Say what you like about what an idiot Bernie is, but he certainly spooks his opponent:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-19/vince-haunts-sloane-even-after-concussion

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

There is definitely one application of rules for some and another for others. It's ridiculously obvious.

We're not in the 'protected' group.

Said it before and I'll say it again. I think. in isolation,  every one of our suspensions has just about been right, including Bernie's. However when you then stack them up against other penalties ( or non penalties) on reported players from other clubs you scratch your head and say WTF????

3 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Interesting. In 1987 when the team was on fire, finals bound and had a few tough nuts, there was a total of 18 weeks and a further 7 citations. Guess it does go with the territory a bit, meaning when your hard at it, it doesnt always go to plan. At least they were consistent back then.

But then in 2000 we didn't cop a single sanction. And in 2013 we were hammered by the tribunal.

We have to become so big that we are untouchable.  At the moment we are easy pickings.  When Bruce creams his dacks over our players (Cyyrriill!!), then they are safe from the MRP.  We are a long way from this, and therefore easy picking when our players act inappropriately.  Dusty Dickmuncher hits a guy in the face and gets a fine!  Dangerfield could kill a bus load of pensioners and get off with a warning.  It sucks, but it not a competition, but rather a circus.

6 hours ago, ProDee said:

You're missing stuff here.

I love the unsociable Demons and couldn't give a toss if we get the odd suspension.

Bernie lifting his elbow and hitting someone with the point of it isn't being unsociable, it's being stupid and undisciplined.  I didn't care about his bump and was surprised he was even fined, but I have no issue with him being suspended for stupidity with the elbow.

But all the "woe is me" commentary and talk that the MRP are singling Melbourne out make me laugh.  The MRP are borderline incompetent, and yes, they quiver when they have to adjudicate on a Brownlow favourite and will always take the soft option, but conspiracy theories re individual clubs are pathetic. 

Seemingly, normally intelligent people become adel-pates when footy becomes involved.

It's the inconsistency that needs to be highlighted. And, in this regard, Melbourne needs to start standing up for itself a bit more.

I expect certain more arrogant, better funded clubs would be a lot more vocal about it in similar circumstances. Schofield got nudda just the other week for a very similar stupid, undisciplined act. And I still don't get why Vince got fined for for the bump - it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Said it before and I'll say it again. I think. in isolation,  every one of our suspensions has just about been right, including Bernie's. However when you then stack them up against other penalties ( or non penalties) on reported players from other clubs you scratch your head and say WTF????

Problem is Nut, I don't think anything the AFL ever does is actually in isolation. They seem to work to their own secret doctrine.

The whole gamee, working, personnel, structure etc is NOT independent it's all interdependent.

3 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

It's the inconsistency that needs to be highlighted. And, in this regard, Melbourne needs to start standing up for itself a bit more.

I expect certain more arrogant, better funded clubs would be a lot more vocal about it in similar circumstances. Schofield got nudda just the other week for a very similar stupid, undisciplined act. And I still don't get why Vince got fined for for the bump - it's absolutely ludicrous.

 

Disagree.

As a club you just look like whingers.

Never complain never explain.

I hate your type of weak mentality.

37 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Disagree.

As a club you just look like whingers.

Never complain never explain.

I hate your type of weak mentality.

Some  might suggest you take a holier than thou...my shlt doesn't stink , anyone else's view is  nonsense and shove it. Some would.

I however ask why is it 'weak' to query a concensus when to many its plainly awry.

I might ask what fool doesn't speak up to an anachronism ?

Whinging ? Your view

Making others accountable is mine.

Hate...well...haters are going to hate.

49 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Disagree.

As a club you just look like whingers.

Never complain never explain.

I hate your type of weak mentality.

lol - i just love good irony

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Disagree.

As a club you just look like whingers.

Never complain never explain.

I hate your type of weak mentality.

I get what you're saying but eventually enough is enough. There have been some blatant inconsistencies by the MRP this year, and while I don't Dusty's incident was probably much, looking at the angles available Vince on Betts doesn't seem to be much more than a graze. 

It has to get to the coaching staff seeing players from other clubs free to walk while our guys seem to get the harsher penalties. 

