Just now, mrtwister said:

Schofield got off because the AFL couldn't prove that olivers self reported sore jaw couldn't have happened from when he made contact with Schofields spine. I don't think Adelaide have said Eddie had any issues with the contact. Different argument. 

That came down the amount of impact, they argued there was little impact and the saw jaw could have been from anything, including Clarry running into the back of Schofield. Why would we not be able to argue that Betts had no saw jaw so there was no real impact? If they let precedent play out we would win.

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think ProDee is taking the legal standpoint. His comment reminded me that I don't think precedent can count at the tribunal. They look at each case as its own in isolation from what has come before or what will come after. It allows them to easily and justifiably play favourites!

True, but I suspect he was on his usual 'personal responsibility' crusade.  Precedent is a fundamental part of our legal system. I can't see why the AFL tribunal should be different (except for the unjust reason you point to).  Of course from time to time old precedents have to be abandoned, eg Barry Hall's hit would definitely not be tolerated now (depending on who hit whom....).

But even if you abandon the concept of precedent being argued in each individual case, there is a large ? over why there is no consistency. 

Edited July 17, 20178 yr by sue

6 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

Schofield got off because the AFL couldn't prove that olivers self reported sore jaw couldn't have happened from when he made contact with Schofields spine. I don't think Adelaide have said Eddie had any issues with the contact. Different argument. 

the (possible) contact with spine was claimed by schofield's lawyer......not by the tribunal

the tribunal downgraded the contact from 'low impact' to contact below the threshold

Just saw the Martin one - didn't seem like much in it. Didnt deserve a week IMO.

Vince certainly deserved a week

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the (possible) contact with spine was claimed by schofield's lawyer......not by the tribunal

the tribunal downgraded the contact from 'low impact' to contact below the threshold

Schofield got off because ot the Houli situation plus the media fuss about Oliver.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Schofield got off because ot the Houli situation plus the media fuss about Oliver.

maybe.... but the official tribunal excuse reason was contact below the threshold

Got to say, while I agree that it's inconsistent and unfair and the MRP hate us and blah blah blah, my predominant thought is that I wish Bernie would keep his limbs under control. This is getting out of hand. This could have all been avoided if he'd kept his elbow to himself. 

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

Got to say, while I agree that it's inconsistent and unfair and the MRP hate us and blah blah blah, my predominant thought is that I wish Bernie would keep his limbs under control. This is getting out of hand. This could have all been avoided if he'd kept his elbow to himself. 

think there is unanimous agreement there, nasher

23 minutes ago, mrtwister said:

Schofield got off because the AFL couldn't prove that olivers self reported sore jaw couldn't have happened from when he made contact with Schofields spine. I don't think Adelaide have said Eddie had any issues with the contact. Different argument. 

Schofield got off because the idiots at the tribunal deliberated about Houli's good character and gave him two weeks for knocking out the Carlton player. They immediately hamstrung themselves because if they didn't uphold the Schofield decision that would've had to dish out two weeks for his glancing elbow.

The whole system is pathetically flawed.

The MRP is an ass, plain and simple.

Further. There are puppets and puppet masters. Ought not be too hard for the less ocular confused to get who's who.

4 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The issue is that the MRP seem to use different parameters for each incident, the Zak Jones one is a perfect case in point.

Yeah, I know.  There's no consistency in some of their decisions.

I just hate the "woe is me" mentality from some supporters on here.  It's a loser's mentality.

I think two weeks is a bit stiff, but it doesn't rate highly on my care factor scale.

Vince deserves a holiday for stupidity.

I'm not sure there's too much for supporters to be up in arms about.

Edited July 17, 20178 yr by ProDee

10 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Schofield got off because the idiots at the tribunal deliberated about Houli's good character and gave him two weeks for knocking out the Carlton player. They immediately hamstrung themselves because if they didn't uphold the Schofield decision that would've had to dish out two weeks for his glancing elbow.

The whole system is pathetically flawed.

That and a club had the temerity to object !! 

memo MFC !!!

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I agree, people should go to 6:35 in the below video and see what Zak Jones got off for doing to Hannan.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-30/five-talking-points-melbourne-v-sydney-swans

That's the first time I've actually seen that bump, the fact he got off from that is baffling. That is a 100% decision to bump. 

