16 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.

I don't know, I wasn't in the tribunal hearing. Were you?

As I've repeatedly said, I find the decision baffling and to me there's no defence for it, but I'm trying to work out how this outcome came about rather than just whinge.

 

9 minutes ago, Akum said:

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".

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.

Yes, I agree here, this AFL/VFL monolith  overlaps into Jacko's correct perception  of a money hungry, morally corrupt  pack of wimps. Jackson, The self appointed Court Jester can see it. Yet the Court cannot......

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

I don't know, I wasn't in the tribunal hearing. Were you?

As I've repeatedly said, I find the decision baffling and to me there's no defence for it, but I'm trying to work out how this outcome came about rather than just whinge.

 

There are only a few possible plausible explanations. What Myke did deserve a while on the pine, no reason he can come up with could save him from that. That means he got off either due to the incompetence of the tribunal, or he got off for 'other' reasons which we will never be sure of. By 'other' I mean things like not attracting negative attention to the league, instructions from above etc. 

No matter the reasons given there is no excuse for him not being suspended and it is wrong. 

We have a "Blood Rule" in place during the game

but biting is now allowed....

This game is in trouble. Young kids will bite during games...

wish we had some strong people running the game, not just corporate pillows like Gill....

1 hour 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....

 

they are also sexist, racist and misogynist

1 hour 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.

 

Colin Sylvia and Rohan Bail woud agree with this.........

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Colin Sylvia and Rohan Bail woud agree with this.........

Ha! Fair point.

I think I can explain the rationale behind this decision, it is totally inexplicable. There that should explain it.

PS. He pleaded guilty to biting an opponent, I didn't hear that it was under extreme provocation, or fear for his safety, so therefore the reprimand is just stunning in that context.

Quote

VFL general manager John Hook lashed those making comment without sitting in on Wednesday night’s tribunal hearing.

 

Hook — who was not at the tribunal — said AFL Victoria would not appeal the decision.

“Tribunals are independent. They’re an independent body and that’s the decision they came up with,” Hook said.

“That’s the decision they made on the evidence given. I think they’ve done a pretty good job so we’re not going to be appealing it.

 

 

So, Hook, who didn't attend, lashes out at those who comment without being there? And then tries to tell us that they did a good job, how would he know if he didn't attend?

From what I've read, he pleaded guilty with no excuses? I don't know how much more evidence they needed/wanted other then the Channel 7 footage, he clearly turns his head and bites Oliver's finger, a finger that was clearly on the ball and away from his mouth.

Any player that blatantly bites, or spits on, another player should cop a minimum 4 weeks.

Player Oliver of the Scorpions, has been charged with a medium level offence of assault on player Cooks' teeth with his index finger. The act was deemed intentional, reckless and low impact. He can accept an early plea of two weeks.

1 hour ago, Males said:

 

Quote

VFL general manager John Hook lashed those making comment without sitting in on Wednesday night’s tribunal hearing.

Hook — who was not at the tribunal — said AFL Victoria would not appeal the decision.

“Tribunals are independent. They’re an independent body and that’s the decision they came up with,” Hook said.

“That’s the decision they made on the evidence given. I think they’ve done a pretty good job so we’re not going to be appealing it.

 

So, Hook, who didn't attend, lashes out at those who comment without being there? And then tries to tell us that they did a good job, how would he know if he didn't attend?

From what I've read, he pleaded guilty with no excuses? I don't know how much more evidence they needed/wanted other then the Channel 7 footage, he clearly turns his head and bites Oliver's finger, a finger that was clearly on the ball and away from his mouth.

Any player that blatantly bites, or spits on, another player should cop a minimum 4 weeks.

Where was the quote from? Who's been "making comment without sitting in on Wednesday night's tribunal hearing"?

And why is he so sensitive about it?

From Hook's remarkable rant, this is sounding more & more like a stitch-up. Or rather, a very clumsy attempt at "damage control".

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by Akum
Include Males's quote so questions make sense

57 minutes ago, Akum said:

Where was the quote from? Who's been "making comment without sitting in on Wednesday night's tribunal hearing"?

And why is he so sensitive about it?

From Hook's remarkable rant, this is sounding more & more like a stitch-up. Or rather, a very clumsy attempt at "damage control".

Do you mean where did I get the quote from? If so, page 4, DazzleDavey's Hearald Sun link. And I guess he probably means the other VFL teams who aren't too happy with the weak decision.

1 hour ago, Akum said:

Where was the quote from? Who's been "making comment without sitting in on Wednesday night's tribunal hearing"?

And why is he so sensitive about it?

From Hook's remarkable rant, this is sounding more & more like a stitch-up. Or rather, a very clumsy attempt at "damage control".

I think he was referring to the clubs that were outraged by the decision and make a point of saying it. 

The AFL giving the VFL tribunal the tick of approval is a very bad look for the game on this one. Worse still that this Hook guy defends it despite not even being there himself. 

They got this wrong plain and simple, and everyone but the VFL/AFL seem to see this. 

It's not often someone arguing a point whips the carpet out from under themselves.

Take a bow Hook .... Idiot