Akum

Yeah, cos nobody remembers Helen D'Amico

Yeah, you're right. Nobody thinks he's a stager any more, because "just moving on" worked so well the last time.

Yeah but don't worry, "let's move on"

Yes, but again the club hasn't stood up for him so again nobody will believe him. Maybe, again, the club doesn't believe him. That's one comment I heard post-Schofield - "even the club doesn't believe he didn't dive, because they don't want to back him up."

Like others in this thread, missed the point entirely. Clarrie lost his bottle because of being manhandled by a spectator, not because of what he said. Can you recall any other player being pushed by a spectator during the game? Would love, incidentally, to have seen what Lewis would have done in the same situation. Turned the other cheek? Not.

It certainly won't set a precedent, because if this happens to a player from any other club, their club will be all over it like a rash before the dust settles. It will, however, make it more likely that it will happen again.

Come on Wiseblood, this is garbage. A number of times this year, the club has absolutely squibbed it in standing up for its players. This is by far the worst example,unless we're going to pay the moron compensation and take it out of Clarrie's match payments. For the second time in a few weeks, they've completely hung Clarrie out to dry without a peep. It's out and out pathetic. Player pushed towards the fence gets shoved by a spectator. And that's OK? Every other club in the AFL - in fact, every sporting club in Australia - wouldn't tolerate their player being manhandled by a spectator in the course of the game.

Time for the MFC to show some backbone as a club and stand up for the player in public, in the same way that they expect the players to stand up for the club. The moron clearly touched Clarrie, and used foul language to abuse a teenager whose only crime was to play for the other team. Everything about this is unacceptable. If what is recorded is true, Clarrie was prepared to take the abuse, but was took exception at being manhandled by a spectator, as he had every right to do. As, I'd hope, would every other player in a similar situation. The club should make this about the right of players to not be manhandled. If this happened at any other club, they would have already made it an issue about the spectator, first thing this morning. But, as before, the club is choosing to let the story run away from them, and they've let it become about Clarrie, not about the spectator. Unfortunately, past experience says that the most likely outcome is that the club will meekly capitulate like it has on every other occasion this year, and hang the player out to dry. We have been absolutely dreadful at dealing with this sort of thing this year, every single time.

MCG 160 x 141m TIO 175 x 135m. By comparison, Subi 176 x 122m. TIO is quite a big ground.

... and a lump to the throat.

They need to get the best players back in their natural positions. T-Mac & Hunt back. And we're getting killed around the packs. They've tried to put Swans off by putting players in unexpected positions, but it's messed us up more than them.

For that matter, when is the last time we went undefeated through the whole of June? Would it be right to say we haven't won many matches in June for the past 10 years or so?

I think it was when he made metres and jumped high over Bayley Dale to stop him from taking an easy mark in their forward pocket a lot later in the game. That was an incredible effort and he stayed down for quite a while afterwards. I think he came off soon after that.

You can be sure that Swans will be lining up to have a crack at Viney's shoulder. Do you think they'd be stupid enough to let us get away with the Lin Jong trick in last year's VFL GF?

Interesting that quite a few players seem to have been trying out different positions at training. Would be fair enough if we're more concerned about this opposition, & about who's going to miss through injury against this opposition & who's going to have to carry injuries into this game. Perhaps we're thinking ahead & anticipating changes we might need to make during the game, & trying them out to see which changes might come off & which changes probably won't. For example, if we can't stop the Swans getting it out of defence and attacking off their HB too easily, would it help us or hinder us to switch Hunt forward? If Buddy looks like getting hold of O-Mac or Frost, would it be better or worse to switch O-Mac forward and T-Mac back? If Viney's shoulder gets a few hard hits early, which of the "Kens" is most likely to be able to come off the HFF to give us what we need on the ball to allow Viney to play more minutes on HFF? You'd think they'd want some idea of what options there are and what options there aren't, because in this game it's much more likely that we'll have to swing a few players around and play them in unfamiliar positions. My take against the Swans is that they may well get us if we do what they're expecting, but we're a better chance if we can do the unexpected and it comes off.

Better than nothing,k but a bit "too-little-too-late". We need to do what every other club does and get on the front foot, instead of waiting so long. One wonders that if we'd had a "club comes out strong & defends Oliver against accusations of staging" headline on Monday instead of Wednesday, it might have had more effect. WCE were certainly on the front foot as soon as possible.

Best post on this whole issue. Unfortunately, it's also the least likely to happen. The AFL seems to prefer leaving things so that they can be manipulated.

Schofield did knock over Melksham a second or two late when he marked and got his goal. That's what he seems to be in the team for, he's no good at anything else. An elbow to the face is just a normal day at the office.

Has anybody on D'land got anything on Georgie Pell? He's pretty good when it comes to avoiding responsibility.

... especially if clubs can so easily intimidate them by bringing in the QC. It's ridiculous that only one party to the incident gets to present evidence too.

And should the club have contested it? Meekly backing down every time has done us absolutely no good so far. Clubs that have stood up for their players have been rewarded. Seems we either didn't see the possibility that this might happen, or we did & decided not to do anything.

Because it was intentional, not "negligent". Hard to seriously argue otherwise - he intended to hit him in the head.

And will the AFL have the guts to charge Clarrie with staging? If those of you who are happy that Schofield got off are right, the implication is that the whole incident was nothing but an acting performance by Clarrie that nearly got an innocent party suspended. Shouldn't Clarrie go for that? Or would that expose this farce for what it really is, so we sweep it under the carpet.

Yep. Wouldn't have done it if it were Viney. Would this still be OK if it was Brayshaw who copped this hit?

Surely the only logical course of action now would be for the MRP to charge Clarrie with staging or diving. If the force is now universally agreed to be insufficient, what was Clarrie trying to achieve by going to ground? He nearly got a poor innocent party cruelly suspended. How would his lame excuse of "I was caught by surprise" stand up under cross-examination by a QC? Or do we now just "move on" and sweep this under the carpet?