Akum

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

who is going to remember Acquaro from Vero after his 15 minutes

Just another Carlton To$$er

after his second Brownlow all will remember Oliver move on take deep breaths and maintain the complete distain for all things CarltonWhat a bunch of soft C0%&

Yeah, cos nobody remembers Helen D'Amico

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

This will be forgotten in 24 hours.  Oliver has already moved on by the look of it, and so should we.

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

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

I think it was afl tonight. They were talking about Crippps being injured. The footage shown  was when Hunt kicked someone I think Cripps in the back of the leg when going for ball. They said it was Clayton Oliver and the next segment was the incident on the boundary with you know who again.

 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/scans-reveal-fractured-fibula-for-patrick-cripps-carlton-onballer-to-miss-rest-of-2017-afl-season/news-story/261f59f2d2c0be60ef486ffa0bb4e971

 

They stuffed up said it was Oliver instead of HUnt.

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

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

clarry on tv interview tonight ch9 denied that he had threatened to kill........take what you will

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."

1 hour ago, dees189227 said:

melbourne just probably aplogised so the story is finished. Clayton probably wanted to apoligise or the club said to, for what he said. AFL arent doing anymore. Lets move on. 

But gee if every player reacted to what was said about them in the crowd then there would be confrontations every week. Lewis was right. Just got to ignore it. 

I just hope we can get through this week against the crows without any incidents. 

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.

2 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Sorry but I still dont see how you can lay your hands on a player.....yeah lets move on, but I hope this isnt setting a precedent for another incident some day in the future to another player.

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.

2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

You are very easily disappointed.  Regardless of what was said, Clarry doesn't need to bite back.  The AFL may well have asked the club to apologise, which they did, and now we move on.  Why we need to be upset about it is beyond me.

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.

14 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

Playing TIO Stadium, small ground, no way we play 4 talls.

IN: Watts, Tyson

OUT: Stretch, Pederson

Could easily replace Kent with BenKen.

MCG 160 x 141m

TIO 175 x 135m.

By comparison, Subi 176 x 122m.

TIO is quite a big ground.

50 minutes ago, Biffen said:

they're battling away like little ,brave ,honest losers.

Brings a tear to me eye.

... 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.

49 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I apologise if this has been discussed on another thread, but is it correct that if we win tonight we will be the first team in AFL/VFL history to win four games in 18 days?

Note: That's what I'm sure I heard, although technically today is the 19th day since we played - and won - on 12 June

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?

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I think Jones' quad was done in the incident where he smothered Lin Jong and his leg collided with Jong's knee. He tried playing out the game and came off late. No idea if thats correct but watched him closely after that collision and he was sore.

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. 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Goodwin has vehemently defended our medical team and "To suggest that it was (described as) forceful enough to knock him over from our medical team was factually incorrect."  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-28/he-doesnt-lie-dees-leap-to-olivers-defence

He has also defended Clarrie "One thing I do know about Clayton is he's a tough customer and he doesn't lie,"

Very diplomatic of Goodwin on Tribunal decision: "Goodwin declined to comment on the Tribunal's decision but said 19-year-old Oliver was not a dishonest person".

The club has now officially defended Clarrie and our medical team which, is what I was hoping for.  Nothing to do now but accept the umpire's (Tribunal) decision and move on.

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.

9 hours ago, dpositive said:

Well have negotiated all the commentary on this thread and agree that logic or consistency can hardly be expected of the tribunal when there is conflict among ourselves as supporters.

i was impressed with the argument that this decision impacts on all demon players and supporters equally and agree.

On that basis we are all divers and whingers.

This is not correct.

We must now state that we are disappointed that the umpire who made the report was not supported by the tribunal. We regret that the tribunal appears to have ignored the AFL CEO statements that blows to the head are not a part of our game. We also regret that our medical officers opinion was not respected by the tribunal members and no alternative medical opinion was offered. The West coast player indicated intention and his thrusting action revealed on replay supports that.

We will advise our players to retain their mouth guards in their mouths until they are in the rooms to decrease any impacts from unexpected intentional or unintentional contact with the jaw.

We are concerned that with a player already experiencing multiple concussion that a future incident may have a more significant outcome and seek the AFL support in ensuring that any blow to the head intentional or unintentional is penalised immediately on the field and with reference to an independent medical officer at the next break, after match review of available video evidence by the tribunal with an automatic 1 week suspension increasing on the recommendation of the officiating umpire and medical officer if deemed intentional.

Any player intentionally contributing to an exacerbation of an intentional or unintentional blow shall be fined a proportion of match payments and if not supported by medical officers report, or video evidence of contributing or extenuating circumstances may also be suspended automatically for 1 week.

 

This allows for consideration of player ducking into a tackle or falling over in delay due to surprise having reasons analysed by independent medical officer. But given that tha tribunal is supposedly independent and seem to be able to ignore the CEO comments it's probably just a waste of time.

We have more legally qualified people than me on this thread and I would definitely concur with their advice. But boy it does give me the shots that we seem to be shafted again. No good can come of the current situation.

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.

36 minutes ago, Jaded said:

No time for social media when you are too busy crafting your fine skills of 3 possessions a game. 

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.

2 hours ago, poita said:

...

3. If a random Melbourne player KOs Lance Franklin in the opening minute on Friday night, who can we call as a character witness to get him a reduced sentence? The Dalai Lama? The ghost of Mother Teresa? Tom Cruise?

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

2 hours ago, loges said:

MRP have shown they are a totally inadequate body to be hearing these cases, favour name players and big clubs. Two wrong decisions in the one night. They should be dismantled and replaced with something else.

... 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.

2 hours ago, SFebey said:

How long did Salem get for his forearm push?

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.

2 hours ago, Pates said:

I was just thinking that that was how I assessed it. Going by their system it was negligent contact (1 point), low impact as Oliver was on his feet straight away (1), and to the head (2). I believe that would come to about 100pts with gets downgraded with a fine for an early plea.

How did they come to 2 matches down to 1?

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.

4 minutes ago, Pates said:

If it were Viney Schofield wouldn't be alive right now. If Jack didn't get him then he would've laid the mother of all tackles on him later in the game!

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?