33 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Sydney will absolutely get stuck into him.

As long as it's inside the sirens, I'm fine with it and Oliver should expect it. If it's with elbows and fists during the breaks, then there is something wrong with that.

37 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

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.

Any chance you could read me story? Just pick one that isn't too complicated for you. 

2 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

The Eagles are classless. 

Dirty club with dirty supporters.

Hope he gets two for being a tw*t

Its true. Same club that known full well about Cousins, etc. WA is just a different place. I lived there for many of years, and I am not remotely interested in going back. They are just a different breed. West Coast as a club known about Cousins, and the drug problems that were embedded in that club - and chose to hide it. Judd knew that so he left. Their supporters will justify anything.

2 minutes ago, Dante said:

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.  

See Dante. You've done it again... Argumentative? Sure. Although I'd have thought that's pretty obvious. And also, In didn't quote you, you quoted me. I didn't look for an argument with you.

So I'm calling Clarry a cheat now am I? I'd like you to point out, in detail, where I did that. Or is that a little too argumentative for you? You accuse me of claiming an MFC player is a cheat with ZERO proof, and I'm the argumentative one. OK. Sure.

Well. Moron is a relative term. I think it's clear a moron would get caught up with misplaced passion defending a player just because he follows the club that player plays at. THAT'S a moron. An intelligent person puts forward an argument, is accountable for what he says albeit on a footy forum, and can back up what he says with facts. Also an intelligent person can see teh difference between a poster posting an opinion, and a poster openly accusing someone else of being a poor supporter, and of accusing a player of cheating. You see the difference? As an example... I can prove you're an idiot, because you made this personal twice without even knowing you did it. You CAN'T prove that I'm defending Schofield, am accusing Clarry of cheating, or that I'm an idiot.

Oh so now I'm egotistical? Coming from someone who feels the need to pick a fight with a stranger on the internet?

Yeah. You run and hide. That's what happens when you lose an argument so flat out you know you're gonna cop a bollocking when you come back. Do us both a favour. Don't quote me on here. Ever.

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

Any chance you could read me story? Just pick one that isn't too complicated for you. 

Pay that. lol

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm not Nasher, but I absolutely do.

I am sick of the AFL focusing on outcome rather than action.

Schofield threw an elbow at a player's jaw and connected. He's lucky it was only a glancing blow and didn't shatter his jaw (which we all know is bad because Jordan Lewis was suspended for fracturing Cripps' jaw).

If you're going to be a weak dog and throw your elbow at someone's face because you can't take a harmless verbal jibe (and there's no evidence anything other than a harmless verbal jibe was put to Schofield), then you absolutely deserve to be suspended. That action is disgusting and should not be a part of our game. 

The AFL cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Its going to be up to clubs to put pressure on the AFL to be held accountable, or to hold players accountable. What happened to Oliver IMO is assault. If Oliver feels as though Schofield was let off, then I think Clayton should ask the club to press legal action. I know people frown at this, but the precedent needs to be set. This was outside of a contest. There is no reason for Schofield to do this. It is assault. Plain and simple.

1 hour ago, 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?

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.

Again, good on ya mate. Even Schofield himself didn't argue that it wasn't intentional. But unlike him you think it wasn't, and you're prepared to argue that on his behalf. He wasn't prepared to argue that he "tried to hit him high on the chest, as they all do". He argued insufficient force.

And you say he made "tiny" contact with Oliver's chin. Our doctor disagrees. The ump standing a metre or two away disagrees.

And you're just plain wrong if you think this sort of thing happens all the time every game. It just doesn't. You look at red and see green. Pushing and shoving yes. But not elbowing in faces.

And sorry, even if Clarrie hit a no-name like Schofield, I'd be disgusted in him and would be absolutely amazed if he got let off. Hitting someone in the face with an elbow unprovoked when they're not expecting it is something that shouldn't happen, no matter who gets hit and who does the hitting. It has nothing to do with it being a Dees player who got hit.

However, it does matter to me that a Dees player who's one of the best and toughest I've ever seen will now be labelled a stager - totally unfairly in my opinion - and won't be able to do a thing about it. Seems you're OK with that. 

41 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

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

Agree, I think Macca will be having a quiet word in his ear.

Oliver tends to fire up a bit when challenged so I think we should see a good game from him on Friday...

