If Hunter is guilty then the Essendon player who braced for Spargo's head first action needed to be found guilty as well

But that player wasn't even cited (not that he should have been, the contact was on Spargo)

The inconsistent citing and outcomes from the MRO & Tribunal is astonishing

Edited May 24, 20231 yr by Macca

Quite frankly im disillusioned by the club.. seemingly wanting justice and fairness and then bottling.

Don't give me ...oh they went into bat for JVR... so they bloody should. They ought to as a default.. That's the point..  it's like a Solicitor exclaiming "objection" ...it's  just done as a matter of course ( given sufficient basis to object of course )

Here there plainly is...

 Carlton, Collingwood etc..  it's their default position.  The league knows it.The league thinks twice with them

They  know we're a lot softer.

I'd go to war against these fools. You dont get change without risk. Push back... push back... call them out. 

Have words to THEM..  suggest they either get fair dinkum or WE'LL  control the narrative.  Well push our barrow through the 4th Estate...  We'll stink it up bad.

You dare to crucify us... we'll call you out

Fair's fair at the same time..  a player actually transgresses...  we'll cop it sweet.

You trump up b.s and NOT hand out the same infringement equally to others then well ask the court of public opinion.

People like an Underdog.... most cant stand the rubbish that the AFL does...it's egos...its fiddling with the game...its B.S. for the boys club

I wouldn't fear Gil.. Dill or any of that lot...  id make them fear us.

Theyre custodians, not owners of the game. 

The best defence is an attack.

Tired of these bullies

Probably coming across as a rant..  

We seem as a club to be often unfairly targetted. If i didn't know better ( and i dont ...lol ) id almost believe there are those in this industry who resent the MFC. Some seem seriously carry a burning fire to smite us at every opportunity. 

You have two choices.... accept it..  or not. In NOT you have to be consistent  lest you are found out

Strength of character is not doing something once...it's doing it everytime you're put back into that position.

Ive never been convinced we have much backbone as a club...  I'm still unconvinced. 

And for that matter the team plays footy the same way..  go hard when its easy..go missing when it isnt.

Same at club level.

That is the definition of club culture.

Ours needs to change.

We're being pushed aside...again.

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 20231 yr by beelzebub
Spelling

  On 24/05/2023 at 07:05, beelzebub said:

Quite frankly im disillusioned by the club.. seemingly wanting justice and fairness and then bottling.

Don't give me ...oh they went into bat for JVR... so they bloody should. They ought to as a default.. That's the point..  it's like a Solicitor exclaiming "objection" ...it's  just done as a matter of course ( given sufficient basis to object of course )

Here there plainly is...

 Carlton, Collingwood etc..  it's their default position.  The league knows it.The league thinks twice with them

They  know we're a lot softer.

I'd go to war against these fools. You dont get change without risk. Push back... push back... call them out. 

Have words to THEM..  suggest they either get fair dinkum or WE'LL  control the narrative.  Well push our barrow through the 4th Estate...  We'll stink it up bad.

You dare to crucify us... we'll call you out

Fair's fair at the same time..  a player actually transgresses...  we'll cop it sweet.

You trump up b.s and NOT hand out the same infringement equally to others then well ask the court of public opinion.

People like an Underdog.... most cant stand the rubbish that the AFL does...it's egos...its fiddling with the game...its B.S. for the boys club

I wouldn't fear Gil.. Dill or any of that lot...  id make them fear us.

Theyre custodians, not owners of the game. 

The best defence is an attack.

Tired of these bullies

Probably coming across as a rant..  

We seem as a club to be often unfairly targetted. If i didn't know better ( and i dont ...lol ) id almost believe there are those in this industry who resent the MFC. Some seem seriously carry a burning fire to smite us at every opportunity. 

You have two choices.... accept it..  or not. In NOT you have to be consistent  lest you are found out

Strength of character is not doing something once...it's doing it everytime you're put back into that position.

Ive never been convinced we have much backbone as a club...  I'm still unconvinced. 

And for that matter the team plays footy the same way..  go hard when its easy..go missing when it isnt.

Same at club level.

That is the definition of club culture.

Ours needs to change.

We're being pushed aside...again.

 

 

 

Hear hear!!!!!!

  On 20/05/2023 at 04:21, John Crow Batty said:

Just beware, we are dealing with a scorned Christian here. 

That, despite all and sundry failing to see the 'fault' in the incident from Hunter, is the crux of the matter and the AFL leadership has done nothing about it. We must drive the message home in some abstract way; no other club is required to endure penalties like these so nominated (Hunter and JVR).

  On 24/05/2023 at 04:09, Webber said:

Do you mean the AFL? You’re not allowed to criticise or question anything,  and if you do, they’ll go on the ‘please explain’ then fine dance. And as you wrote earlier, the journos, who should be able to question and criticise with impunity, are under their control. If the AFL were a national or state ‘government’ (and of course they are in microcosm), that’s plainly a dictatorship.  What I don’t get is why there isn’t more noise about it. 