As for our unsociable style, it's not gonna win as many friends but I couldn't give a stuff if it wins us a premiership. 

9 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Perhaps the club are questioning decisions behind the scenes and we just don't know it. 

Thats fine...if the case. The track record doesn't fill me with belief but , i realise, that's possibly my problem.

Justice is best when not only done but seen to be done. I can't think of any scenario whereby it couldn't be "out there" 

56 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Making others accountable is mine.

 

the AFL will never be held accountable for anything and that extends to their MRP and tribunal. remember this is the same AFL who tried to let Essendope off the hook and has a long history of giving high profile players in Brownlow  contention a better rub of the green.

In the case of the AFL MRP I don't think there is much point in complaining because they very rarely change their decision. Bernie's only chance of getting off would be the argument of 'others have done the same or worse and gotten off', but unfortunately the whole concept of precedence is null and void in the AFL thanks largley due to how often they chop and change their 'interpretation' of the rule book.

Frustrating as hell, but I agree with the club on this one

Edited July 19, 20177 yr by DemonWA
spelling

D-WA. I acknowledge that position. If that were the case NO club would push back. No club would lobby...none. 

We know by results that there is wiggle room. We know that clubs ( some) never let the 'challengable' go unchallenged. Results vary for sure but they ( these clubs) have moxy.

Somewhat like a defence lawyers stance... it's about best for clients...about process. Facts sort themselves out.

Ironically , given a sponsorship, you'll never never know ...if you never have a go.

Our Clubs silence .....roars !!!

Personally... I'm sick of it. 

18 minutes ago, DemonWA said:

the AFL will never be held accountable for anything and that extends to their MRP and tribunal. remember this is the same AFL who tried to let Essendope off the hook and has a long history of giving high profile players in Brownlow  contention a better rub of the green.

In the case of the AFL MRP I don't think there is much point in complaining because they very rarely change their decision. Bernie's only chance of getting off would be the argument of 'others have done the same or worse and gotten off', but unfortunately the whole concept of precedence is null and void in the AFL thanks largley due to how often they chop and change their 'interpretation' of the rule book.

Frustrating as hell, but I agree with the club on this one

Sure, putting the boot into the MRP (diplomatically of course) won't get them to change a decision already made.  But it will make them think twice next time.

Edited July 19, 20177 yr by sue

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

D-WA. I acknowledge that position. If that were the case NO club would push back. No club would lobby...none. 

We know by results that there is wiggle room. We know that clubs ( some) never let the 'challengable' go unchallenged. Results vary for sure but they ( these clubs) have moxy.

Somewhat like a defence lawyers stance... it's about best for clients...about process. Facts sort themselves out.

Ironically , given a sponsorship, you'll never never know ...if you never have a go.

Our Clubs silence .....roars !!!

Personally... I'm sick of it. 

 Buggs ban was probably worth contenting given Houli was only given 4 weeks, but in Vince's case the argument between how minor the intent and impact are is very difficult to argue, so for the sake of another week of suspension I think they made the right call.

Be easier to tell Bernie to stop elbowing opposition players in the head, then to get the MRP to "think twice". 

I'm glad the club is staying focused on next weeks game, educating their players on playing within the rules and playing as hard as is possible within the rules.

I thought Bernies bump was a good example of pushing the physicallity of the team while staying (just) within the rules. The elbow to Betts was just stupid undisciplined play.

I wonder whatvthe Eagles thinking was.

Player X waltzes up to player Y . Good lift to elbow, deliberate, premeditated, slow and concerted .....WHACK !!

oh btw...no ball....not even in play...fmd...not even during "time" 

But wait...club contests...player off.

This is everything the MFC isn't.

This isn't as much about Vince as a default stance by the Dees.

 Hint. Look at clubs that HAVE won cups ...look at their demeanor. 

Who lays down....who doesn't ?

An  MFC "hard nut" genre is not going to be developed over night. There are many components that need the krypton rub, not the least of which is winning, which of course can be the panacea to the whole turnabout.

Let's say a good cleanout at AFL HQ would help, which, i think, and should be not far off. The other of course, is the problematic Media. It is a pity a less recalcitrant Lyon could have solved this problem probably to a certain extent this year..... 

