sue

Obviously we are a bit short on data about the Darwin issue, so I don't know how you can dismiss it OD. Sure Port faught back as did Geelong, but perhaps it is not a coincidence that the 2 sides that played in Darwin didn't run away with an easy win. If players really do lose several kilos playing there it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it has an effect. Good side don't always win for all sorts of reasons. Merely stating good sides always win is not a king-hit to the concern about Darwin.

What about their fade out in Q4?

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.

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

ProdDee, I think most of us agree with you about this. I don't see a conspiracy theory against the MFC as such when MFC players are treated differently than those from other clubs. I expect if we had Brownlow medal contenders and had won 5 recent flags and a large membership and viewing base we'd get the 'good' treatment from the AFL too. The conspiracy is not against the MFC, it is a conspiracy in favour of money at the expense of justice. That doesn't make us addle-pated, it makes us angry.

The difference between your post and mine is that you stated something as a fact unsupported by evidence. I merely pointed that out and said "I bet... <the opposite>" There is a difference. I agree that WA etc teams have the worst draw in terms of travel. Somewhat balanced by having a real home ground advantage which many Vic teams don't have anymore. The fact that there will never be a 100% fair draw is no reason not to push for a fairer draw for our club.

Oh yes I would. Almost every week we see evidence of its inconsitency and corrpution, regardless of any MFC player being involved.

true, but what can anyone say about the injury list beyond aaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!

um, maybe they aren't all the same people.

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.

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'.

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

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.

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).

Alternatively you could argue that we have a much better chance of beating North (history aside) and should do all we can to bank that win rather than think we have a sufficiently greater chance of beating GWS with Vince in. Couple that with finally taking a stand against the MRP, I'm hot-headed enough to want to appeal. That said, I agree with all those who say Bernie is an idiot, has let the team down etc. What I don't agree with is the inconsistency of the MRP, and I'm not basing that on the outcomes of any particular week. Sure, put the boot into Bernie, but that's not a reason to not put a boot into the MRP.

on that logic, may as well appeal and have him rubbed out for all 3.

If that's true, I must revise my accusation that the MRP is insane. It is totally corrupt. The AFL sickens me. Let me count the ways...

Must appeal. Time to stop bending over to the AFL and its insane MRP.

Never been in a minority group hated by members of the mainstream population I assume.

Also the claim the Eagles supporters didn't whinge about their 6 day breaks is unsupported by evidence. I bet they whinged like mad. In an even professional competition every little bit you do to get an advantage is worth doing. And likelwise every little obstacle that is thrown in your way is going to make things harder. To take the hairy-chested attitude that some posters do and dismiss bad or unfair draws as a factor is just silly. While Goodwin wisely doesn't grumble about the draw, I bet he'd prefer a better 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.

How?

I love the way you assume nothing ever improves. I'd say the situation where there is an imbalance of power is better today than it was 20 years ago and a damn sight better than in the middle ages - or do you regret the passing of droit du seigneur? All that damn political correctness.

And that idiot apologist for the EFC on the ABC RN morning program said this morning that Hird's greatest crime was that he took on the powers that be (possibly not verbatim - similar words). How can Hird ever come to terms with what he did and show remorse (so that we can forgive him) when the AFL does this.

Eternity? Eternity seems to be a lot shorter than when I was a lad. It's only been a few years since Hird was not only central to this embarrasing business but dragged it out pointlessly. If you don't "ostracise" for a significant time but instead glorify the villain shortly afterwards, what message does that send? How about forgiveness in 20 years or at least after a confession. I don't see how this raises the awareness about doping except in exactly the wrong direction. Ditto for governance. The AFL should not trash its brand in order to help someone who has mental health problems. The AFL cannot right all the wrongs in the world nor help all those in distress, but it can keep its nose clean at least. It's just occurred to me that chookrat must have been being ironic. So what if he was a great player - makes it all the worse in my view. It has been said that the AFL was merely following precedent, it was simply Hird's turn. Well an organization as 'flexible' as the AFL could easily find a new formula for who hands out the medal, eg announce from now on the most recent or oldest hall of fame person does it or whatever. Of course that would raise eyebrows that it was a slur on Hird - might also show the AFL as [censored] off about what Essendon did to the reputation of our game.