Chris

3 minutes ago, sue said:

No. It was 2 up to 3 for his record.  

X from another club is not irrelevant.  Feel free to argue that there have been no cases of different penalties for the same offence if you wish, but if there are such blatant cases, it is unjust. Nothing to do with personal responsibility (except that of the MRP and AFL staff who appear to have so little).

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!

7 minutes ago, Garbo said:

The hit was graded as intentional conduct with low impact to the head. I don't like that he won't be playing but I don't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that any of these are not the case.

No one should be raising the elbow as the run past so that's the intentional and he plainly got him to the head, the grading of low impact certainly isn't out of line with others this year

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't that. The fact remains though that Schofields was also intentional, low impact, and to the head. He wen't to the tribunal and was let off, we should do the same as Bernie's hit had no greater impact than Schofields. 

23 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It would be pretty hard to argue that his elbow was "insufficient force".

Just a dumb thing to do.

Had no greater impact than Schofields. I would actually argue a slight impact form the point of the elbow to the tip of jaw has greater impact than a glancing forearm across the cheek.

Appeal Appeal Appeal. Just bring up Schofield as precedent, they clearly authorised slight elbows to the head all of two weeks ago. This was on a par with Schofield to me, more contact but equally as severe (as in not very)

9 minutes 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

Hadn't watched that Jones one, how the hell did he get off for that! Had no interest in the ball and chose to bump the head instead. Put Hannon on his arse for a bit too!

16 minutes ago, Mac7 said:

I actually cant believe people think that bump is worthy or suspension. 100% going for the ball (and nearly got it) until the last split second. Not sure what you think he should have done!!??

Evaporate is clearly the best option. he gave away a 50 last week because he was a tiny bit late for the contest and couldn't evaporate into thin air and his momentum carried him into the player who took the mark as well. Really baffled what the AFl think the players should do. Maybe draws straws to see who gets the ball next!

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. 

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!

Expected it but am not happy dropping easy goals in the last. Get our missing player's back and we go very close to winning that. 

They are dropping and throwing at will at the minute

3 minutes ago, Diamond said:

Kent is not Mia. He kicked a goal and has done lots of good things.

Saw the goal but not much else. Have only seen the second quarter though

Only watched the second quarter, a few observations. The umps were very whistle happy the first half of the quarter. Vince's hit should only be a fine at worst, but it is Bernie so will be weeks. Wagner is playing well, JKH has been OK. Kent and Hogan are missing in action. Our structures are shot, we seriously miss Watts, Viney, Jones, Tyson, and Salem. 

7 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I would agree- it's very rare.

My post was aimed more at the general idea that there is weakness in being hurt by words.  Words are very hurtful to many.

Words are actually far more powerful than violence. I am sure there is a famous quote about this but I can't be bothered looking it up.

the quote came to me - 'the pen is mightier than the sword'

3 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

All the people here commenting on the weakness in society: you're tough, well adjusted and are fortunate, lucky and blessed with the personal skills and resilience to overcome obstacles.  Congratulations.

Many people are not so lucky.  

One of the biggest regrets of my life is going through school with zero understanding of the issues that the people around me were going through. Issues such as depression, abuse, Austrian Spectrum Disorder, etc.  You were 'normal' or you were 'weird'.  Weird kids were weird and there was no reason or excuse... they simply chose to act like that.

 

The idea that people used to be tougher is garbage; marginalised people were simply without a voice or ignored.  Do you honestly think that WW1 veterans were not suffering PTSD?? Was that something invented in a lefty-tree-hugging-feelgoodery in 1992?  These issues simply weren't talked about because they were considered shameful and 'weak'.

The solution to mental health issues in the  past was usually found at the bottom of a bottle, and in many cases it still is today.  Ridiculous that the notion of hurting someone's feeling is delegitimised and mocked still today.

Anyone who's been in the room with someone when they are triggered can tell you if is a frightening and heartbreaking thing to witness, yet every day the idea of being 'triggered' is mocked.

