On 27/06/2017 at 10:52, titan_uranus said:

No they won't.

This is a dog act at half-time totally divorced from football and the game.

Let's not confuse the action (a dog act) with the incidental contact that regularly happens during games. Even jumper punches have a closer connection to the game than Schofield's dog act.

Players don't routinely throw their elbow at an opponent's jaw. But when they do, they deserve to be suspended.

Yeah. Well if you believe he threw his elbow at his jaw deliberately, then you're mad. Wasn't even looking directly at him.

Players do it every week, before the ball has been bounced, and the opposition players' heads bounce around like boxers. So yes. They will. If what people want is for that stuff to get reported NOW then players will miss en masse.

I've seen a half dozen demons push guys very high on the chest, miss, and collect a chin or neck this season.

It's fine if it's your opinion. Noone on here really cares what anyone else thinks. Everyone's got an opinion. But it's not a "fact" that tiny force on a players' chin should constitute a suspension. That's never been true in the AFL ever. And I can tell you another thing. Could it be changed between seasons? Yes. Will it be? No.

Lesson to be learnt.

Melbourne must contest everything in future. MRP..weak as plss !!

A few thoughts: 

- I really feel for Clarry in all this. He's a freakin 19 yo kids for Chrissake, who's reputation and character has been dissected in a kangaroo court without himself even being represented. I hope he can block out the frenzy that the sucubus media have created. 

- west Coast are sore losers. I hope we meet those [censored] in a final in Melbourne and [censored] all over them again. 

- The body of work this year from the MRP and now the tribunal is nothing short of illogical debacle. Is there any chance in hell there will be an overhaul of this farcical system? Unbloodylikely. 

Why is our doctor being questioned? He said that oliver reported a sore jaw. Why is he being hung out to dry? 

This is bizarre, from people ignoring claytons admission he shouldnt have dropped, to implicating the umpire for passing on what the player reported. 

People must really hate us and oliver - i dont get the witch hunt

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:52, Dappa Dan said:

I think people get more upset if Schofield misses weeks. Oliver's been strong on it. "Was I hit? Yes. Was it forceful? No. I went down cos of the surprise. In other words... I didn't like it, but it wasn't something he should miss games for. I just don't want to be branded a faker."

Fair enough to be furious.

If Oliver had stayed upright, we'd be having a similar debate.

However, absent a fractured jaw no one would be arguing the force was "severe", or even "high".

The question would be whether throwing your elbow into a player's jaw at half time, and connecting, is a reportable offence or not. And no matter what the outcome of that elbow is, the risk that you knock someone out, break their jaw, or otherwise injure them is more than sufficient for that player to be suspended as punishment for doing something dangerous and disgusting.

The fact Oliver fell over doesn't change what Schofield did. It just changes what the consequence of that action was.

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:54, Dappa Dan said:

Yes it is. They MRP and everyone else in the game takes force into account. Every week. If it was only contact, there's be 3-4 suspensions every week for every team. You can't pull that kind of action mid-season. They've already done it once with jumper punches. Like I said earlier, if they want to make it that the force doesn't matter, then the MRP has to be informed that force isn't on the MRP table anymore.

In other words. Just saying "he touched him on the chin and should be suspended" is an oversimplification.

Agree.

Schofield threw his elbow into Oliver's jaw, and connected.

I'm not advocating for every piece of contact, however minor, to warrant suspension.

I am advocating for certain actions, of which striking is one, to be analysed with a focus on the action, not on the consequence. 

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:55, McQueen said:

Oliver overreacted. Anyone arguing otherwise is just as bad as the MRP/tribunal they're dissing.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would've been screaming to take it to the tribunal as well because there was actually absolutely SFA in it.

 

He overreacted, therefore it's absolutely fine.

It's not possible that he overreacted *and* it was also a dog act that should be condemned?

To be clear - my position is still that we can't be sure if he overreacted or not - that hasn't changed - but ultimately it's irrelevant to whether or not Schofield is guilty.

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:48, Chook said:

All the media agencies are running with images like this one:

instead of this one, which actually shows the contact:

Lewis is in a pretty good spot there, i wonder if hell make a comment on it.

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:55, McQueen said:

Oliver overreacted. Anyone arguing otherwise is just as bad as the MRP/tribunal they're dissing.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would've been screaming to take it to the tribunal as well because there was actually absolutely SFA in it.

