Does anyone have the official VFL findings? What was the judicial ruling to get him off?

Funny how the commentators asked Myke Cook while interviewing him during a quarter in that last half

what happened, and he said something along the lines of "He seemed a bit upset about something, lets just

leave it at that". 

13 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

To be fair, redheads fingers do look a lot like frankfurts. 

May explain Mr Lewis's situation. He may have  thought he was munching on a witchetty grub.

5 hours ago, stuie said:

While not defending the action or the decision, I wonder if the fact Oliver was shoving his fingers in the guys face at the time was taken into account and is part of the reason for such a weak punishment?

 

The video showed that Cook, while lying face-down on top of the ball, had to turn his head to bite Clarrie. It was a deliberate action

1 hour ago, Akum said:

The video showed that Cook, while lying face-down on top of the ball, had to turn his head to bite Clarrie. It was a deliberate action

It didn't really, I've watched it many times.

There's no reason for Oliver to shove his hand in the face of a player on the ground with players on top of him. I'm in no way defending the bite, but let's not pretend Oliver was casually minding his own business when a wild Myke appeared and bit him randomly.

 

Edited July 28, 20169 yr by stuie

Has Todd Viney been called as an expert witness?

27 minutes ago, stuie said:

It didn't really, I've watched it many times.

There's no reason for Oliver to shove his hand in the face of a player on the ground with players on top of him. I'm in no way defending the bite, but let's not pretend Oliver was casually minding his own business when a wild Myke appeared and bit him randomly.

 

You're making it sound like Oliver was actually at fault.

Unbelievable. 

Just now, Seraph said:

You're making it sound like Oliver was actually at fault.

Unbelievable. 

No, I'm not. You're trying to make it sound that's what I was saying. It's not.

Re-read my post if you have to, I clearly stated I was in no way defending the bite, but I'm trying to give some context to the outrage here and a possible reason on the tribunal outcome.

 

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

No, I'm not. You're trying to make it sound that's what I was saying. It's not.

Re-read my post if you have to, I clearly stated I was in no way defending the bite, but I'm trying to give some context to the outrage here and a possible reason on the tribunal outcome.

You stated that he shoved his hand in his face.

To my eyes Oliver has his hand on the ball trying to get it out, near the opponent's shoulder, who then turns his head and bites him. 

"Let's not pretend that Oliver was casually minding his own business" - He was playing footy, not sure what you think he did wrong here. 

http://jrickard1991.fansunite.com.au/2016/07/26/38692/video

This is the replay of it, and just makes me even more angry. No excuse, no fingers in his face, Oliver's hands were on the footy and Cook turned his head and bit him. How he only got a reprimand for that is incredible.

Edited July 28, 20169 yr by Pates

15 minutes ago, Pates said:

http://jrickard1991.fansunite.com.au/2016/07/26/38692/video

This is the replay of it, and just makes me even more angry. No excuse, no fingers in his face, Oliver's hands were on the footy and Cook turned his head and bit him. How he only got a reprimand for that is incredible.

maybe he was just hungry?

1 hour ago, Pates said:

http://jrickard1991.fansunite.com.au/2016/07/26/38692/video

This is the replay of it, and just makes me even more angry. No excuse, no fingers in his face, Oliver's hands were on the footy and Cook turned his head and bit him. How he only got a reprimand for that is incredible.

Olivers hands are nowhere near the biters mouth. The biter turns his head to bite Oliver's fingers. 

 

20 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

To be fair, redheads fingers do look a lot like frankfurts. 

 

7 hours ago, america de cali said:

May explain Mr Lewis's situation. He may have  thought he was munching on a witchetty grub.

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

 

Settle down Moonie FFS. It's only Thursday night.

10 hours ago, stuie said:

While not defending the action or the decision, I wonder if the fact Oliver was shoving his fingers in the guys face at the time was taken into account and is part of the reason for such a weak punishment?

 

You wonder wrong Stuie. It's not a fact that "Oliver was shoving his fingers in the guy's face at the time". Oliver's hand was on the ball and Myke turned to bite his finger. Insinuating it was part Oliver's fault that an opponent bit his finger is [censored].

3 hours ago, stuie said:

No, I'm not.