Pretty sure it's because they accredit the media who can attend games, and who get access to press conferences, releases, and embargoes.

And I'm sure it must be in the contract for the broadcast partner. Probably that they must not overly criticize the establishment or the organisational leaders. No problems gunning for the club's or a coach, but never any significant criticism for the AFL or the games administrators.

I read a report that the NRL had raised objections with channel 9 that they weren't featuring the NRL enough on the Today show. I think that tells us everything we need to know about these relationships.

I don’t know why we didn’t mention the weather conditions. Hunter side stepping at speed in the wet could have resulted in a serious knee injury. 
But who cares right?

Need to move on. We all know this situation will come up again soon. I hope its from one of the bigger clubs (Pies, Cats or Blues - who seem to escape the MRO the most). If / when they are found not guilty, then it is free for all. 

The $10K that we could have spent on the MRO appeal can be better put to use (fine) by coming out and publicly condemning the AFL for inconsistency in the tribunal . I'd say that would send a pretty strong message to the AFL but more the media that will keep the topic in the news cycle, putting more pressure on the AFL.  

  On 24/05/2023 at 08:34, Gawndy the Great said:

Need to move on. We all know this situation will come up again soon. I hope its from one of the bigger clubs (Pies, Cats or Blues - who seem to escape the MRO the most). If / when they are found not guilty, then it is free for all. 

The $10K that we could have spent on the MRO appeal can be better put to use (fine) by coming out and publicly condemning the AFL for inconsistency in the tribunal . I'd say that would send a pretty strong message to the AFL but more the media that will keep the topic in the news cycle, putting more pressure on the AFL.  

But that's just the point..

Carl/Coll/Geel will get off...  status normal.

What is this free for all you speak of?

If I was Lachie i might be wondering... so youll go to bat for HIM ?..   I did nothing wrong.

10K is beer change 

You condemn the AFL by challenging them. They cant control what is said.

P.s..  get better Beagles Dees ;)

Current bloke a loser big time .

Do what the fair dinkum clubs do...get suitsvand wigs that run circles round Gleebag  etc.

We take knives to gunfights ffs

  On 24/05/2023 at 08:12, Jaded No More said:

I don’t know why we didn’t mention the weather conditions. Hunter side stepping at speed in the wet could have resulted in a serious knee injury. 
But who cares right?

Clearly not Messrs Christian and Gleeson.

 

  On 24/05/2023 at 01:28, Redleg said:

It is hard not to be paranoid and have a victim mentality when there is such blatant unexplained inconsistency in MRO decisions. We have had 5 penalties in last 3 rounds. Any other club near that?

I hope we are taking this up with head office.

Apologies everyone, should have said 6 penalties in last 3 rounds. I forgot the Hunter fine for leaving the bench and standing near the boundary line, when a Hawks player ran past.

I’m a man of my word. I flagged that if Hunter didn’t get off I’d not front up ti the the Freo game. 
 

This has come to pass. 
 

Flying out early on Friday. 

If they could play four quarters in a game  occasionally......

Edited May 24, 20231 yr by IRW

  On 24/05/2023 at 05:39, NeveroddoreveN said:

Yes i have played football.

Stepping over the footy and then choosing to bump you take that chance. This year the head is a no go zone..

Had he went for the ball at any stage i think he has a case, but that was not the case!

It was an afterthought to grab the ball after he flushed him.

Take the week and move on.

You are sure of this - in the magic Christian 0.3 seconds perhaps?

  On 24/05/2023 at 08:12, Jaded No More said:

I don’t know why we didn’t mention the weather conditions. Hunter side stepping at speed in the wet could have resulted in a serious knee injury. 
But who cares right?

Clearly a sign - no, a blatantly obvious example ramified by any aspect from which one might evaluate the alleged incident, plus others of recent history - of the analytical incapacity so frequently exposed by the designated AFL 'official' responsible.

For me the fundamental reason for appealling this stupid and ridiculous ban is we have been denied a full and just hearing.

The likes of Gleeson want to circumvent the rules to suit.

It's that these very rules are not adhered to in my mind constitutes an automatic escalation.

The corrupt manner, and it's  nothing other, needs to be tested.

Allows others to trample on.you.... well more fool you. They'll keep doing it.

There's a reason the likes of Collingwood get treated differently . They dont take [censored].

I dont take [censored]..

Apparently its on the MFC shopping list

Ppl bemoan opposition coaches that complain.  Wish ours did.

Say nothing ...get nothing..    short of a condescending pat on the head from the AFL.

Hunter did nothing wrong and is being punished..... twice. 