 

There was enough to slam his jaw shut and shake his head (watch the close up replay). That would hurt the joint between your jaw and skull, it doesn't take much to do that. 

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:55, McQueen said:

Oliver overreacted. Anyone arguing otherwise is just as bad as the MRP/tribunal they're dissing.

If the shoe was on the other foot we would've been screaming to take it to the tribunal as well because there was actually absolutely SFA in it.

 

He elbowed him in the chin. That's not sweet [censored] all. 

And saying Oliver overreacted is a guess. You don't how anyone would or should react. Watch it closely you see his jaw move in and up. It's half time so Oliver has no mouth guard in, he's been clipped on the jaw and his teeth would've clattered together, hence him feeling his top teeth in the aftermath. 

 

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:58, Dappa Dan said:

Yeah. Well if you believe he threw his elbow at his jaw deliberately, then you're mad. Wasn't even looking directly at him.

Players do it every week, before the ball has been bounced, and the opposition players' heads bounce around like boxers. So yes. They will. If what people want is for that stuff to get reported NOW then players will miss en masse.

I've seen a half dozen demons push guys very high on the chest, miss, and collect a chin or neck this season.

It's fine if it's your opinion. Noone on here really cares what anyone else thinks. Everyone's got an opinion. But it's not a "fact" that tiny force on a players' chin should constitute a suspension. That's never been true in the AFL ever. And I can tell you another thing. Could it be changed between seasons? Yes. Will it be? No.

Schofield had the opportunity to challenge the intentional aspect of the charge tonight.

He didn't.

He argued the force was too low, not that it wasn't intentional.

Houli wasn't looking directly at Lamb when he knocked him out. The Tribunal (correctly, IMO) found that to be intentional.

And, again, players do not, every week, en masse, throw their elbows into players jaws. Yes, they routinely shove players, but shoving someone in the chest and throwing your jaw into their elbow are different. I'm focusing on what Schofield did, which is different to what most players do en masse each week. 

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:57, Chris said:

Not with an elbow. If you throw an elbow at a player and connect you should be gone. The force of the contact determines the length of suspension. What they have said tonight is elbow everyone and hope you don't hit too hard! It is a joke up there with the AFL drugs case findings. 

Sigh.

No. They haven't. They've said elbow someone, make contact, and hurt him and it's an eye for an eye. They've been doing it all year.

Everyone here needs to take their MFC goggles off. If it was the other way round, we'd all be singing the same tune as the Eagles supporters. Oh... and the rest of the league, for that matter. Ever wonder why it's only demons supporters crying foul?

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:58, titan_uranus said:

I am advocating for certain actions, of which striking is one, to be analysed with a focus on the action, not on the consequence. 

To each their own, TU. If you saw a deliberate attempt to elbow a guy on the chin, then that's where we disagree. I reckon it was the same type we see thousands of instances of. Remonstrating, getting in opposition players heads, trying to [censored] them off. Tried to elbow him high on the chest, as they all do.. literally dozens of times a game. This one made tiny contact with his chin, but I can't go with you that it was intentional. It was negligent, certainly. That's how the entire football world sees it that doesn't wear red and blue. Even some commentators that proudly wear red and blue will be pleased with this and tick it off. Not that that makes me right and you wrong.

Like I said, to each their own.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:01, titan_uranus said:

Schofield had the opportunity to challenge the intentional aspect of the charge tonight.

He didn't.

He argued the force was too low, not that it wasn't intentional.

Houli wasn't looking directly at Lamb when he knocked him out. The Tribunal (correctly, IMO) found that to be intentional.

And, again, players do not, every week, en masse, throw their elbows into players jaws. Yes, they routinely shove players, but shoving someone in the chest and throwing your jaw into their elbow are different. I'm focusing on what Schofield did, which is different to what most players do en masse each week. 

Take it easy on the logic would ya.

Would the outcome be different if it was a light and blind fist?

A forearm or elbow to the head is a martial arts strike. Its taught as a strike technique because it has a much higher impact than a normal punch and more body weight is able to be put behind it. In no way should it be a part of our game. ever.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:06, Dappa Dan said:

To each their own, TU. If you saw a deliberate attempt to elbow a guy on the chin, then that's where we disagree. I reckon it was the same type we see thousands of instances of. Remonstrating, getting in opposition players heads, trying to [censored] them off. Tried to elbow him high on the chest, as they all do.. literally dozens of times a game. This one made tiny contact with his chin, but I can't go with you that it was intentional. It was negligent, certainly. That's how the entire football world sees it that doesn't wear red and blue. Even some commentators that proudly wear red and blue will be pleased with this and tick it off. Not that that makes me right and you wrong.

