Alistair Clarkson

[Qwerty30 196]

Clarko should be held to account for what he did.

Correct. But if he had been smart and just moved into the hotel there was fuel for the media fire. He wasn't smart and he inappropriately over reacted

And the cretin should be held to account for what he did. He wanted media attention, he can't now hide behind anonymity.

The goose would remain the nobody he is if Clarko had not acted the way he did. He was drunk and out of order and his actions were stupid. It makes no sense to have him trialled in the media.

Figured it now?

Certainly. But your clearly struggling with it. Good luck.

[PaulRB 6,350]

Contact high, intentional, low damage

Reckon Clarko deserves at least two weeks ban for that, given his record.

Similar event to Yarran, with Chapman in his face, angry winding him up...

AFL bunch of hypocrites

[mauriesy 7,261]

If I were a policeman, I would ask two questions:

1. Was Clarkson assaulted or made to feel threatened?
2. If so, was the force he used proportional to the harm he wished to prevent?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then I'd let him go.

If not, I would charge him with assault.

Edited April 28, 2015 by mauriesy

[hardtack 10,514]

Contact high, intentional, low damage

Reckon Clarko deserves at least two weeks ban for that, given his record.

Similar event to Yarran, with Chapman in his face, angry winding him up...

AFL bunch of hypocrites

But with a couple of minor differences... one was with an open hand while the other was with a closed fist. One was in a laneway with 3 or 4 drunken bogans and a mobile phone, while the other was in a stadium in front of several thousand football supporters.

[PaulRB 6,350]

But with a couple of minor differences... one was with an open hand while the other was with a closed fist. One was in a laneway with 3 or 4 drunken bogans and a mobile phone, while the other was in a stadium in front of several thousand football supporters.

Talk to the tribunal... there are always differences, Chapman was actually physically touching Yarran, there are often other players also intimidating, etc...

Edited April 28, 2015 by PaulRB

[hardtack 10,514]

Talk to the tribunal... there are always differences, Chapman was actually physically touching Yarran, there are often other players also intimidating, etc...

I really don't know how you can compare the two situations... in a laneway confronted by drunks is a very very different situation to the controlled environment that is the game of AFL.

[daisycutter 29,604]

But with a couple of minor differences... one was with an open hand while the other was with a closed fist. One was in a laneway with 3 or 4 drunken bogans and a mobile phone, while the other was in a stadium in front of several thousand football supporters.

agreed hardtack.......a silly analogy on many fronts

[DemonFrog 1,354]

To be fair I think old Clarke was just trying out for a part in Rockie 12 When the DEES flogged the Hawks.

[DEE fence 5,004]

If I were a policeman, I would ask two questions:

1. Was Clarkson assaulted or made to feel threatened?

2. If so, was the force he used proportional to the harm he wished to prevent?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then I'd let him go.

If not, I would charge him with assault.

Correct - No case to answer, someone screaming in your ear from 6" away is not just a case of sticks and stones. There is a reason why juries do not hear prior offences, each case is treated on its own merits. Any reasonable person (that is actually a legal test) would take the same view. The volume that shouting in Clarko's ear would easily be interpreted as a threat. Further to that Clarko had been ignoring the goon which is why i think he yelled, he was trying to garner a reaction for the camera before Clarko disappeared into the hotel. All the moral marys with no clue calling for a sanction against clarko have no clue. I would donate $10 to his defense if it was required.

[nutbean 8,838]

I am actual happy with current outcome with the proviso that the drunk idiots are held to account.

I think the Clarkson apology is correct - he is not apologising to the idiot drunks - he is apologising for his inability to handle it better.He had a choice to keep walking as he was approaching the lobby of the hotel but he didn't. Seeing the footage - he reacted - but did he overreact ?

Do I understand him blowing his cool - yup - the idiots were very provocative and really in his face and apparently we are only seeing 5 seconds of something that transpiring for much longer than that. Was the force disproportionate ? borderline - but I think no.

However....to those saying he should have knocked him out cold or broken his nose - makes me shake my head in disbelief.