27 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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. 

Not to mention Viney's broken jaw by a Geelong player cuppla years ago playing for Casey. Geelong player got off.

1 minute ago, Blinkybill said:

Yes. Plus it should galvanise the team.

This will be a silver lining, no doubt about that.

You could sense the seething anger from Lewis when talking about the Houli outcome. I can only imagine his reaction to hearing Schofield got off entirely.

7 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

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.

"Any deliberate contact with an elbow should be a suspension, no matter how light".

Really not sure how that can be said any clearer but hey if that is too inarticulate for you then I really must be crazy!

I must apologise for the typos though, my phone has a mind of its own where it changes correctly spelled words to completely different ones!

6 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

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.

I am sure we were HATED in the 40's and 50's

We got through it just fine...

WTF

elbow to the jaw

head contact

off the ball

low impact

thats two weeks ... one week with a guilty plea.

WTF

7 minutes ago, Blinkybill said:

Yes. Plus it should galvanise the team. 

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

Yes. Perhaps the whole team should run onto the ground next week, all of them with one of their elbows raised.....(bit like Rollerball).

1 minute ago, Chris said:

"Any deliberate contact with an elbow should be a suspension, no matter how light".

Really not sure how that can be said any clearer but hey if that is too inarticulate for you then I really must be crazy!

Who said that? Wasn't me...

This is like the fourth time. I'm done here.

6 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

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.

I understand your view. 

You would agree that it is different in normal society though, where even a threat can be punished. You don't have to actually physically  hurt someone to be punished.   Even attempting many things is a crime. 

Schofield may not have hurt Oliver or even attempted to hurt him, but it was found and not challenged, that he elbowed Oliver's chin, no matter how lightly and in a break in play and that is now ok on a footy field. I disagree.

i don't want kids being elbowed to the face anywhere. 

Therefore footy is out of step with the society we live for in.

6 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

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.

You've spent a lot of time on here defending Schofield and conversely condemning Clarrie, have you got a vested interest?

I think the West Coast coach's comment and this comment by the defence council, are just some of what Clarrie now faces.

David Grace QC wanted to use a report from The West Australian newspaper, which wrote Oliver said the stray elbow was "A cheap shot. I probably shouldn't have fallen over but I was sort of scared".

if your comments are an indication of a Melbourne supporter will say, then God knows what a non supporter will, This will probably put the Cale Morton video on the second page. 

Just now, Dappa Dan said:

Who said that? Wasn't me...

This is like the fourth time. I'm done here.

Me. It is a post of mine that you quoted!

Just now, Redleg said:

I understand your view. 

You would agree that it is different in normal society though, where even a threat can be punished. You don't have to actually physically  hurt someone to be punished.   Even attempting many things is a crime. 

Yeah definitely. Same with any contact sport. A kid watching footy then tackling someone in the street is the act of an unbalanced, unwell, or simply criminal person. I don't think it's too much to ask of public that they look at a boxing match and say, well yeah, they're boxing... look at the gloves and shorts...

I've never been one to make that connection. Though I should offer that I don't have kids, so I don't claim the knowledge that others have.

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

Me. It is a post of mine that you quoted!

SO WHAT?!!!!

What's this 5 times now?!! You said the word hope. Then you claimed I'm saying the exact same thing as you. Which I proved isn't the case. 

Jesus Fing Christ. We don't agree. Now brush your teeth and go to bed.

Sydney will absolutely get stuck into him.

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Sydney will absolutely get stuck into him.

And our boys will know that and we should get stuck into them and WIN. 

1 hour ago, frankie_d said:

Yep. Hopeless. 

This is where it's good to have the sainted PJ at the helm. 

He will make sure we will respond in the best way for us. 

No he won't. He's as gutless as the rest of them when it comes to the club sticking up for its players.

7 minutes ago, Dante said:

You've spent a lot of time on here defending Schofield and conversely condemning Clarrie, have you got a vested interest?

I think the West Coast coach's comment and this comment by the defence council, are just some of what Clarrie now faces.

David Grace QC wanted to use a report from The West Australian newspaper, which wrote Oliver said the stray elbow was "A cheap shot. I probably shouldn't have fallen over but I was sort of scared".

if your comments are an indication of a Melbourne supporter will say, then God knows what a non supporter will, This will probably put the Cale Morton video on the second page. 

Oh for God's sake. Defending Schofield? I don't even know who he is. And condemning Clarrie? What are you on?

So a Western Australian Newspaper quoted a player and we're using that as fodder here? You feel free. I'm not gonna even dignify that with a response.

Don't go presuming you know why someone on Demonland does or does not agree or disagree with the direction the AFL takes. I'm a one eyed parochial demons supporter. I'm also intelligent and thoughtful.

If you think the rules that apply to the rest of the league don't apply to Clarry, both in tribunals or the court of public opinion, then I don't have the inclination to argue with you. If you believe all of our players are innocent and don't do anything wrong, then I assume you thought Hogan was dealt with unfairly when he clocked Rowe earlier this year? In fact... stuff that. If you think that believing Clarry didn't put some Mayo on this contact, then you're flat out a moron. I support my club fairly and down the line. I don't follow Collingwood.

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Elbowing to the head in a melee is now, according to an official AFL body, all OK as long as it doesn't break a jaw (or presumably is not administered by a MFC player).  

Hogan must be severely pi55ed off that we didn't try out the tribunal, though I guess we now know that he had far more pressing things on his mind at the time.

Yep, we knew, but we were too gutless to stand up for him then and too gutless to stand up for Clarrie now.

