Bernie Vince on report

[brendan 3,437]

He shouldn't get anything for the elbow, the afl set the precedent for elbows when they let schofield off 

[McQueen 17,865]

Interesting to just watch the Priddis high fend-off with his elbow on Lachie Neale in the first qtr of the derby.

Intentional, high (head contact) and more force than the Vince tap on Betts.

Edited July 16, 2017 by McQueen

[dl4e 5,851]

Vince penalty.

3 weeks for playing with Melbourne.

3 weeks for the bump.

13 years in Port Arthur for touching Betts.

[Soidee 1,496]

Send Bernie back to Casey, Idiot does not learn! I've had it with him and his disregard for team situation.

[monoccular 17,432]

3 hours ago, McQueen said:

Interesting to just watch the Priddis high fend-off with his elbow on Lachie Neale in the first qtr of the derby.

Intentional, high (head contact) and more force than the Vince tap on Betts.

The MRP will spin it harder than Warnie at his prime.  

[Pates 9,660]

Betts should be insufficient force, if he does get charged then the club MUST make a big thing of it after Schofield was give then all clear. 

The bump is 50/50, I feel like he had eyes for the ball and braced himself when he saw the Adelaide player coming out the corner of his eye. But he has a bad record so if he gets anything it could go up to 2-3. 

I'm really trying to look at it impartially, his actions are that he's down to pick the ball up, he second action comes when he sees the Adelaide player coming, he doesn't  lunge into the player he rather seems to slow and brace. The question to ask is what's his alternative? If he kept going it's probable that he would've copped head contact himself, his saving grace could be the fact he put one of his legs out to stop. As I said it's 50/50 and given our record this year it's probably going to fall on the negative side for us. 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Pates

[poita 3,902]

Why does Bernie keep on putting himself in this position? Every single week he gives away free kicks and / or puts himself under MRP scrutiny for cheap shots that do absolute nothing for the team.

There wasn't a lot in the Douglas bump, but it was done inside our forward line at a time when we had the momentum. A free kick was paid and (I'm fairly sure) Adelaide went straight up the other end and scored.

The Betts hit was just so stupid. Yes, the impact was low, but what do you possibly achieve by doing it?

If he gets suspended, he gets an extra week due to his bad record. The club should give him a further extra week for being a fool.

[bandicoot 1,395]

Will get off on both. Insufficient force on betts and didn't hit the head on Douglas. Will need him to tag on of ports mids 

[brendan 3,437]

Media is already assasinating him for the hits so afl won't let him get off 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

21 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Steve, you are aware he kept Sloane very quiet up to where he was concussed? Bernie's main job most weeks is to tag the opposition's main ball winner. He did a great job of it last night, but the two hits were dumb acts and very disappointing

Remind me of how valuable he was in the second half when Adelaide were playing without Sloane?

[monoccular 17,432]

The Betts one was no worse, probably softer, than the Schofield one - 2 weeks Bernie

The other was to the shoulder - two more weeks Bernie.  After all, it was worse than the Moloney near miss  

MRP inconsistency WILL show through again tonight, mark my words.

And of course Downlow favorite Mr Chopsticks will be deemed low impact - fine

MRP inconsistency WILL show through again tonight, mark my words.

[Bring Back Barassi 552]

19 hours ago, brendan said:

He shouldn't get anything for the elbow, the afl set the precedent for elbows when they let schofield off 

Precedent ? Since when did that mean anything. Its not a court of law.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

12 hours ago, Pates said:

Betts should be insufficient force, if he does get charged then the club MUST make a big thing of it after Schofield was give then all clear. 

The bump is 50/50, I feel like he had eyes for the ball and braced himself when he saw the Adelaide player coming out the corner of his eye. But he has a bad record so if he gets anything it could go up to 2-3. 

Haha.

Honestly, the way supporters defend their own kind is out of this world.

Vince deserves weeks for both acts. The contact he made with Bett's jaw was far more obvious than the Schofield/Oliver one. Vince is also a repeat offender of this kind of act. The accidental excuse goes straight out the window, regardless of force. 

The bump was just a typically soft act also. Douglas went lower and harder and his eyes were on the ball the entire time whereas Vince wasn't looking at the ball and elected to bump, front on at that. It was pathetically soft. 

He continues to let his team-mates and the club down because of this rubbish. In the first quarter, he caught Cameron high after sticking one arm out in a putrid attempt to tackle. He commits those at least once a game, sometimes more.

When a player let's this kind of behaviour slip into their game, it's usually a sign that they've lost confidence in their ability to beat an opposition player fairly in a one-on-one. Vince needs to shape up or ship out.

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by stevethemanjordan

[Grimes Times 1,278]

On 7/15/2017 at 10:08 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Bernie is cooked anyway. 

Yeah just kept Sloan to 8 touches before he went off. Its not all about getting 30 and kicking 3.

[sue 9,107]

29 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Haha.

Honestly, the way supporters defend their own kind is out of this world.

Vince deserves weeks for both acts. The contact he made with Bett's jaw was far more obvious than the Schofield/Oliver one.

 

ha ha.  And some supporters go out of their way to boast they are super-rational unlike one-eyed supporters  Please explain how Bernie's was more obvious.  Did you like the camera angle better or what?

Personally I think players, including MFC ones, should be rubbed out for doing what Bernie did to Betts.  But if the MRP disagreed only a couple of weeks ago, then who am I to disagree. 