 

Edited May 24, 20231 yr by beelzebub
Spelling

  On 24/05/2023 at 21:18, Deemania since 56 said:

Clearly a sign - no, a blatantly obvious example ramified by any aspect from which one might evaluate the alleged incident, plus others of recent history - of the analytical incapacity so frequently exposed by the designated AFL 'official' responsible.

There you have it.

I have a real level of disquiet about the Tribunal Chairman and to a slightly lesser degree the MRO.

With the MRO there is little transparent explanation, as to why some incidents and not similar or worse outcome others are treated so differently.

With the Tribunal Chairman, the former AFL prosecutor at the Tribunal, he seems determined from my viewing, to confirm penalties rather than truly evaluate the incident.

He tries to bring in the Law, to cover deficiencies in fact.

Tribunal hearings imo, should be about the common sense issues of what happened and were they intentional acts or accidental, could or should they have been avoided and an overarching principle of how we want the game played.

The Chairman has decided cases, by suggesting alternative actions, that are totally unreasonable in a contact sport and in some cases just plainly impossible to perform in a contact sport or pressure situation.

Some of his decisions imo are just plainly laughable.

He has confused the reasonable man in the Law definition, with a footballer in a pressure situation, where there is no sensible comparison.

I think we would be better served with someone else as our Tribunal Chairman, with a background in the game and yes possibly a Law degree, but not used to stifle the actual way the game is played, so as to make it nearly impossible for the players to play and the fans to watch.

Edited May 24, 20231 yr by Redleg

  On 24/05/2023 at 05:59, Macca said:

If Hunter is guilty then the Essendon player who braced for Spargo's head first action needed to be found guilty as well

But that player wasn't even cited (not that he should have been, the contact was on Spargo)

The inconsistent citing and outcomes from the MRO & Tribunal is astonishing

Good pickup Macca, almost in the exact same spot on the same ground.

I think the only thing that got Lachie sighted in the first place was that he had some speed, which is pretty common when you're contesting for a footy. 

  On 24/05/2023 at 07:05, beelzebub said:

Quite frankly im disillusioned by the club.. seemingly wanting justice and fairness and then bottling.

Don't give me ...oh they went into bat for JVR... so they bloody should. They ought to as a default.. That's the point..  it's like a Solicitor exclaiming "objection" ...it's  just done as a matter of course ( given sufficient basis to object of course )

Here there plainly is...

 Carlton, Collingwood etc..  it's their default position.  The league knows it.The league thinks twice with them

They  know we're a lot softer.

I'd go to war against these fools. You dont get change without risk. Push back... push back... call them out. 

Have words to THEM..  suggest they either get fair dinkum or WE'LL  control the narrative.  Well push our barrow through the 4th Estate...  We'll stink it up bad.

You dare to crucify us... we'll call you out

Fair's fair at the same time..  a player actually transgresses...  we'll cop it sweet.

You trump up b.s and NOT hand out the same infringement equally to others then well ask the court of public opinion.

People like an Underdog.... most cant stand the rubbish that the AFL does...it's egos...its fiddling with the game...its B.S. for the boys club

I wouldn't fear Gil.. Dill or any of that lot...  id make them fear us.

Theyre custodians, not owners of the game. 

The best defence is an attack.

Tired of these bullies

Probably coming across as a rant..  

We seem as a club to be often unfairly targetted. If i didn't know better ( and i dont ...lol ) id almost believe there are those in this industry who resent the MFC. Some seem seriously carry a burning fire to smite us at every opportunity. 

You have two choices.... accept it..  or not. In NOT you have to be consistent  lest you are found out

Strength of character is not doing something once...it's doing it everytime you're put back into that position.

Ive never been convinced we have much backbone as a club...  I'm still unconvinced. 

And for that matter the team plays footy the same way..  go hard when its easy..go missing when it isnt.

Same at club level.

That is the definition of club culture.

Ours needs to change.

We're being pushed aside...again.

 

 

 

We should be challenging with a twofold purpose. First is to get Hunter off. Second, to show all the conflicting incidents, eg the Rankine one "nothing to answer", all of them, ad nauseum, with the intention of embarrassing the AFL. The MRO/tribunal has been chooklotto for years, dressed up in legalese, but continually perpetrating breathtaking injustices.

The media, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, and anxious to retain thier media passes, won't touch this, other than in the most superficial clickbait fashion.

I am surprised the clubs havent shown some collective action about this. Surely they don't want a tribunal system that is out of control?

  On 24/05/2023 at 22:07, Redleg said:

There you have it.

I have a real level of disquiet about the Tribunal Chairman and to a slightly lesser degree the MRO.

With the MRO there is little transparent explanation, as to why some incidents and not similar or worse outcome others are treated so differently.

With the Tribunal Chairman, the former AFL prosecutor at the Tribunal, he seems determined from my viewing, to confirm penalties rather than truly evaluate the incident.