Like some of the so-called supporters on this forum, we've sat back and allowed Clarrie to be thrown to the wolves. One day I'd love us to stand up for our players in public half as much as other clubs stand up for theirs.

1 hour ago, frankie_d said:

Media will be on this for a few more days. Then it will stop. I reckon we're lucky it's at the G on Friday. But I also reckon he'll get booed every time he gets a possession. Club will have to be very strong. 

Club's been weak as p*** so far. Which is why our players have had by far the worst MRP outcomes this season. We are unique in not standing up for our players. 

I have held back on this but now it's done. I will say it is the right outcome and I hate Meth Coast more than anything.

It was a glancing blow and Clarrie exaggerated the contact and it isn't the first time he has exaggerated contact. I love him as a player and he's a gun and only going to get better. I hope he learns from this and we move on. 

He's been under intense scrutiny this week like never before and I hope it doesn't impact on Friday night.  

If the roles were reversed I would have been livid. Schofields acyions were unnecessary and so was Clarries.

Time to focus on Friday night

2 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Oh for God's sake. Defending Schofield? I don't even know who he is. And condemning Clarrie? What are you on?

So a Western Australian Newspaper quoted a player and we're using that as fodder here? You feel free. I'm not gonna even dignify that with a response.

Don't go presuming you know why someone on Demonland does or does not agree or disagree with the direction the AFL takes. I'm a one eyed parochial demons supporter. I'm also intelligent and thoughtful.

If you think the rules that apply to the rest of the league don't apply to Clarry, both in tribunals or the court of public opinion, then I don't have the inclination to argue with you. If you believe all of our players are innocent and don't do anything wrong, then I assume you thought Hogan was dealt with unfairly when he clocked Rowe earlier this year? In fact... stuff that. If you think that believing Clarry didn't put some Mayo on this contact, then you're flat out a moron. I support my club fairly and down the line. I don't follow Collingwood.

If you were intelligent and thoughtful you would have stated you opinion and then quit, instead of trying to argue with anyone who disagreed with your intelligent and thoughtful opinion. 

 

4 minutes ago, Dante said:

If you were intelligent and thoughtful you would have stated you opinion and then quit, instead of trying to argue with anyone who disagreed with your intelligent and thoughtful opinion. 

 

Nah. If you were intelligent or thoughtful you'd look at the address on your browser where it says demonland. Demon fans com on here and engage in discussion about anything to do with MFC and footy in general.

And hey. I'm happy to cease arguing my intelligent and thoughtful opinion, when you cease quoting me on topics you don't think about, and accuse posters of supporting their club in a way you don't approve of. Sound good?

1 hour ago, 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.

Good on ya mate.

Just keep sticking up for the other clubs. Poor old Schofield.

You think our doc's a liar too? And it doesn't bother you that the QC was scrabbling around for an argument, none of which really stuck. In two cases, the Tribunal was intimidated by the silk.

1 hour ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

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. 

One way in which the MRP and Tribunal have been absolutely consistent and that's that our player has ended up on the wrong side almost every time. Those that hit them have got off, and any of our players charged have received heavy penalties compared to players from other clubs (Cotchin, Fyfe, Selwood et al).

Clarrie and others will be targeted the rest of the season.

1 minute ago, Dappa Dan said:

Nah. If you were intelligent or thoughtful you'd look at the address on your browser where it says demonland. Demon fans com on here and engage in discussion about anything to do with MFC and footy in general.

And hey. I'm happy to cease arguing my intelligent and thoughtful opinion, when you cease quoting me on topics you don't think about, and accuse posters of supporting their club in a way you don't approve of. Sound good?

If I really thought your posts were intelligent and thoughtful, I wouldn't have worded my post the way I did. Your posts on this thread are argumentative and very much convey the view that Clarrie is a cheat who tried to get another player suspended by staging an injury. 

Your view, not mine and I'm not a moron, a moron would presume to know what happened  without really knowing at all.  I'll accept Clarrie view, you can please yourself. 

Thats my last post on this thread and if your overblown ego wants to respond, you'll be talking to yourself.  

Just now, Akum said:

Good on ya mate.

Just keep sticking up for the other clubs. Poor old Schofield.

You think our doc's a liar too? And it doesn't bother you that the QC was scrabbling around for an argument, none of which really stuck. In two cases, the Tribunal was intimidated by the silk.

What? Who the [censored] is Schofield? Are you blind? It's not Saturday night on the match day thread. We're talking about a Tribunal case. Not barracking for our team? What the hell did you quote my post for? Nothing in it makes reference to anything you said?

I didn't say anything about the doc? What the hell are you prattling on about? The Docs report was taken into account. There was impact. It wasn't severe. Clarry wasn't seriously hurt. Just surprised. Anything about that you don't understand? Seems to me noone really brought the doctor's opinion into disrepute... Unless... Unleeeeess... You're an idiot and you can't separate simple facts from the red and blue fog circling your brain.

Fair dinkum. I didn't know we had idiots lurking around in demonland. What's this now, the seventh time I've said this? I don't give a rats what happens to Schofield. I don't think the force was sufficient enough for Schofield to get rubbed out. And part of me is glad he didn't because it will (hopefully) mean the Clarry hate subsides a bit throughout the AFL.

Jeez give me a spell. Intimidated by silk. Holy [censored]. Now you're telling me you know what people you've never met were thinking. Like me "defending" Schofield.

It's really simple. It was a feather tap that surprised and didn't hurt Clarry. Everything else was noise. Everyone needs to stop getting bent out of shape.