37 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

Good on Oliver for trolling the twitter flogs. Social media is just a toxic hate fest. Its good to see a player just take the p*ss out of it all, and troll the haters. Because that is all 99% of social media does - hate. It won't effect Oliver's game in the slightest.

call me old fashioned but i'd prefer players kept away from social media. it's like gambling, sooner or later you lose.

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Speaking of social media, what is with David Misson (assuming it is him) getting stuck into Kevin Pietersen? Something from his Cricket Australia days?

https://twitter.com/davidmisson27/status/879622988064186369

"Sorry that page does not exist"

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

call me old fashioned but i'd prefer players kept away from social media. it's like gambling, sooner or later you lose.

The day will come when players contracts will stipulate players do not put football related stuff up on social media. 

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by america de cali

Houli got two weeks. No way the tribunal will give schofield 2 weeks as well considering the impact on each hit player. 

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

Houli got two weeks. No way the tribunal will give schofield 2 weeks as well considering the impact on each hit player. 

well hogan got 3 weeks for love tap, 2 for accepting which schofield ignored

but i take your point

Interesting repartee from Clayton... the conservative nature of me is that you shouldn't do it. There is clearly a vibe from him that 'he don't give a fark, who you are, what organisation you are from' - he don't mind taking the [censored]... and as Frenzal Rhomb once sang something akin to - He may be a c*** but at least he's not a firkin c***.

He's a lad, he's a larrikin and whilst he needs to be schooled in social media responsibilities - he actually is NOT being even slightly offensive to anyone.   

Sigh...maybe its just a generational thing... I believe my father loved Peter Paul and Mary, and they were the antichrist to someone born in the 1920's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu_rItLPTXc

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Danelska

Schofield arguing insufficient force to be reportable. To prove that that need to say the medical report was wrong or clarrie exaggerated his symptoms to the doc. Game on. 

1 hour ago, pineapple dee said:

I've just read the " thoughts " of the posters to the North Melbourne big footy threads discussing Clayton Oliver.  Talk about drones. These North fans are so dull, it's comical. If you had an IQ  of 58, you'd be in the top 5% of posters there.

They barrack for North, clear thinking and intelligence is obviously not their strong point. 

Looks like they are trying to turn it back on oliver 

Follow proceedings here:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/live-houli-schofield-front-the-afl-tribunal

Can't see how Schofield can plead not guilty to striking when his lawyer agrees it was intentional and high contact (but negligible force).

What's on the phone 

2 minutes ago, brendan said:

What's on the phone 

a picture of a pile of money

 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

a picture of a pile of money

 

Thought it might be olivers twitter account taking the [censored] 

They're calling the umpire a liar and showing pictures on his phone that apparently show the umpire looking elsewhere.

All sounds pretty seedy by the WCE lawyer...

3 minutes ago, brendan said:

What's on the phone 

"David Grace QC said Rosebury's eyes aren't looking at the incident, based on the photo. Rosebury said he was looking. Grace is trying to show the jury his phone.

Grace has now presented his phone to the jury so they can see the phone".

 

You would think a lawyer would have the photos printed out to a reasonable size and put on a screen rather than a phone of a few inches which has to be handed from one tribunal member to another.  Very cunning by lawyer!

If he's speaking like this to the ump... clarry might be in for a bit of a battering.

2 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

If he's speaking like this to the ump... clarry might be in for a bit of a battering.

He's not there. Nor should he be

They seem to trying everything, first the ump didn't see it, then it was a forearm and not an elbow, and now it was a push not a swing! No wonder lawyers have a bad name!

Just now, binman said:

He's not there. Nor should he be

Doesn't mean they can't talk about him.

Their entire case rests on the notion that Oliver exaggerated the contact.

Ah !!!

the old self inflicted wound defence !!

David Grace QC is saying there were two incidients. He said Oliver chased Schofield and Oliver's right side of his face struck Schofield's spine, and that caused Oliver's pain.

 

46 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

call me old fashioned but i'd prefer players kept away from social media. it's like gambling, sooner or later you lose.

Understand your point. But Clayton is clearly defending his position. 

He believes he got hit and didn't dive, he hasn't gone on a Sunday morning bender and written stuff he would later regret. 

At least our Doc is a bit more honest with his assessment than the Carlton Docs. Painful jaw, no treatment, no training or games to be missed.

I would not have thought that virtually calling the umpire a liar would be taken very well by the Tribunal. Surely this tactic if successful, undermines the umpires authority.

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Ah !!!

the old self inflicted wound defence !!

David Grace QC is saying there were two incidients. He said Oliver chased Schofield and Oliver's right side of his face struck Schofield's spine, and that caused Oliver's pain.

 

LMAO!!! 

It seems David Grace's go to defence is 'we don't know what we did but it wasn't what it looks, in fact it is everyone else's fault' though he would have learnt with Essendon, then again the AFL let them off!