It would have been better if that elbow had removed a tooth from Clarry's Jaw for his case. 

Sad that once again the AFL has double standards. 

Why be an Umpire?

 

Let's not forget that two weeks ago Joel Selwood had no case to answer for elbowing Mitchell in the back of the head off the ball.

It's a kangaroo court. Just like the laughable Essendon drugs tribunal. Don't waste your energy looking for logic, sense or fairness from a system as corrupt as everything else about the AFL.

5 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Being biased does not make us wrong.

Yeah. you're passionate. And it's not possible to argue with opinion. I disagree with you. And I haven't come across anyone aside from on here that agrees with you. Again... not that that makes anyone right or wrong. I'll say though, that there's a half a dozen things that are way worse than this in the AFL that I can't believe are allowed, and I let it go because I realise it's not MY game. It's everyone's. This is just politics doing what it does.

I will call you to account for one thing. It's not a feeble argument. It's a perfectly sensible and rational one. 

37 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Maybe they can try elbowing him in the mouth to try and put him off his game.  Apparently it's legal now.

I am bloody ropable about this.  I hope the club is too.

This has done a lot for Junior footy. Brawl at half time and punch and elbow and you are fine as long as you don't badly hurt anyone. 

BTW Colin Sylvia's 6 week broken jaw delivered by an Eagle off the ball, was seen as an accident and Moloney's ATTEMPTED bump on Bartel which missed, got him 3 weeks a few years ago. 

We now have a new precedent that elbowing to the face at anytime on a footy field,  even at breaks, is fine if you don't cause major damage to the victim. 

Well done AFL, the mums of Australia have another reason to worry about their kids playing footy. 

20 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

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. 

 

Youre guessing that his teeth would've clattered together.

If I was Clarry, id be getting on the front foot and putting this as a new image on his twitter account, just a gold medal australian diver...

Let's just move on from this non issue. We always get shafted by the umpires / officials on and off the field. MRP/ Tribunal results not going our way, etc. I am indifferent to Oliver's fall but if the shoe is on the other foot, we'll be hoping our player got off for such little contact.

In the end, we had the last laugh with the victory. This was with another discrepancy in the free kick count.

who cares? seriously...

Just now, mattjm said:

who cares? seriously...

Obviously nobody.  This thread has added 10 pages in the last hour of pretty heated discussion because nobody cares about it.

 

32 minutes ago, 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.

Players have been suspended for attempting to strike or bump. Moloney as one example got 3 weeks for an attempted bump on Bartel. Look it up. Result is the new indicator. If Danger stays down Shuey was 100% suspended. That was not the intent of the rule made a couple of years ago to protect the head. It just keeps getting changed. 

The AFL couldn't run a raffle.

5 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Youre guessing that his teeth would've clattered together.

Leave your jaw slightly ajar, give yourself a little uppercut. We'll see if I'm guessing. 

3 minutes ago, mattjm said:

who cares? seriously...

just like one of those dudes who feel compelled to watch 30 minutes of junk tv and then [censored] about it eh?

1 minute ago, Deestroy All said:

Leave your jaw slightly ajar, give yourself a little uppercut. We'll see if I'm guessing. 

While having your mouthguard out at half time, and having braces because you're 19.

Oh, but those facts are irrelevant in the eyes of the Tribunal. Oliver's a DIVER!!!!11!!!1!!1 TOTEZ FAKING IT!

I can't believe the defence counsel suggested the painful chin Oliver encountered might have been from him jumping up to retaliate and running into Schofield's back. Makes a mockery of the medical report.

somebody should have elbowed the defence counsel in the face and asked "was that low or negligible"

just makes me more angry on the hogan suspension based on Rowe having "concussion"

 

As disappointing as it is, I'm glad it's done. If Schofield had of got two weeks, it'd dominate discussion for the next three weeks.  The footy media being what it is, it now won't be mentioned after the next two days.

Clarry is a gun player, he will not be universally loved, in fact, opposition supporters will take any opportunity to hate him.  This is a good thing; we've got a star on our hands.

Beginning to wonder with Heywood. Sat on th panel that let off Hall for the GF, the EFC drug cheats, and now this decision. Not just a reduction to fine but a 'nope nothing to see here'. 

44 minutes ago, 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.

 

Don't make bland assertions like that as if they were proven facts. You may think he over-reacted - you don't know it.   