The OP is well meaning and reasonable.  It is not an attack on anyone, in fact it's quite the opposite.  Many of the responses however are lacking in empathy for those who are not as strong, resilient and, ultimately, lucky as you.

Congrats on inventing an entirely new disorder  Auto correct can be a bugger!

On the WW1 and 2 vets. We as a society are still paying for the harm caused to those men and women. How many came home broken and went on to abuse themselves and those around them through violence, alcohol abuse, withdrawal from society etc. This has filtered down through the generations and is still felt today. Had we as a society helped these men and women a little better (who absolutely had PTSD, shell shock is the most famous of the iterations at the time) then many of todays issues would be far less.I think the diggers would actually be the first to realise when someone is down and would do what they could to help, not to keep kicking like seems the fashion today!

1 minute ago, Demon77 said:

" Inappropriate relationships with younger women that work in the AFL industry."

Inappropriate full stop if you are married, regardless the age of the women.

Im not quite getting the " younger women."

 

 

Could be two things, firstly alluding to misuse of power, or alluding to 'these blokes have still got it!' (based on the boys club mentality of the AFL and the immaturity of those in head office I would be going with the boyish second option.)

Just now, DemonAndrew said:

It's about power discrepancy 

Was going to say the same, but that is actually only an issue if the power was used in some way. Nothing wrong with boss banging the receptionist, as long as both know where they stand and that it wont affect job prospects etc.

2 hours ago, Danelska said:

Some friday musings over a coffee or 4...

We bang on about mental health on here, yet numerous posters prefer to attack the man vs the content. Now I'm not coming from a holier than thou perspective, I am coming from a compassionate perspective and we've no idea really how someone feels when their attacked - even if their response would suggest they're cool with it.

Personally, I get quite upset (angry AND sad) when I see some posters critiquing others on here rather than the content. Would love a 3 strikes and you're banned for a bit rule.

 

I'm actually with you on this Danelska. I have very little time for personal barbs and attacks in arguments (unless in gest), all they do is destroy the credibility and argument of the person doing the attacking. Is a very large red flag for me that the person actually has little clue what they are talking about and no substance to their opinion. I am however all for vigorous discussions and arguments that are done in a non demeaning and factual manner, no one actually wins when someone is demeaned. 

I do wonder though if the internet has changed this. Prior to on line forums discussions were personal, the only means was through face to face, over the phone, or through snail mail. Face to face and over the phone are personal, there is the person on the other side, not just a randomly picked name of anonymity. I think this has let people be less civil as it is 'victimless' has zero repercussions, whereas face to face conversations are more civil as you end up with a gob full of fist if you rant on like people do on line. 

I read an interesting article the other day talking about how young people now have no idea how to behave in social interactions or face to face conversations and it is having a real impact on their chances of being employed as they don't know simple pleasantries for job interviews or even when in the job. An interesting juxtaposition for a generation that more access to people and information than ever before!

Gave you a like for the self deprecating bit on Tyson. You must not have been watching though, Jetta was massive all day!

1 hour ago, Webber said:

Anyone know how to break down free kicks quarter by quarter? Also, who said Watts will be back next week? I suspect he'll be 3 to 4 from the pre-swans training session aggravation (a re-tear), so will miss the next 2 at least. 

The cartoon big footy page has the stats quarter by quarter as the first or second post

Now I'm just waiting for joeboy to have a crack at Tyson in his the word summary!

Duck these pathetic umpires. Duck our player's too

[censored] kreuzer getting another gift

Umpire clearly called the player on the mark back a meter, playing didn't move, umpire just stood there then called 50. Then turns over and goal to them. F ing pricks!

Kreuzer clearly umpire favourite. Can Shepard people and be shepherded and gets a free both ways. F ing joke

What th actual duck is going on! Absolute [censored] frees just handed them a goal. This needs an official complaint already.