3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Now that's a dive.

Really? You try and stay standing after getting smacked just below the adams apple!

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

Really? You try and stay standing after getting smacked just below the adams apple!

That one was more chest I thought.

I'm sticking up for Oliver as much as anyone with the Schofield hit, that one with Higgins was far worse (in terms of staging).

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Clint Bizkit

WCE's case  -  Schofield had no intention to elbow Oliver, he clearly tried to punch him but he is such a SHlT fighter (footballer) that he missed and accidentally hit him with his elbow, therefore not guilty your worship.The defence rests.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by ManDee

Hearing some fantastic things on KB's program - "fantastic" in the sense of absolute fantasy - from callers this morning. Or if true, there were a lot of things that everybody's missed, except for the exalted few with "incredible" (in the sense of "unbelievable") vision. However, now they've been brought to our attention, it seems a lot of idiots (sorry, should have put "people") are seeing things that they'd missed before.

I didn't know, for example, that Oliver "whacked Shuey in the guts" just beforehand, which totally justified whatever the heroic Schofield did to try valiantly to protect his poor teammate. I thought that Clarrie just pushed Shuey in the chest, with not much force, and Shuey didn't think it was even worth pushing him back.

I also didn't realise that Oliver waited "a full three seconds" before heading for the ground. I thought that only happened if you were stupid enough to take the slowed-down version as what happened at actual speed.

And we're probably all surprised that Schofield was apparently merely trying to push Clarrie gently away with his forearm, but that he misjudged and his elbow just softly caressed Clarrie's chin.

The biggest problem is that both KB & Michael Gleeson were too gutless to hold these callers to account.

Memo to The MFC

"say nothing"

 

Us against the rest...

call to arms Friday Night....

Hope the sniping piece of [censored] gets two weeks. To lower the grading is tantamount to the MRP saying that Oliver staged.

Either way, I wouldn't want to be playing against Oliver on Friday night.

yeah, this getting boring. let's move on and think only f winning. no more distractions. who cares what everyone else thinks

8 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

That one was more chest I thought.

I'm sticking up for Oliver as much as anyone with the Schofield hit, that one with Higgins was far worse (in terms of staging).

Looking I thought it looked bottom of neck. I reckon the base of his hand was collar bone and the rest on the base of his throat. 

If it was pure chest I would agree to a point (unless it winded him) but on the neck would put you down.

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

That one was more chest I thought.

I'm sticking up for Oliver as much as anyone with the Schofield hit, that one with Higgins was far worse (in terms of staging).

It was an out-and-out throat punch. That was the round straight after the Cotchin thing, where Scott showed in the presser after the game that any jumper punches, throat punches and gut punches that his players managed to hit ours with were all OK because the AFL had now allowed them. And he was right - they got away with all of them. It was the hit on Clarrie, that wasn't even cited, that started the aggro in that game.

You seriously think that was a stage? That Clarrie sucked in not only us supporters, but all of his teammates as well, resulting in one of them being suspended for the lowest-impact hit of the whole match? So Salem got suspended for hitting Higgins just because Clarrie staged the whole thing and sucked him in????

Or do you think it's more likely that our 19 year old midfield star-in-the-making is being targeted by weak and unscrupulous teams who think they should be allowed to get away with it?

The elbow is a short weapon that causes significant impact without much body action. Strikes to the chin are often disruptive because even moderate impacts have both a shock value (often a half a second minor 'stun' effect as you trigger the shock effect at the amygdala) and hurts like a biatch as the ligaments of the jaw are given a nice stretch.

If Oliver was expecting a blow to the body (typical of the push and shove) and copped a chin blow, he would have been 'surprised' by the strike.  If he had no solid base (feet together) falling over becomes a real option.

When this goes to tribunal, it is not about Oliver.  It is about a high strike (proven) with low impact (proven).  The only question was intent.  I hope Schofield gets the two for being a [censored].

If the basis of West Coast's appeal is that Oliver dived and our medicos lied, I'd be staggered if they overturned the ruling. The key facts:

It was high contact.

His elbow connected with Oliver's chin and video evidence proves this.

It was off the ball.

It was outside play.

It was entirely avoidable, therefore it was intentional contact.

At a time when the AFL have just launched a crackdown on head high contact and punches, not the smartest idea to challenge a suspension with these considerations, all for the sake of a single week.

We must have really upset these downhill skiing snowflakes by showing them up for the pretenders they are!

Who cares if he dived? If opposition players elbow our blokes in the face, or punch them in the throat, we don't owe them anything. They're being thugs and I have no problem with our blokes trying to get them in as much trouble as possible.  

Local media in Perth really winding up on it as well. 2 hours on 6 PR Sportstalk last night of rabid callers, also back 2 pages of the West Australian today.

What worries me is how this translates on Olivers next visit west, will it be the non stop booing ala Goodes a few years ago, or some drunken WCE member going over the top of the dugout?

Really irresponsible coverage imo, could lead to some bad outcomes over here in terms of crowd behaviour. 

Also Clayton is what, 19, and only played less than 30 games, he may not be happy on reflection, but what can he say or do differently now?

Let the WA witch hunt and character assassination continue!

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by nomed
Typo

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

He can't challenge on 'Deliberate' as the umpire who reported him was right there.

It was graded 'low impact' so he must be wanting to argue it should have been graded 'insufficient force'.

This means calling into question the MFC's doctor reports.  That is a slippery slope if the Tribunal overturns the MRP on that.

This may be a long bow but I'm beginning to think that all this halabaloo is to unsettle us and we lose a game or two.  After all the likes of WCE, and Commentators that are just fan boys for their ex teams have a lot to gain from us dropping a game or two - they are all contenders for the 8!