Like I said, to each their own.

I'm not sure it matters.

He deliberately elbowed him. That elbow made contact to his chin. That action is not something the sport should tolerate. 

If you choose to bump someone and you make contact to the head, you almost certainly have no intention to make contact to the head but because you did, the AFL deems that to be a reportable offence (and correctly, IMO). It's the same principle here.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:01, titan_uranus said:

Schofield had the opportunity to challenge the intentional aspect of the charge tonight.

He didn't.

And, again, players do not, every week, en masse, throw their elbows into players jaws. Yes, they routinely shove players, but shoving someone in the chest and throwing your jaw into their elbow are different. I'm focusing on what Schofield did, which is different to what most players do en masse each week. 

That's because you can't argue that. Bit like Houli. He claims publicly he was fending him off... and somehow he connexted with his face. I reckon that's true.

It's completely daft to think that a professional AFL player who, I reckon you could go back over video and watch him do jumper punches, shoves etc to dozens of players in a season... who's shown a long pattern of behaviour... and then this one time, the tiniest of impacts on a guys chin who he's not making direct eye contact with and people are saying he "meant" to elbow him. it's the same stuff you see all year. Challenging intention in a flakey Tribunal isn't the same as the truth.

Sure. What he did was make contact. Accidentally. Add a bit of spice cos it's off the ball and between quarters. Take a bit off cos it was incredibly light contact. FIne him. Done.

If Jordie went out for similar, I'd be [censored] off. All I'm saying.

my take is thus.

• indeed by the current constructs - the force was negligible - thus no case to answer, this is not about intent.
• Schofield should be gone for intent - but that is NOT the current working definition.
• Oliver 'looked to have' hammed it up from an observers perspective - however Claytons response also makes sense 'potentially' from his remarks about his uncertainty
• As an emotional Melbourne Supporter, don't go getting caught up in victimhood stuff or conspiracy theories, such as -everyone hates MFC players, if it was an MFC player... that is just a load of shite, no club is targeted.
• If you look to Lewis and Hogan, well they should have and did get weeks.
•  I don't know that Oliver gives a fek about how people external from the club (Demonlanders, non Demonlanders, average punters, other players) view him.

 

  On 27/06/2017 at 10:49, Dappa Dan said:

Noone's disputing that though.

That was in reference to Nasher saying that he was hit in the chin.

Plenty of people are disputing that, from the Bigfooty numptys, to my mates who wanted to link some rubbish on Facebook to annoy me after the win among others. And that's the problem, this has been put in a blender mix of the actual incident, social media and the pundits until the only recourse is to find the WC player not guilty because what actually happened is not important.

Now we have a nineteen year old (and yeah he should have stayed off Twitter afterwards) that is going to cop it for years because the AFL wouldn't do anything about diving when people weren't actually hit and weren't smart enough to do the WC player for high incidental contact and not have given him a week in the first place (should have been one week downgraded for a guilty plea) knowing what was going to happen after their kid gloves in the past.

What a big pile of meh!

Sorry for the rant

 

 

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:06, Dappa Dan said:

Everyone here needs to take their MFC goggles off. If it was the other way round, we'd all be singing the same tune as the Eagles supporters. Oh... and the rest of the league, for that matter. Ever wonder why it's only demons supporters crying foul?

This dismal argument has come up a thousand times on this thread and it's just nonsense.  If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd take great pleasure in taking the whole thing at face value, laughing at it, heckling the player and ultimately probably be annoyed our player got rubbed out over nothing.  I wouldn't spend any longer than 10 seconds analysing it, because I'm not invested.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't have watched a replay of it 20 times, read up on the opinions of people who spend a lot of time watching sports where this kind of thing is common place, reading the views of brawlers, or applying my own experience when getting clocked by someone unexpectedly.  I wouldn't read what the club doctor said or take any notice that the umpire that reported him was literally standing one meter away.  I wouldn't consider human behaviour and call in to question why the player would dive when he clearly had nothing to gain from it - a free kick is usually the motivating factor for a dive.  Not the case here.  All Oliver stood to gain for it was flack, and that's what happened.

