Well have negotiated all the commentary on this thread and agree that logic or consistency can hardly be expected of the tribunal when there is conflict among ourselves as supporters.

i was impressed with the argument that this decision impacts on all demon players and supporters equally and agree.

On that basis we are all divers and whingers.

This is not correct.

We must now state that we are disappointed that the umpire who made the report was not supported by the tribunal. We regret that the tribunal appears to have ignored the AFL CEO statements that blows to the head are not a part of our game. We also regret that our medical officers opinion was not respected by the tribunal members and no alternative medical opinion was offered. The West coast player indicated intention and his thrusting action revealed on replay supports that.

We will advise our players to retain their mouth guards in their mouths until they are in the rooms to decrease any impacts from unexpected intentional or unintentional contact with the jaw.

We are concerned that with a player already experiencing multiple concussion that a future incident may have a more significant outcome and seek the AFL support in ensuring that any blow to the head intentional or unintentional is penalised immediately on the field and with reference to an independent medical officer at the next break, after match review of available video evidence by the tribunal with an automatic 1 week suspension increasing on the recommendation of the officiating umpire and medical officer if deemed intentional.

Any player intentionally contributing to an exacerbation of an intentional or unintentional blow shall be fined a proportion of match payments and if not supported by medical officers report, or video evidence of contributing or extenuating circumstances may also be suspended automatically for 1 week.

 

This allows for consideration of player ducking into a tackle or falling over in delay due to surprise having reasons analysed by independent medical officer. But given that tha tribunal is supposedly independent and seem to be able to ignore the CEO comments it's probably just a waste of time.

We have more legally qualified people than me on this thread and I would definitely concur with their advice. But boy it does give me the shots that we seem to be shafted again. No good can come of the current situation.

I'm actually finding it really hard to get over the fact that a 19 year old kid was hit and people are treating him like he's the one who did something wrong. It's just so awful.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Chook

At this point, i am loath to say this, but looking at the situation the Club finds itself, i can only see good coming from this. It is the ultimate bonding of all within the Club.

The AFL have made the umpiring fraternity, to a man, look like mindless additives to the scene. They were brave and honest.

 I would love to see MFC get a decent run from here on in.....we'll see. 

48 minutes ago, Chook said:

I'm actually finding it really hard to get over the fact that a 19 year old kid was hit and people are treating him like he's the one who did something wrong. It's just so awful.

And there you have a lot of the anger on the thread. 

My favourite and one of DL's favourite young players, is being attacked by a media that knows how everyone should react when elbowed to the face, while the aggressor is given sympathy. 

Disgusting actually.

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Redleg

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

And there you have a lot of the anger on the thread. 

My favourite and one of DL's favourite young players, is being attacked by a media that knows how everyone should react when elbowed to the face, while the aggressor is given sympathy. 

Disgusting actually.

It's especially galling when it's Melbourne "supporters" doing it.  

The MRP F'd up here.

They should've offered him one week, downgraded to a fine with an early guilty plea.

Would've appeased all parties, the ones who think that any intentional hit to the head shouldn't be allowed and the ones who think it was only a small hit.

the only lesson to take out of this week is that any time the mrp lays a report you simply MUST challenge it

it must be remembered that the schofield and houli decisions just emphasise that this is the same tribunal who found 34 past and present essendon players 'not guilty'

49 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

The MRP F'd up here.

They should've offered him one week, downgraded to a fine with an early guilty plea.

Would've appeased all parties, the ones who think that any intentional hit to the head shouldn't be allowed and the ones who think it was only a small hit.

I was just thinking that that was how I assessed it. Going by their system it was negligent contact (1 point), low impact as Oliver was on his feet straight away (1), and to the head (2). I believe that would come to about 100pts with gets downgraded with a fine for an early plea.

How did they come to 2 matches down to 1?

5 hours ago, willmoy said:

At this point, i am loath to say this, but looking at the situation the Club finds itself, i can only see good coming from this. It is the ultimate bonding of all within the Club.

The AFL have made the umpiring fraternity, to a man, look like mindless additives to the scene. They were brave and honest.

 I would love to see MFC get a decent run from here on in.....we'll see. 

If he gets the ball in a position where he holds it long enough I hope the crowd gives him a good cheer. Problem is he's usually quicker than anyone!

How long did Salem get for his forearm push?

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by SFebey

Maybe if this guy was a club Doctor than the report may have had more value

He milked it.  He staged.  Accept it.  We can't hide from it.  If an opposition player did it, I'd say the same.

 

But as the great leader once said (yesterday), he is toughness squared personified by the Cyril Rioli hit last year.

The opposition will get into him for a few weeks; and then it will blow over.  He won't be defined by this as Lyon said.

 

 

pTGR

 

 

 

And Schofield takes the moral high ground!:

"Speaking after the hearing, Schofield delivered a thinly veiled swipe at Oliver's social media activity.

"Being a little bit of a more senior player, I think it's always best to watch from the sidelines when things go to social media, so you didn't hear too much from me," Schofield said".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/more-senior-schofield-happy-to-avoid-social-media-storm

Anyone else think Schofield has a very punchable face!

Edited June 27, 20178 yr by Lucifer's Hero

The outcome aside, what concerns is the Tribunal process (as reported on the AFL blog) is that the defence cast doubt on what the umpire saw, when Oliver hurt his jaw, the relevance of the mfc medical report and Oliver's reaction after the fall, without apparent evidence (again as reported on the AFL blog). 

The defense didn't have to prove anything - just made hypothesis sufficient to cast doubt on the key points regarding 'negligible impact' (while ignoring 'intentional', 'high' and 'outside the play'). 

