Akum

No, the only logical extension is Clarrie getting charged for staging. The MRP have a watertight case, now the hit has been judged as insignificant. And part of me hopes that the media goads them into doing it. Just to emphasise the farcical nature of the whole thing.

Yeah, don't mind being disliked, it's the young players being targeted off the ball that I don't like. No question as far as I'm concerned that Clarrie's being targeted in basically an anything-goes fashion. Would Schofield have got his elbow up if it had been Lewis or Vince or Viney?

Again, good on ya mate. Even Schofield himself didn't argue that it wasn't intentional. But unlike him you think it wasn't, and you're prepared to argue that on his behalf. He wasn't prepared to argue that he "tried to hit him high on the chest, as they all do". He argued insufficient force. And you say he made "tiny" contact with Oliver's chin. Our doctor disagrees. The ump standing a metre or two away disagrees. And you're just plain wrong if you think this sort of thing happens all the time every game. It just doesn't. You look at red and see green. Pushing and shoving yes. But not elbowing in faces. And sorry, even if Clarrie hit a no-name like Schofield, I'd be disgusted in him and would be absolutely amazed if he got let off. Hitting someone in the face with an elbow unprovoked when they're not expecting it is something that shouldn't happen, no matter who gets hit and who does the hitting. It has nothing to do with it being a Dees player who got hit. However, it does matter to me that a Dees player who's one of the best and toughest I've ever seen will now be labelled a stager - totally unfairly in my opinion - and won't be able to do a thing about it. Seems you're OK with that.

One way in which the MRP and Tribunal have been absolutely consistent and that's that our player has ended up on the wrong side almost every time. Those that hit them have got off, and any of our players charged have received heavy penalties compared to players from other clubs (Cotchin, Fyfe, Selwood et al). Clarrie and others will be targeted the rest of the season.

Good on ya mate. Just keep sticking up for the other clubs. Poor old Schofield. You think our doc's a liar too? And it doesn't bother you that the QC was scrabbling around for an argument, none of which really stuck. In two cases, the Tribunal was intimidated by the silk.

Club's been weak as p*** so far. Which is why our players have had by far the worst MRP outcomes this season. We are unique in not standing up for our players.

Yep, we knew, but we were too gutless to stand up for him then and too gutless to stand up for Clarrie now. Like some of the so-called supporters on this forum, we've sat back and allowed Clarrie to be thrown to the wolves. One day I'd love us to stand up for our players in public half as much as other clubs stand up for theirs.

No he won't. He's as gutless as the rest of them when it comes to the club sticking up for its players.

I reckon it all depends on the Tribunal being able to find a BS explanation for why Clarrie got hit but it was of insufficient force. A "BS explanation" means that it doesn't have to be true or honest or anything silly like that, it just has to be remotely plausible. They'll find a way to get this dog off. After all, it's worth sacrificing the Tribunal's integrity to let off such a valuable player who got 3 effective disposals for the whole match and assaulted a kid at half time.

If Shuey had just done a toe-poke to get it clear he might have got away with it. I think they were targeting Clarrie all game, and Shuey saw it was him & took an unnecessarily huge swing at the ball thinking he'd get away with it. Of course Clarrie totally staged it by waving his hand in the air as if he'd lost all his fingers

Would if he had the same idiotic point of view as Garry Lyin'

The doctor's report could only have provided definite evidence that there had been forceful contact, seeing as how that issue had been called into question. There was definite evidence of an impact (tenderness, perhaps bleeding) so the doctor correctly reported only what there was evidence for. It was this that established that it was Schofield, not Oliver, who had a case to answer. If the doctor's report had gone beyond what there was objective evidence for and exaggerated the "consequences" (or tried something on like "delayed concussion"), it would surely have been graded "medium impact", not "low impact". Many have been lead astray by it being portrayed as a "strong medical report" - it was only "strong" in the sense of "definite", not in the sense of "overplayed". If WCE succeed in getting the Tribunal to take the word of the perpetrator that it was "insufficient force" over that of the doctor saying that there was objective evidence that forceful contact was made (not to mention the umpire standing within a metre or two), we are in entirely new legal territory. Questions: Is it only WCE who are allowed to call witnesses? Or can we call witnesses on Clarrie's behalf? Will the umpire who reported him be able to give evidence? Must admit, I'm concerned that WCE would only have appealed if they had been given an assurance that they would succeed. And if they do succeed, the implication is that it's now Oliver who has a case to answer. I know our preference is to avoid ruffling feathers at all costs, but MFC can't afford to go gently on this. Again, we're being done over in the media and at risk of being done over by the Tribunal because unlike other clubs we resolutely refuse to stand up in public on behalf of our players. MFC needs to stand up publicly on Clarrie's behalf.

It was an out-and-out throat punch. That was the round straight after the Cotchin thing, where Scott showed in the presser after the game that any jumper punches, throat punches and gut punches that his players managed to hit ours with were all OK because the AFL had now allowed them. And he was right - they got away with all of them. It was the hit on Clarrie, that wasn't even cited, that started the aggro in that game. You seriously think that was a stage? That Clarrie sucked in not only us supporters, but all of his teammates as well, resulting in one of them being suspended for the lowest-impact hit of the whole match? So Salem got suspended for hitting Higgins just because Clarrie staged the whole thing and sucked him in???? Or do you think it's more likely that our 19 year old midfield star-in-the-making is being targeted by weak and unscrupulous teams who think they should be allowed to get away with it?