1 hour ago, bush demon said:

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

...becoming a bit of an urban myth around here.

Not true, Wojcinski got 2 weeks but missed 4 with byes included.

1 hour 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.

Yeah, don't mind being disliked, it's the young players being targeted off the ball that I don't like.

No question as far as I'm concerned that Clarrie's being targeted in basically an anything-goes fashion. Would Schofield have got his elbow up if it had been Lewis or Vince or Viney?

This should have been a fine from the beginning.

5 minutes ago, Akum said:

Yeah, don't mind being disliked, it's the young players being targeted off the ball that I don't like.

No question as far as I'm concerned that Clarrie's being targeted in basically an anything-goes fashion. Would Schofield have got his elbow up if it had been Lewis or Vince or Viney?

If it were Viney Schofield wouldn't be alive right now. If Jack didn't get him then he would've laid the mother of all tackles on him later in the game!

Surely the only logical course of action now would be for the MRP to charge Clarrie with staging or diving.

If the force is now universally agreed to be insufficient, what was Clarrie trying to achieve by going to ground? He nearly got a poor innocent party cruelly suspended. How would his lame excuse of "I was caught by surprise" stand up under cross-examination by a QC?

Or do we now just "move on" and sweep this under the carpet?

2 hours 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.

 

So you are calling him and our medical staff liars as well? 

The ump was 2 m away looking right at it, he didn't think it was staging.

Why are you the bloody expert?

This is the most stupid decision by the tribunal, you can now argue my intent was to hit him a little bit. There is a defence for hitting someone in the head all over again...FMD 

4 minutes ago, Pates said:

If it were Viney Schofield wouldn't be alive right now. If Jack didn't get him then he would've laid the mother of all tackles on him later in the game!

Yep. Wouldn't have done it if it were Viney. 

Would this still be OK if it was Brayshaw who copped this hit? 

17 minutes ago, Akum said:

Again, good on ya mate. Even Schofield himself didn't argue that it wasn't intentional. But unlike him you think it wasn't, and you're prepared to argue that on his behalf. He wasn't prepared to argue that he "tried to hit him high on the chest, as they all do". He argued insufficient force.

And you say he made "tiny" contact with Oliver's chin. Our doctor disagrees. The ump standing a metre or two away disagrees.

And you're just plain wrong if you think this sort of thing happens all the time every game. It just doesn't. You look at red and see green. Pushing and shoving yes. But not elbowing in faces.

And sorry, even if Clarrie hit a no-name like Schofield, I'd be disgusted in him and would be absolutely amazed if he got let off. Hitting someone in the face with an elbow unprovoked when they're not expecting it is something that shouldn't happen, no matter who gets hit and who does the hitting. It has nothing to do with it being a Dees player who got hit.

However, it does matter to me that a Dees player who's one of the best and toughest I've ever seen will now be labelled a stager - totally unfairly in my opinion - and won't be able to do a thing about it. Seems you're OK with that. 

How about we take the condescending "Good onya mate" mate garbage and put it aside for now, what do you think? It's unnecessary, and the rest of your post is pretty good.

For the second time. Arguing something in a case doesn't mean you believe it. Lots of cases in front of judgement people plead guilty so they can take a lesser penalty. He argued what he argued cos he knew he wouldn't get off on his "intention." The whole thing isn't relevant to the case. I only claimed it as something we see with the naked eye. In the court of public opinion, if you prefer. I didn't suggest he should, could or did take that argument to the Tribunal. So just to be clear so it's not confused for the fourtreenth time tonight... when it comes to his intention, I don't believe there was one to crack Oliver in the chin REGARDLESS of what he pleaded.

Does the doctor disgree? Does the doctor make ANY claim about force in any of his findings? He's a doctor. He offers a medical diagnosis. That's it.

As for the umpire. Yeah. Sure. He thought it was rough. Ok. So he reports it and then the league makes a call. Again, in this case, I don't look to an umpire for their thoughts. They do a bang up job, but they miss things. One guy in a sea of Eagles and Demons... I don't even blame him.

Ok. If you're gonna quote me, take me in context. I didn't say the elbow to the face happens all the time in every game. I said the push and shove happens. You want to get into this, then do it right. The actual accidental head high contact happens a lot more regularly than anyone here thinks. I reckon noone even blinks an eye when someone like Ballantyne for example, remonstrates with Tom Hawkins. It doesn't even look out of place even if he does collect him. 