 

Yes, you are. 

Adding context? Your warped context. 

 

The contrarian act is getting old. 

10 hours ago, america de cali said:

May explain Mr Lewis's situation. He may have  thought he was munching on a witchetty grub.

Seriously?

9 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Yes, you are. 

Adding context? Your warped context. 

 

The contrarian act is getting old. 

Feel free to re-read my posts. I'm summarize for you: I'm in no way defending the bite or the baffling tribunal decision, BUT I'm actually trying to work out why that decision was made rather than just shake my fist at the screen like all the panic merchants here.

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbournes-clayton-oliver-bitten-but-vfl-star-myke-cook-avoids-suspension-despite-guilty-plea/news-story/5f7fd3c09b260d5fba654d1151adeabb

Another joke decision by an AFL/VFL tribunal. FFS how hard is it to get these decisions right??

And the farkers scored a goal from the 50m penalty. What a joke and a travesty that would have been had we lost.

2 hours ago, stuie said:

Feel free to re-read my posts. I'm summarize for you: I'm in no way defending the bite or the baffling tribunal decision, BUT I'm actually trying to work out why that decision was made rather than just shake my fist at the screen like all the panic merchants here.

 

By suggesting Clarrie might have contributed to it somehow? By claiming that the vision didn't show what was blindingly obvious even to the Ch7 commentators?

As impressive as your desire to uphold the integrity of the AFL/VFL tribunal is, you (and they) got this one badly wrong. As we all do from time to time.

 

Insane that some players get suspended for accidental contact that happens as part of the sport, but others can get off from BITING their opponent and pleading guilty to doing it too. Insane.

Olivers reaction was pretty tame considering. I'd have ripped his teeth out one by one with pliers to ensure he never bit anyone ever again.

5 minutes ago, Akum said:

By suggesting Clarrie might have contributed to it somehow? By claiming that the vision didn't show what was blindingly obvious even to the Ch7 commentators?

As impressive as your desire to uphold the integrity of the AFL/VFL tribunal is, you (and they) got this one badly wrong. As we all do from time to time.

 

Yeah you're right, the VFL tribunal is an evil organization who are setup just to make sure Casey players get a raw deal. They meet in their secret evil base and refuse to see or hear any evidence or testimony and will wait until they've read the Demonland reaction and then respond in the opposite....

OR maybe there was evidence brought to the case that resulted in the outcome?

I would rather try and work out why than just go round in circles in anger like most on this thread have done.

 

12 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right, the VFL tribunal is an evil organization who are setup just to make sure Casey players get a raw deal. They meet in their secret evil base and refuse to see or hear any evidence or testimony and will wait until they've read the Demonland reaction and then respond in the opposite....

OR maybe there was evidence brought to the case that resulted in the outcome?

I would rather try and work out why than just go round in circles in anger like most on this thread have done.

 

Stuie, what possible evidence gets you off biting someone, you either did it or you didn't, there are very few excuses for doing so and about the only things I can think of is if you feel your life is in danger, which Myke's wasn't, or you have Rabies, which I don't think Myke does, although I am not 100% sure from watching the vision. 

Please feel free to let me know any possible reason why he would get off when he BIT someone.

No, not evil. Maybe just a bit inclined to want to sweep things under the carpet that they should be making an example of, in an effort to try not to attract negative attention (beyond the limited scope of supporter forums). To suspend someone for biting is more likely to attract negative publicity than to make a stand against biting, so that's what takes priority. It's "incident management" - not evil, just "good business practice". I'm not angry at all, this is just what I expected. But is the game better for it?

OK, yeah, you're right. Nobody's ever heard of the AFL/VFL being more concerned with their public perception than with principles, which is why they are so much trusted by the general community.

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by Akum

7 minutes ago, Chris said:

Stuie, what possible evidence gets you off biting someone, you either did it or you didn't, there are very few excuses for doing so and about the only things I can think of is if you feel your life is in danger, which Myke's wasn't, or you have Rabies, which I don't think Myke does, although I am not 100% sure from watching the vision. 

Please feel free to let me know any possible reason why he would get off when he BIT someone.

Yes, as well as any "unexplained further evidence" only trends towards clouding Ollie