The doctor's report could only have provided definite evidence that there had been forceful contact, seeing as how that issue had been called into question. There was definite evidence of an impact (tenderness, perhaps bleeding) so the doctor correctly reported only what there was evidence for. It was this that established that it was Schofield, not Oliver, who had a case to answer.

If the doctor's report had gone beyond what there was objective evidence for and exaggerated the "consequences" (or tried something on like "delayed concussion"), it would surely have been graded "medium impact", not "low impact". Many have been lead astray by it being portrayed as a "strong medical report" - it was only "strong" in the sense of "definite", not in the sense of "overplayed".

If WCE succeed in getting the Tribunal to take the word of the perpetrator that it was "insufficient force" over that of the doctor saying that there was objective evidence that forceful contact was made (not to mention the umpire standing within a metre or two), we are in entirely new legal territory.

Questions: Is it only WCE who are allowed to call witnesses? Or can we call witnesses on Clarrie's behalf? Will the umpire who reported him be able to give evidence? Must admit, I'm concerned that WCE would only have appealed if they had been given an assurance that they would succeed.

And if they do succeed, the implication is that it's now Oliver who has a case to answer. I know our preference is to avoid ruffling feathers at all costs, but MFC can't afford to go gently on this. Again, we're being done over in the media and at risk of being done over by the Tribunal because unlike other clubs we resolutely refuse to stand up in public on behalf of our players. MFC needs to stand up publicly on Clarrie's behalf.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

yeah, this getting boring. let's move on and think only f winning. no more distractions. who cares what everyone else thinks

Yes, this has been given far too much oxygen, hopefully the club has far moved on to this weeks game

37 minutes ago, Akum said:

The doctor's report could only have provided definite evidence that there had been forceful contact, seeing as how that issue had been called into question. There was definite evidence of an impact (tenderness, perhaps bleeding) so the doctor correctly reported only what there was evidence for. It was this that established that it was Schofield, not Oliver, who had a case to answer.

If the doctor's report had gone beyond what there was objective evidence for and exaggerated the "consequences" (or tried something on like "delayed concussion"), it would surely have been graded "medium impact", not "low impact". Many have been lead astray by it being portrayed as a "strong medical report" - it was only "strong" in the sense of "definite", not in the sense of "overplayed".

If WCE succeed in getting the Tribunal to take the word of the perpetrator that it was "insufficient force" over that of the doctor saying that there was objective evidence that forceful contact was made (not to mention the umpire standing within a metre or two), we are in entirely new legal territory.

Questions: Is it only WCE who are allowed to call witnesses? Or can we call witnesses on Clarrie's behalf? Will the umpire who reported him be able to give evidence? Must admit, I'm concerned that WCE would only have appealed if they had been given an assurance that they would succeed.

And if they do succeed, the implication is that it's now Oliver who has a case to answer. I know our preference is to avoid ruffling feathers at all costs, but MFC can't afford to go gently on this. Again, we're being done over in the media and at risk of being done over by the Tribunal because unlike other clubs we resolutely refuse to stand up in public on behalf of our players. MFC needs to stand up publicly on Clarrie's behalf.

Surely even a graze to the lip or gum would have to be evidence of "low impact" at least, and further the absence of a graze would not be evidence of no impact at all  

Are they trying to establish that there was no impact as he was charged with low impact?  Surely that could be their only defense*, and that would involve accusing not only Clayton of staging but also the doctor of lying.  

*or are they trying to establish a new level between zero and low?  Maybe half a game so he can come on at half time next week? Knowing the vagaries of the MRP wouldn't put it past them. 

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by monoccular

He copped an elbow to the chin, went down, and now is getting blasted by everyone. The fact they are saying he dived and wasn't even hit, or that a doctor would risk their job and forge a medical report specifically to get someone suspended for a week... it's mental. Proper mental. The amount of abusive posts I've seen online targeting him is truly staggering. He's getting more air time and vitriol hurled at hime than a terrorist who has killed people! The disgusting thing is that he is the victim in all this. This is the equivalent of a guy hitting his wife and people saying 'ah well she probably deserved it'. Why is the victim being crucified? It says a lot about Australians and our culture that this is happening from both the media and individuals. This false bravado rubbish needs to go the way of the dodo.

Feel really sorry for Oliver and hope the club psychologist works with him. He's up there next to Jack Viney as the toughest young ball winner I've seen since Michael Voss! He's been copping 100s of abusive posts directed at him, and probably lots of direct messages to his Twitter, Instagram etc. Hope it doesn't effect him mentally or effect him in his day to day life getting harassed. 

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Lord Travis

This is getting to the stage where the club has to publicly defend Oliver and especially so if Snowflake gets off. The vitriol has got out of control.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by america de cali

Presumably olivers jaw is not damaged

4 minutes ago, Satan said:

Presumably olivers jaw is not damaged

Why?

And what's your point?

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by binman

3 minutes ago, america de cali said:

This is getting to the stage where the club has to publicly defend Oliver and especially so if Snowflake gets off. The vitriol has got out of control.

all they need to say is 'nothing to defend' and not get involved. no need to add petrol to a virtual fire   #fakestory

1 minute ago, binman said:

Why?

And what's your point?

Cos if it is it would sink schofield

but alert swans

hogans illness turned out to be pretty serious, clubs like to hide such information

just saying

When is the tribunal?

6 minutes ago, frankie_d said:

When is the tribunal?

5pm tonight  I believe.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by america de cali

Worries me that it is such a ludicrous low-probability appeal that WCE must have had inside word that he will get off, thus putting more pressure on Oliver.  I wouldn't trust the old boys club that is the AFL an inch.