Hearing some fantastic things on KB's program - "fantastic" in the sense of absolute fantasy - from callers this morning. Or if true, there were a lot of things that everybody's missed, except for the exalted few with "incredible" (in the sense of "unbelievable") vision. However, now they've been brought to our attention, it seems a lot of idiots (sorry, should have put "people") are seeing things that they'd missed before. I didn't know, for example, that Oliver "whacked Shuey in the guts" just beforehand, which totally justified whatever the heroic Schofield did to try valiantly to protect his poor teammate. I thought that Clarrie just pushed Shuey in the chest, with not much force, and Shuey didn't think it was even worth pushing him back. I also didn't realise that Oliver waited "a full three seconds" before heading for the ground. I thought that only happened if you were stupid enough to take the slowed-down version as what happened at actual speed. And we're probably all surprised that Schofield was apparently merely trying to push Clarrie gently away with his forearm, but that he misjudged and his elbow just softly caressed Clarrie's chin. The biggest problem is that both KB & Michael Gleeson were too gutless to hold these callers to account.

Eerily clairvoyant!

I think, as the frees were 11-11 at half time, the point is not the 27-16 full-game count, but the 16-5 second-half count. Lopsided free counts never create a PR problem for the AFL, so it doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest. Neither, it seems, does an intentional elbow to the face.

Loving this, aren't you? Going after a 19-year-old like Sookfield did. Claiming he has a "history of staging", then when you're asked to clarify, "I don't know, I didn't sit him down for an interview". Perhaps what you mean is the time he got bumped face-on by Rioli in his first year. Or clotheslined by Higgins against Norf in the first 10 minutes of the match this year, which hit set the scene for all the stuff that followed, and which was said to be low impact because it was "just a throat punch". You for some reason feel the need to defend these three old stagers going after a stellar player at the start of his career. I can't recall any other being openly targetted in this way so early in his career. Can you? Hint - you don't have to sit anyone down for an interview to answer this. You need to take a good hard look. Or just keep fanning the fire. You seem to pushing hard for him to get this reputation. And if one of our players did the same thing, I'd be equally disgusted, as would most of us. Having said that, if Schofield doesn't go for at least 2 weeks, like Hogan did & like Lewis did (notwithstanding extra week for Lewis's bad record), I'd say he's got off incredibly easy.

Lewis got 4 down to 3 for Cripps, an extra week for bad record. Hogan got 3 down to 2 for Rowe, and we are now much better informed about Hogan's state of mind at the time. Rowe played out the match with no problem and starred the next week.

Let's stop focussing on Clarrie. Let's have a closer look at the sniper who hit him. Will Schofield. Stats for the game 3 kicks & 3 HB, DE a mighty 50%. He only had 3 effective possessions the whole game. This is the quality of this terd. Clarrie pushes poor lil' Shuey in the chest. Sookfield sees no umpire in his line of vision, Clarrie is wide open and not expecting to have to defend a head-hit so he snipes him flush on the chin. "Tough guy" who's having a s*** game snipes a 19 year old kid because he thinks he'll get away with it. Or perhaps because he knows that it you hit someone, the focus immediately turns away from you on to whether the guy you hit staged or not. Gets reported instantly by an umpire standing 2 or 3 metres away over his right shoulder who had an unobstructed view of the front-on hit. By far the most cowardly and low an act that I can remember seeing in a sports competition. If Clarrie was in a situation where he expected that a snipe might come (which is what makes it a snipe rather than a fair hit) he probably could have ridden the hit to some extent. But he was wide open. If Hogan got 3 down to 2 for the hit on Rowe, Sookfield should get at least that. But by far the worst part is the idiots on this site who want to say that the 19 year old staged what was only glancing blow. Just pathetic.

Great that someone picks this up!! MCG 160 x 141m Subi 176 x 122m - 16m longer but 19m narrower Etihad (for comparison) 159 x 129m. Subi is only "faster" if an attack "gets out the back". WCE know that if they are able to move the ball well through the relatively congested corridor, their forwards can anticipate and run forward EARLY knowing they've got extra space to play with. For the same reason, Subi really punishes midfield turnovers. The ball is therefore harder to get through or move out of the corridor and the middle of the ground, but when you do, the rewards are greater. Whether it's faster or not depends on how you play it, and whether we're aware of how the opposition play it.

Salem just caressed it an effortless 55m for his goal, with hardly any follow-through to speak of.

Must admit when I first saw it without context it looked a bit OTT. Although Watts's odd "stareyface" look made me wonder if it was a joke rather than a threat. But it certainly sucked in JJ's teammates. They would have done better to have just ignored it, but they turned it into a massive distraction, and it had a far greater effect than it should have. By the way, in the lead up play to the "double goal", Wood dropped an unopposed mark, and Bugg then tapped it on to the player running past which resulted in the goal. He had every right to give it to Wood after it, and Wood's reaction was ridiculous.

Jack Watts has 4 tackles to half time. Did anyone notice the earth shift off its axis?

The pretenders will one by one fall by the wayside. The thing is, we've got to keep on winning while they do. Or we'll fall with them.

Great post binman, I just wanted to highlight this bit. We were sitting up the end of this goal (so of course got a great view of Jack's winning goal). This passage of play was a great effort by Oscar, and looked a lot better live than it does on the replay, because if he'd stuffed up once out of about 4 separate efforts in a few seconds, it would have cost a goal. He got the spoil against Moore I think, but then had to make two or three groundball efforts to keep it away from opponents, and then just as he disposed of it effectively, he was infringed and got the free. He was seriously outnumbered for some reason, under great pressure, and it was just a very very good piece of defending that any top KPB would have been proud of.