As for Vince's this week, I called it a 50/50 but I had a feeling it would fall on the other side of the ledger. I still maintain the question of what are his alternatives? Because if he goes for the ball head down it's every possibility that he would get collected high, are we asking the players not to protect themselves?

Having said that I'm not overtly angry about this one, I can see where the MRP get the decision. In the end for the two separate incidents 2 weeks is not the worst outcome, part of me was concerned he could get 3 for the bump and one for Betts. 

It's time for the leadership group to sit down with one of its leaders and tell him to reel it in. 

9 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Yeah, I know.  There's no consistency in some of their decisions.

I just hate the "whoa is me" mentality from some supporters on here.  It's a loser's mentality.

I think two weeks is a bit stiff, but it doesn't rate highly on my care factor scale.

Vince deserves a holiday for stupidity.

I'm not sure there's too much for supporters to be up in arms about.

I doubt if any loser's mentaility that some supporters have has any effect on the team, so who cares. I'm equally annoyed by the hairy-chested who brush aside any mention of an impediment as 'loser mentaility'.  Yes, Vince does deserve a holiday and a kick up the bum - that was his personal responsibilty.  

But if footy supporters don't whinge about the MRP its unjust and apparently corrupt practices will continue since the AFL and its hangers-on aren't big on responsibility, either personal or coporate. 

If you and I shoplift an icecream in Saudi Arabia (both of us with our similar blemish-free honest past) and I get a $1000 fine and you get your hand lopped off, I suspect you wouldn't confine your comments to 'it was my personal responsibility, so fair cop, nothing to see here' and there'd be a fair amount of 'woe is me'.

 

47 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Just saw the Martin one - didn't seem like much in it. Didnt deserve a week IMO.

Vince certainly deserved a week

How does Bernie deserve a week?

selwood gets off

cotchin gets off

zak jones gets off

schofield gets off

 

bernie guilty in both incidents!

this is the biggest load of BS

We have enough anecdotal evidence to understand how we'd fare at the MRP (and the media narrative about us being undisciplined).

It doesn't really matter how just we think it is. It now is, and Bernie knew what to expect.

This is on him.

I'd appeal the fine for the bump on Richard Douglas. That's taking the pi55. He had less options available than Zac Jones and all he did was brace for the contact. Should have no case to answer.

The other one I'd appeal if there's no threat of an increase in the suspension.

Good one Bernie!

8 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

We have enough anecdotal evidence to understand how we'd fare at the MRP (and the media narrative about us being undisciplined).

It doesn't really matter how just we think it is. It now is, and Bernie knew what to expect.

This is on him.

I agree. To the extent we, and presumably Vince knows the system/media narrative is what it is, it is incumbent on him to be extra cautious because he should know that if he sneezes the MRP will say he has the plague.  But I'm not going to ignore injustice just because Vince is an idiot.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the (possible) contact with spine was claimed by schofield's lawyer......not by the tribunal

the tribunal downgraded the contact from 'low impact' to contact below the threshold

Strangely nothing about off the ball, intent etc 

Well done Bernie you [censored].

Hope we don't appeal it at all. Do the time and come back through the VFL to earn your spot.

As Bernie was approaching Douglas for a split second I thought, "elbows in, hit body, please!". Like one of those slow mo scenes where you know what's going to happen because you almost know what he's thinking. Has Bernie written all over it. Plain stupid, achieved nadda.

Melbourne needs to appeal both. Just show footage of all the other hits that were deemed to be OK. 

Frankly as a paid up member, I have had enough of Bernies stupidity!  He is costing the team at a time when we are vulnerable of falling outside the 8.  We waited long enough for this.  Grab a brain Bernie you goose!

Woe is Melbourne. AFL corrupt. Protected species. I used to scoff at these comments but I'm now a convert. Bernie deserved a break but I'm sick of the AFL sending messages through our club and conforming to some media narrative. The inequality is there for all to see.

After Buggy vs. Sydney, that free in the first minute against Carton was a perfect case-in-point. The umps were clearly on the lookout to assert their authority over Melbourne early on, as if we we'd been branded as some bullying footy team resorting to dirty tactics - why?

Because the media says we're undisciplined thugs and the AFL don't like that image.

Tim Watson : "Vince is the most reckless player in the competition"