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

13 minutes ago, sue said:

ha ha.  And some supporters go out of their way to boast they are super-rational unlike one-eyed supporters  Please explain how Bernie's was more obvious.  Did you like the camera angle better or what?

Personally I think players, including MFC ones, should be rubbed out for doing what Bernie did to Betts.  But if the MRP disagreed only a couple of weeks ago, then who am I to disagree. 

Maybe watch the vision of the two?

If that doesn't help then it may be an eye thing. 

There was obvious contact in the Vince hit. The Schofield one was far less obvious. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Dustin Martin punched a player in the head, expect him to get off.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,811]

22 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Have we collectively forgotten that the sentence is (illogically) based on the result, not the act?

Considering both players were fine, Bernie should walk.

I thought that only applied when we were the victims.

[Chris 2,892]

The elbow will get 2 down to 1, as long as bad record doesn't keep it at two. It will get that as their guidelines say anything with an elbow is automatically low impact, and it was high and intentional. That is 2 down to 1. The bump should be a fine at worst, it was careless but it wasn't intentional and he did everything he could to look after the other player. 

The elbow one could be interesting though. Under the MRP guidelines (I like how they don't call them rules so they can bend them at will) Schofield got 2 reduced to 1 from the MRP, that is exactly inline with what the guidelines say and is what Bernie should get. Where it gets interesting is that Schofield went to the tribunal and basically argued that the hit wasn't hard enough to warrant a sanction, even though the guidelines say that any intentional contact with an elbow is at least low impact, the tribunal threw this out and said that even though there was contact it wasn't hard enough (not sure they know the meaning of the word any). 

Will the MRP go by the interpretation of the tribunal and give him nothing as it was a glancing blow which really made very little contact (just like Schofield), or will they stick to their guidelines and give him a week. 

If he gets the week I hope we appeal and show the whole charade for the joke it is, if we lose Bernie for another week then so be it.

On a side note, I did have a laugh as Schofield taking a dive for the free on the weekend!

Edited July 17, 2017 by Chris

[What 18,810]

Not a mention on the AFL site of Dustin Martin punching that Brisbane player in the head.  I thought the head was sacrosanct? 

Its so obvious they protect the superstars. 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

29 minutes ago, Chris said:

The elbow will get 2 down to 1, as long as bad record doesn't keep it at two. It will get that from their guidelines say anything with an elbow is automatically low impact, and it was high and intentional. That is 2 down to 1. The bump should be a fine at worst, it was careless but it wasn't intentional and he did everything he could to look after the other player. 

The elbow one could be interesting though. Under the MRP guidelines (I like how they don't call them rules so they can bend them at will) Schofield got 2 reduced to 1 from the MRP, that is exactly inline with what the guidelines say and is what Bernie should get. Where it gets interesting is that Schofield went to the tribunal and basically argued that the hit wasn't hard enough to warrant a sanction, even though the guidelines say that any intentional contact with an elbow is at least mow impact, the tribunal through this out and said that even though there was contact it wasn't hard enough (not sure they know the meaning of the word any). 

Will the MRP go by the interpretation of the tribunal and give him nothing as it was a glancing blow which really made very little contact (just like Schofield), or will they stick to their guidelines and give him a week. 

If he gets the week I hope we appeal and show the whole charade for the joke it is, if we lose Bernie for another week then so be it.

On a side note, I did have a laugh as Schofield taking a dive for the free on the weekend!

I think with Bernies record he cant take a guilty plea so if its graded as per Schofeild (2 weeks) we can take it the tribunal and risk nothing. Good chance to be grade insufficient force id think. Betts played on, didnt go off to seek medical attention. The medical report from Adel will be the key.

[Chris 2,892]

1 minute ago, Grimes Times said:

I think with Bernies record he cant take a guilty plea so if its graded as per Schofeild (2 weeks) we can take it the tribunal and risk nothing. Good chance to be grade insufficient force id think. Betts played on, didnt go off to seek medical attention. The medical report from Adel will be the key.

If the look at the Schofield incident then it is insufficient force, problem is that I don't think the MRP allow that when it is an elbow to the head, that is why Schofield got the ban initially. May need to go to the tribunal to get it cleared, but good luck there as it really is chook lotto. 

[mrtwister 652]

MRP preview suggesting 1 week for Bernie's elbow (but bad record is a concern).

Suggested the bump was okay as both were at the ball and the split second bounce of the ball made it hard for Bernie to pull out of his action.

Interestingly, they showed an off the ball elbow from Jackson Trengove which they think should be 1 week which would see him miss our game next week. 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,872]

"Inconclusive video evidence to clear Dusty." 

They can't show the replay of the incident that was clear as day on Foxtel? 

An all new low for the AFL.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Ethan Tremblay

[What 18,810]

 

 

55 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Not a mention on the AFL site of Dustin Martin punching that Brisbane player in the head.  I thought the head was sacrosanct? 

Its so obvious they protect the superstars. 

 

12 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

"Inconclusive video evidence to clear Dusty." 

They can't show the replay of the incident that was clear as day on Foxtel? 

An all new low for the AFL.

Unbelievable.   Hes right there on video hitting the guy in the face.

How do the AFL get away with such corruption?

Edited July 17, 2017 by Petraccattack