chance he could get off, there was probably an equal chance he'd lose his appeal (given the tiny proportion of players who succeed at the Tribunal), and would therefore be risking missing Casey's entire finals campaign.

Clisby would have decided that the safety of playing that one final meant that he'd rather accept the penalty and move on.

This isn't a case of MFC weakness, as some are bleating. This is a pragmatic decision that Clisby himself will have taken.

The advice from the club to Clisby would have been that, whilst there was a chance he could get off, there was probably an equal chance he'd lose his appeal (given the tiny proportion of players who succeed at the Tribunal), and would therefore be risking missing Casey's entire finals campaign.

Clisby would have decided that the safety of playing that one final meant that he'd rather accept the penalty and move on.

This isn't a case of MFC weakness, as some are bleating. This is a pragmatic decision that Clisby himself will have taken.

What? No club conspiracy?! Blasphemy!

We are weak and scared ... should have challenged Clisbys suspension

The advice from the club to Clisby would have been that, whilst there was a chance he could get off, there was probably an equal chance he'd lose his appeal (given the tiny proportion of players who succeed at the Tribunal), and would therefore be risking missing Casey's entire finals campaign.

Clisby would have decided that the safety of playing that one final meant that he'd rather accept the penalty and move on.

This isn't a case of MFC weakness, as some are bleating. This is a pragmatic decision that Clisby himself will have taken.

To me this strikes at why we dont stand for anything - we are pragmatic when we need to be uncomprimising when it comes to values and principles. How many champion teams make it through being pragmatic? They make it by setting elite standards and being uncompromising. When challenged they stand up and fight. We sit wearing velvet jackets drinking pims contemplating what a pragmatic person would do while the competition passes by.

I too am pretty [censored] that after years of not giving two shits about VFL finals, we now decide not to contest on those grounds. Smells like horse crap to me.

Maybe GC in retaliation for our treatment of little Gary have cracked the sads and had medical reports that prove Clisby caused the injury?

At least that piece of crap Brown got four weeks. And let's hope we never see his face again.

Turds alway rise to the TOP so we are likely to see him again.

The guy is a gutless peanut who picks on young kids.

Turds alway rise to the TOP so we are likely to see him again.

The guy is a gutless peanut who picks on young kids.

Give him his due, he's also been able to get the better of an odd ATM machine:

http://the-speccy.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/footballer-wont-take-no-for-answer.html

To me this strikes at why we dont stand for anything - we are pragmatic when we need to be uncomprimising when it comes to values and principles. How many champion teams make it through being pragmatic? They make it by setting elite standards and being uncompromising. When challenged they stand up and fight. We sit wearing velvet jackets drinking pims contemplating what a pragmatic person would do while the competition passes by.

You mean like when those 'champion teams' rest players towards the end of the year in preparation for finals?

Being pragmatic is not mutually exclusive with being a successful team. There was little to gain from Clisby's suspension, and poor Mitch could have lost a lot more. You don't seem to care about Clisby, you only care about the MFC being 'macho' or 'aggressive'. At a player's expense?

You mean like when those 'champion teams' rest players towards the end of the year in preparation for finals?

Being pragmatic is not mutually exclusive with being a successful team. There was little to gain from Clisby's suspension, and poor Mitch could have lost a lot more. You don't seem to care about Clisby, you only care about the MFC being 'macho' or 'aggressive'. At a player's expense?

I care that our players are backed and encouraged to challenge a poor decision. This may have been the case with Clisby, where it was his decision, but it seems that we are much more passive than other clubs in standing up for our players.

Maybe the kid did a poor act and deserved the 3 weeks? just sayin'

Hopefully he learns from it and never gets suspended again, as he's shown a bit this year.

Maybe the kid did a poor act and deserved the 3 weeks? just sayin'

Hopefully he learns from it and never gets suspended again, as he's shown a bit this year.

Watch the footage and try to convince me. I think you'll struggle.

And my opinion is good players get suspended every now and then, because good teams play on the edge. Ill discipline is never good but attacking the contest and man can sometimes lead to suspensions and we haven't done enough of that in recent years

I see that sniper C. Brown is going around again next year. If there is one thing I would like to see other than an improved performance by the Dees next year is that someone, anyone, from any team take this guy out. Good and proper!

*Note - the C doesn't stand for Campbell.

I hate the pricks but I'm starting to realise it is because they have what we don't; respect. They earned it by taking no prisoners and quite literally doing "whatever it takes"- not like us who just think "whatever it takes" is a snazzy catchphrase to throw around. This is why they are one of the big 4, and we (the oldest club in the world) are the weakest. Heartbreaking really.

what do you expect when the club is run by people who fortify themselves behind enclosing walls & barriers. its their nature to avoid combat at all costs. I'm surprised there isn't a Moat with Crocodiles, surrounding the MCC.

... this is the non combative & bruise free birthplace.