He tries to bring in the Law, to cover deficiencies in fact.

Tribunal hearings imo, should be about the common sense issues of what happened and were they intentional acts or accidental, could or should they have been avoided and an overarching principle of how we want the game played.

The Chairman has decided cases, by suggesting alternative actions, that are totally unreasonable in a contact sport and in some cases just plainly impossible to perform in a contact sport or pressure situation.

Some of his decisions imo are just plainly laughable.

He has confused the reasonable man in the Law definition, with a footballer in a pressure situation, where there is no sensible comparison.

I think we would be better served with someone else as our Tribunal Chairman, with a background in the game and yes possibly a Law degree, but not used to stifle the actual way the game is played, so as to make it nearly impossible for the players to play and the fans to watch.

And when dealing with idiots you need to provide opportunity to allow them to imolate.

Gleeson needs to be made an example of.

He discards rules at whim.   They need to be retrieved and slap his face with them. 

He proffers no respect....give none.

A decent wig would turn him inside out and skewer him on upon his own ego.

 

  On 24/05/2023 at 08:05, deanox said:

I read a report that the NRL had raised objections with channel 9 that they weren't featuring the NRL enough on the Today show. I think that tells us everything we need to know about these relationships.

Murphy's Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

  On 24/05/2023 at 22:32, Mazer Rackham said:

We should be challenging with a twofold purpose. First is to get Hunter off. Second, to show all the conflicting incidents, eg the Rankine one "nothing to answer", all of them, ad nauseum, with the intention of embarrassing the AFL. The MRO/tribunal has been chooklotto for years, dressed up in legalese, but continually perpetrating breathtaking injustices.

The media, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, and anxious to retain thier media passes, won't touch this, other than in the most superficial clickbait fashion.

I am surprised the clubs havent shown some collective action about this. Surely they don't want a tribunal system that is out of control?

The AFL is keen to keep us divided

  On 24/05/2023 at 22:07, Redleg said:

There you have it.

I have a real level of disquiet about the Tribunal Chairman and to a slightly lesser degree the MRO.

With the MRO there is little transparent explanation, as to why some incidents and not similar or worse outcome others are treated so differently.

With the Tribunal Chairman, the former AFL prosecutor at the Tribunal, he seems determined from my viewing, to confirm penalties rather than truly evaluate the incident.

He tries to bring in the Law, to cover deficiencies in fact.

Tribunal hearings imo, should be about the common sense issues of what happened and were they intentional acts or accidental, could or should they have been avoided and an overarching principle of how we want the game played.

The Chairman has decided cases, by suggesting alternative actions, that are totally unreasonable in a contact sport and in some cases just plainly impossible to perform in a contact sport or pressure situation.

Some of his decisions imo are just plainly laughable.

He has confused the reasonable man in the Law definition, with a footballer in a pressure situation, where there is no sensible comparison.

I think we would be better served with someone else as our Tribunal Chairman, with a background in the game and yes possibly a Law degree, but not used to stifle the actual way the game is played, so as to make it nearly impossible for the players to play and the fans to watch.

Biggest mistake the AFL has made in recent years, regarding the tribunal, is to allow it be seen as, and operate as, a court of law.

It is not a court of law! There is no need to demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt, or on balance of probabilities, because no-one is going to jail, no-one is getting a criminal record like an albatross around their neck, no-one is being deprived of their freedom.

It is in essence (or should be), a bunch of former players, who know something about the caper, saying "yeah, he clocked him. Two week holiday."

It is on the AFL that they have allowed things to drift so far away from this, under the veneer of the respectability of the law.  They have ceded control to the lawyers, who have proceeded to run amock. Like your tabby on catnip.

Any time the word "law" is used in a hearing, unless it's the phrase "laws of the game", the hearing should be scrapped and started again. "Matter of law", my foot. It's a sporting tribunal!

 

  On 24/05/2023 at 22:29, layzie said:

Good pickup Macca, almost in the exact same spot on the same ground.

I think the only thing that got Lachie sighted in the first place was that he had some speed, which is pretty common when you're contesting for a footy. 

The bigger issue is where does it all stop?

And the class actions have a real connection

MFC needs to keep pushing back and challenging the bulk of these.

There is an obvious agenda by the AFL to target certain players & clubs vs going easy on their favourites.

We also need to look for alternatives outside of Anderson.

His track record, admittedly most likely by AFL design, isn't great.  It's time to step up provided there's a gettable alternative heavy hitter.

  On 24/05/2023 at 22:36, beelzebub said:

The AFL is keen to keep us divided

Penalties and related severity, infringement validity/legitimacy and unnoticed oversights bearing favour therein/thereof seem dependent upon which club you are playing for - if it is the whim of the magistrating 'officials'. Evidence? (Watch a game of AFL football, then another as a comparator with different teams.)