So yes - Melbourne supporters are going to invest more in defending their own players than they would if the shoe was on the other foot.  I own a bunch of stuff with the same logos that Clarry wears on match day - we are part of the same club.  

Being biased does not make us wrong.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:13, Dappa Dan said:

That's because you can't argue that. Bit like Houli. He claims publicly he was fending him off... and somehow he connexted with his face. I reckon that's true.

It's completely daft to think that a professional AFL player who, I reckon you could go back over video and watch him do jumper punches, shoves etc to dozens of players in a season... who's shown a long pattern of behaviour... and then this one time, the tiniest of impacts on a guys chin who he's not making direct eye contact with and people are saying he "meant" to elbow him. it's the same stuff you see all year. Challenging intention in a flakey Tribunal isn't the same as the truth.

Sure. What he did was make contact. Accidentally. Add a bit of spice cos it's off the ball and between quarters. Take a bit off cos it was incredibly light contact. FIne him. Done.

If Jordie went out for similar, I'd be [censored] off. All I'm saying.

I don't accept that what Schofield did is "the same stuff you see all year". 

I'm more than happy to argue he intended to elbow Oliver, and I don't care if he intended to hit him in the jaw, the temple, the chest or the leg. If he stuffed up, that's his problem, not Oliver's. 

Also, if he'd been fined at least the result would have been he was found guilty of an offence. He got off, which means there was no offence in the first place.

I'm getting to the point of not caring about this sort of crap, because it continues to make my blood boil. The amount of contradictions and hypocrisy does my [censored] head in.

In no universe is Schofield "not guilty" of elbowing Oliver in the chin. What these morons have just done is reopen the can of worms that such actions are fair play. Well done on creating a precedent that future cases will use as their defence, morons.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:12, titan_uranus said:

I'm not sure it matters.

He deliberately elbowed him. That elbow made contact to his chin. That action is not something the sport should tolerate. 

 

I'm like you there... but.... I reckon they try to control the thing by policiing the end result. I remember in all the footy progams and in public opinion, everyone cried out that if a player misses time cos of injury inflicted by another... then the inflicting player should go too. Then they put that in... and now everyone's arguing the other way, that it should just be the action. So if they change to that, then the first argument will be true again.

I do worry that they go with popular opinion too much. Viney got off early in his career for that. That's a worrying precedent.

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:19, Dappa Dan said:

I'm like you there... but.... I reckon they try to control the thing by policiing the end result. I remember in all the footy progams and in public opinion, everyone cried out that if a player misses time cos of injury inflicted by another... then the inflicting player should go too. Then they put that in... and now everyone's arguing the other way, that it should just be the action. So if they change to that, then the first argument will be true again.

I do worry that they go with popular opinion too much. Viney got off early in his career for that. That's a worrying precedent.

I don't think that every time an action leads to an injury that the person who engaged in the action should be suspended.

Take Viney, for example. He knocked Hurn out but what he did was not an action which ought be reportable, it was simply playing the game.

What Schofield did was not part of the game and so I have no problem focusing on the action and taking out consequence. The worse the consequence, the longer the suspension, but that doesn't mean minor contact ought to avoid being found guilty altogether, it just means a light penalty (and a week here would have satisfied me).

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:13, Dappa Dan said:

That's because you can't argue that. Bit like Houli. He claims publicly he was fending him off... and somehow he connexted with his face. I reckon that's true.

You're not serious, surely? If you are, your logic is seriously flawed, especially being an American Football fan. 

You don't fend someone off by flailing your left arm around. If he wanted to fend off he would've turned his body right and pushed off with his right arm. Fact. 

  On 27/06/2017 at 11:06, Dappa Dan said:

Sigh.

No. They haven't. They've said elbow someone, make contact, and hurt him and it's an eye for an eye. They've been doing it all year.

Everyone here needs to take their MFC goggles off. If it was the other way round, we'd all be singing the same tune as the Eagles supporters. Oh... and the rest of the league, for that matter. Ever wonder why it's only demons supporters crying foul?

You say exactly what I did. Elbow to your hearts content and hope it isn't to hard. That is what they have said and what you agree with. 

As for the DMV people being up in arms, that is probably because we are looking at what he Did, not how Carrie reacted. 

When I was playing a few things were not acceptable now matter how light. These included elbowing, kicking, biting, spitting and so on. That has now changed.