You're p1ssing into the wind if you think that who ever runs AFL, MRP etc... will ever become more lenient of on-field actions that if they occurred in the street would be rightfully called "assault".

Sniping off play on opposition players who are unprepared and unable to defend themselves is a cowardly act.

Bugg, Vince, Salem and Lewis have all done it this year and it's cost us wins, which may yet have consequences. 

Edited July 19, 20177 yr by PaulRB

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

lol - i just love good irony

What is funny and what's ironic ?

11 hours ago, PaulRB said:

Be easier to tell Bernie to stop elbowing opposition players in the head, then to get the MRP to "think twice". 

Why don't we have both meme goes here

FavoriteFaI know its a gifvorite

13 hours ago, PaulRB said:

You're p1ssing into the wind if you think that who ever runs AFL, MRP etc... will ever become more lenient of on-field actions that if they occurred in the street would be rightfully called "assault".

Sniping off play on opposition players who are unprepared and unable to defend themselves is a cowardly act.

Bugg, Vince, Salem and Lewis have all done it this year and it's cost us wins, which may yet have consequences. 

Agree. But I think a simple rule change could help. Martin was lucky to be let off but he was clearly retaliating for continuous maltreatment by the player he whacked. I'm tired of seeing players being unable to defend themselves against this constant niggling (and I use the word "niggling" loosely, given it's continuous thumping in the back, etc) given that any retaliation at best gives away a free kick and at worst may end up with a suspension. 

I'd like to see a change so that any player who continually "niggles" another player off the ball should be initially given a warning and then if the practice continues, should give away a free kick every time thereafter. That should protect ball-winners (like Oliver who, if he keeps playing like he has been, will get it every week) and eliminate the retaliatory actions.

I'd also like to see some other structural changes (for example, anyone who works in the media should not also be on the MRP or AFL Tribunal). But that's perhaps a discussion for another day.

On 19/07/2017 at 6:24 PM, ProDee said:

Disagree.

As a club you just look like whingers.

Never complain never explain.

I hate your type of weak mentality.

Just watched a replay of Wed's AFL 360.

Betts said it didn't deserve 2 weeks.

McClure and King then stated unequivocally that they love the toughness of the leaders of the club who are playing on the edge. No criticism of Bernie at all. In fact, they defended Melbourne's new hard nosed leaders.

I'd like to club to adopt the same approach on certain of these incidents. Plainly there's a difference between whinging and sticking up for oneself. I have not ever advocated whinging - not remotely.

So, nope - there's nothing weak in my mentality. The weak people around here are in fact the old, unathletic, cantankerous snipers who talk tough behind the safety of their keyboards. I'd love to see such strident and critical views expressed face to face in the pub sometime. 

It'd make me laugh. Out loud. They'd be running to the safety of the MRP.

 

Edited July 20, 20177 yr by Ron Burgundy

The weakness of the club in defending its players - not the players actions per se - is galling. Even a murderer gets a defence yet we roll over and throw ourselves at the mercy of the MRP. Good luck with that. 

Bugg was treated like a leper and didn't deserve that. No-one went into bat for Bugg as a good bloke who stuffed up. It was frankly appalling. Our counsel, Findlay, didn't even try to argue a case for a reduced sentence based on precedent and the fact he had never been reported before.

Vince is the same, no one from the club went into bat for Bernie, The club didn't argue insufficient force, intent or relativity to other incidents involving Melbourne players such as:

Oliver getting elbowed from Schofield

Hannan getting elbowed from Zak Jones and not even being cited

Vince himself being punched in the guts that forced him to throw up on the boundary line and miss 11 minutes of the quarter.

The club has got a lot of things right but the only tribunal hearing I can recall where they argued hard was Jack Vineys appeal.

They need to review their set up for defending players pronto and they need to be way more public in their defence of their players.

Its so freaking obvious the MRP is biased and that noise in the media dictates what sanctions get handed out. Cotchin and Martin are two prime examples. Brad Scott immediately went on the offensive when defending Cunnington over his hit on Vince, Where the hell are we?

Edited July 20, 20177 yr by jnrmac