And because the Tribunal decides on 'the balance of probabilities' Schofield got off. 

Nothing on the blog suggested the AFL lawyer challenged the hypotheses nor any of or the lack of evidence - don't know what he was doing there.

The Olive case is over but the above shows a very slippery slope for future Tribunal hearings. 

Based on last night the Tribunal will be quite busy in future.

22 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

And Schofield takes the moral high ground!:

"Speaking after the hearing, Schofield delivered a thinly veiled swipe at Oliver's social media activity.

"Being a little bit of a more senior player, I think it's always best to watch from the sidelines when things go to social media, so you didn't hear too much from me," Schofield said".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/more-senior-schofield-happy-to-avoid-social-media-storm

Anyone else think Schofield has a very punchable face!

He's now on my list......

28 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

And Schofield takes the moral high ground!:

"Speaking after the hearing, Schofield delivered a thinly veiled swipe at Oliver's social media activity.

"Being a little bit of a more senior player, I think it's always best to watch from the sidelines when things go to social media, so you didn't hear too much from me," Schofield said".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/more-senior-schofield-happy-to-avoid-social-media-storm

Anyone else think Schofield has a very punchable face!

Probably better to elbow and certainly during half time break.

1 hour ago, Pates said:

I was just thinking that that was how I assessed it. Going by their system it was negligent contact (1 point), low impact as Oliver was on his feet straight away (1), and to the head (2). I believe that would come to about 100pts with gets downgraded with a fine for an early plea.

How did they come to 2 matches down to 1?

Itbwasnt negligent as it was behind play. Anything behind play is automatically intentional, not to mention that he intended to do it. 

1 hour ago, TGR said:

He milked it.  He staged.  Accept it.  We can't hide from it.  If an opposition player did it, I'd say the same.

 

But as the great leader once said (yesterday), he is toughness squared personified by the Cyril Rioli hit last year.

The opposition will get into him for a few weeks; and then it will blow over.  He won't be defined by this as Lyon said.

 

 

pTGR

 

 

 

He'll be remembered for this for a long time, simply because he is such a good player and people will use it as a way of trying to bring him down.

1 hour ago, TGR said:

He milked it.  He staged.  Accept it.  We can't hide from it.  If an opposition player did it, I'd say the same.

 

All of that may well be true but is completely irrelevant. What is the only relevant part is that Schofield intentionally elbowed a player in the head behind play and received no punishment. 

Elbows up boys!

1 hour ago, jane02 said:

He's now on my list......

 

2 hours ago, Pates said:

I was just thinking that that was how I assessed it. Going by their system it was negligent contact (1 point), low impact as Oliver was on his feet straight away (1), and to the head (2). I believe that would come to about 100pts with gets downgraded with a fine for an early plea.

How did they come to 2 matches down to 1?

Because it was intentional, not "negligent". Hard to seriously argue otherwise - he intended to hit him in the head.

2 hours ago, SFebey said:

How long did Salem get for his forearm push?

And should the club have contested it? Meekly backing down every time has done us absolutely no good so far. Clubs that have stood up for their players have been rewarded. Seems we either didn't see the possibility that this might happen, or we did & decided not to do anything.

8 hours ago, Chook said:

I'm actually finding it really hard to get over the fact that a 19 year old kid was hit and people are treating him like he's the one who did something wrong. It's just so awful.

And that's exactly what is wrong not just with the MRP, but the society we live in now.

You are 'soft' if you get hit and it hurts you. How dare you complain? what sort of a man are you? Don't be a p***y. 

Yep, that's exactly the kind of world I want to live in and raise children in. Awesome. 

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

And Schofield takes the moral high ground!:

"Speaking after the hearing, Schofield delivered a thinly veiled swipe at Oliver's social media activity.

"Being a little bit of a more senior player, I think it's always best to watch from the sidelines when things go to social media, so you didn't hear too much from me," Schofield said".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/more-senior-schofield-happy-to-avoid-social-media-storm

Anyone else think Schofield has a very punchable face!

No time for social media when you are too busy crafting your fine skills of 3 possessions a game. 

The vitriol directed at Oliver has been disgraceful, whether he staged or not.  Comment after comment calling him a dog, a weak c##t, [censored] etc etc has completely shocked me.  And anyone who defended him was also ripped into, called a dumb c##nt, moron, and every other name under the sun.   I didn't grow up with Facebook so can someone tell me is this normal now?  Goodness me I couldn't believe it.  he is 19 years old for God's sake.

The kid is having a second year better than anyone I can remember, including Fyfe and J Selwood.  Aside from a few 'experts' having him in their early AA side, he hasn't been given anywhere near the recognition he deserves IMO.  But as soon as people think he's staging, the keyboard warriors and armchair experts come out of the wood work to tear shreds off the poor kid, quite often in a very personal manner.

He is currently 6th for total possessions, 1st for total handballs, 3rd for total contested possessions, 9th for total tackles, 8th for total clearances, 6th for total centre clearances FOR THE ENTIRE COMPETITION!! IN HIS SECOND YEAR!!

Just because it's a Facebook comment and not said in person doesn't mean it isn't bullying and borderline harassment.  Some of these people commenting need to have a good hard look at themselves and imagine if some of the things they are saying to him were said to their children, or mother, or father.  Tall poppy syndrome if ever I've seen it.  I just hope he is mentally strong enough to put this behind him, ignore the haters and continue playing outstanding football.  He is one of our most important players, without him we would have certainly lost the Carlton and West Coast games just off the top of my head.  Go dees!

Edited June 28, 20178 yr by BigFez
Missed a couple of words out.