I agree it shouldn't make a difference what uniform the guy wears. But right now we have emotional over the top responses from Melbourne supporters... and an overwhelming response from the whole rest of the league (impartials) AND some red and blue, rusted on supporters in the media who think this was a good call. I don't take that as instruction on how to think, and I don't for a minute expect you to either. However. Is it not compelling? Groupthink can be dangerous, for sure... But in this case, if (and I stress if) you don't believe the force was significant, and wasn't intended to be significant... I reckon I'd like to see those overlooked. At the end of the day, that's what's happened, and that's what's best for footy. Or at least that's their view (not yours) and I reckon it's an ok one.

They're forced to grade things on video evidence (it's all we have) and sure maybe the video doesn't show the truth. I'm inclined to agree that Clarry's being honest that it surprised him. But on the evidence at hand, which is all we or they ever get.... For every one of these tiny bits of video evidence, we're gonna see a lot of genuine accidental contact in remonstrations, which if you have it your way, will lead to striking charges... and further diving calls and medical report mumbo jumbo.

Each to their own, you don't have to like it. I don't expect anyone to. I don't really care if they do. I will respond to your condescending tone on here though, and ridiculous assertions I'm defending a player I didn't even know existed. Still don't really.

And will the AFL have the guts to charge Clarrie with staging? If those of you who are happy that Schofield got off are right, the implication is that the whole incident was nothing but an acting performance by Clarrie that nearly got an innocent party suspended. Shouldn't Clarrie go for that?

Or would that expose this farce for what it really is, so we sweep it under the carpet.

26 minutes ago, Akum said:

Surely the only logical course of action now would be for the MRP to charge Clarrie with staging or diving.

If the force is now universally agreed to be insufficient, what was Clarrie trying to achieve by going to ground? He nearly got a poor innocent party cruelly suspended. How would his lame excuse of "I was caught by surprise" stand up under cross-examination by a QC?

Or do we now just "move on" and sweep this under the carpet?

 

18 minutes ago, Akum said:

And will the AFL have the guts to charge Clarrie with staging? If those of you who are happy that Schofield got off are right, the implication is that the whole incident was nothing but an acting performance by Clarrie that nearly got an innocent party suspended. Shouldn't Clarrie go for that?

Or would that expose this farce for what it really is, so we sweep it under the carpet.

Pretty keen on that carpet 'Akum'...

On 2017-6-25 at 1:32 AM, Nasher said:

  I think if you're a Melbourne supporter giving him stick over it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I wont give him stick because hes a young player with a bright future but theres no doubt in my mind that he went to ground easier than he might have had he not been in full view of the umpires. To say he didnt get hit at all is plain wrong but i think the only reason this has been news worthy is because he is a young bull who is hard to take down woth the ball in his hands and the way he went down on the weekend was out of character 

The umpire had no doubt, is independent, he was right there, perfect view and a truck load of evidence, I don't get why that isn't the overwhelming factor. Least subjective opinion going around.

10 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

 To say he didnt get hit at all is plain wrong but i think the only reason this has been news worthy is because he is a young bull who is hard to take down woth the ball in his hands and the way he went down on the weekend was out of character 

Its a fair point but i reckon the thing you can't judge from the video, one way or another (even if you have some sort of combat experience), is how much force went from the elbow to the jaw. What i do know is the jaw can be a 'sweet spot' and I reckon we trust the player (who has been harder than a cats head) and the ump who was close, not running and not watching in slow mo. Everyone else is guessing hiding behind keyboards.

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Sydney will absolutely get stuck into him.

Will just make him go to another level.

Hes not a normal 19 year old second year player. Hes a born warrior and champion who will love the physical heat and thrive on it.

I really don't care. He's no fragile flower. He's as hard as nails. And the attention will make him only get harder.

I'd care if a Sydney player got off on such dribble, because we play them next. We don't play WC (heh also known as a toilet) next. We played them and got the lollies at their fortress. 

And it fired him up. Probably cost them the 4 points. 

This is a very tough side we are breeding. The harder you hit us the harder we hit back. Then we kick goals.

 

Bring it on. Let them hate us.