45 minutes ago, Chris said:

No it isn't. Any deliberate contact with an elbow should be a suspension, no matter how light. Bernie got two weeks last year for a light brush on a NM player's throat, and so he should have. 

 

14 minutes ago, Chris said:

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. 

Ugh. No. You said "hope." I didn't say anything about that. I still think they take account for the result. When it's harmful AND when it's negligible. What I think they want to let players know is... hurt a guy you're going down. Nearly hurt a guy and you might go down. Barely touch a guy, then yeah we're not playing netball, move on"

Jesus this is boring.

1 minute ago, Dappa Dan said:

 

Ugh. No. You said "hope." I didn't say anything about that. I still think they take account for the result. When it's harmful AND when it's negligible. What I think they want to let players know is... hurt a guy you're going down. Nearly hurt a guy and you might go down. Barely touch a guy, then yeah we're not playing netball, move on"

Jesus this is boring.

So comprehension isn't your strong point. What I said is you het elbow people but you have to hope it isn't too hard (as in you do damage or hit hard enough to be suspended) and you said he didn't hit hard enough to be suspended but if he hit harder he would have been. See the similarity? The only difference is I say any use of an elbow should be instant 1 week, no matter how light. The harder you hit the more weeks you get. Actually the same as your stance except I start at 1 week and you start at none. 

As it stands now it is none, so elbows up but don't go too hard. 

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Players have been suspended for attempting to strike or bump. Moloney as one example got 3 weeks for an attempted bump on Bartel. Look it up. Result is the new indicator. If Danger stays down Shuey was 100% suspended. That was not the intent of the rule made a couple of years ago to protect the head. It just keeps getting changed. 

The AFL couldn't run a raffle.

Yeah that's been the change. Personally I like it generally. It offers more control over fairness. Not for everyone though, as you've made it clear.

15 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

Leave your jaw slightly ajar, give yourself a little uppercut. We'll see if I'm guessing. 

I'm assuming you actually did that to yourself prior to posting just to vindicate your stance?

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Clarry is a gun player, he will not be universally loved, in fact, opposition supporters will take any opportunity to hate him.  This is a good thing; we've got a star on our hands.

This has been weighing on me a lot lately.

Opposition supporters have no reason to like us now we're not wallowing in the depths of despair. We'll never be the AFL darlings that the Bulldogs were; as we become more successful, other teams and supporters will want to tear us down. They'll cite the usual rubbish like AFL concessions, priority picks and handouts. Our gun players will get targetted off the ball -- and, by the looks of things, the judiciary will victimize the aggressors and punish the victims (remember that 4 year propaganda campaign where drug cheats were now innocent victims?)

We need to get used to being disliked. [censored] the rest of 'em.

Just now, Chris said:

So comprehension isn't your strong point. What I said is you het elbow people but you have to hope it isn't too hard (as in you do damage or hit hard enough to be suspended) and you said he didn't hit hard enough to be suspended but if he hit harder he would have been. See the similarity? The only difference is I say any use of an elbow should be instant 1 week, no matter how light. The harder you hit the more weeks you get. Actually the same as your stance except I start at 1 week and you start at none. 

As it stands now it is none, so elbows up but don't go too hard. 

Yes. It is. And yours isn't. Read it again. "hope" isn't something I brought to the conversation. That's the second time I've used inverted commas, and I hate that. Do you comprehend that?

Yes I see the similarity. I don't care that they're similar. They're not the same. Which is what you said.

"As it stands now it is none, so elbows up but don't go too hard."

See... I don't read the word hope in there. So yes, I go with that. Elbows are everywhere in the game. Both in and out.

If what you're looking for is to (very inarticulately) say that you want ALL elbows out of the game when it's off the ball... then sure. I reckon most people wouldn't miss them.

But if you think it's even remotely possible in the next 10 years, then look... go nuts... but I'm not engaging with crazy people. the game has a lot of biff in it still, and until the older generation leave us, it's gonna stay... because ultimately... they want to protect that sort of thing. It's their game just as much.

12 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

As disappointing as it is, I'm glad it's done. If Schofield had of got two weeks, it'd dominate discussion for the next three weeks.  The footy media being what it is, it now won't be mentioned after the next two days.

Clarry is a gun player, he will not be universally loved, in fact, opposition supporters will take any opportunity to hate him.  This is a good thing; we've got a star on our hands.

Yes. Plus it should galvanise the team. 

"**** you, the AFL won't protect our players. It's up to us"