Lucifers Hero

The MRP strikes back! http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-28/mrp-member-queries-houli-good-bloke-defence Nathan Burke: "MATCH Review Panel member Nathan Burke has criticised the use of character references from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and media personality and academic Waleed Aly in Bachar Houli's defence ...If somebody goes in next week and does exactly the same thing, but doesn't know Waleed Aly, doesn't know the Prime Minister, does that mean they get three or four weeks?" As Daniel Harford notes - discount for good behaviour is one thing but wheeling in the big names in town is another. The Age also takes issue with this: "Turnbull and Aly offered such strong character references for Houli it prompted the AFL tribunal to abandon normal thinking and cut his sentence" "Woods reasonably extrapolated from the punishment schedule that if an offence of intentional, to the head and medium impact was three weeks then an offence worse than that must begin at four weeks and slide upwards depending on the circumstances. It was not envisaged it would slide down". "Indeed it was the same penalty a player would get if they didn't take the MRP's offer of a plea and instead challenged a light brush to the jaw from a deliberately thrown elbow and lost. That's right: someone like Will Schofield going to the tribunal and losing". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bachar-houli-its-absurd-that-a-prime-minister-got-a-footy-players-suspension-cut-20170627-gwzxjy.html The Tribunal has made a rod for the MRP's back. Anything goes now! Anyway, it is good to see some outrage on this issue - may take some heat off Clarrie.

Not guilty! Now watch the media hyena pack go to town on Clarry. Facts irrelevant. Sickening!!

My recollection of the vision is that was before Schofield hit Oliver not after. After, Oliver lay on the ground while everyone else was in a melee. Grrrr! Why don't they look at the vision while Grace, QC is saying this - he is wrong!!

That newspaper report is a deliberate change of the words Oliver used in the post game Ch7 interview. I am appalled a QC would use that and not show the actual vision of the interview. But, the Tribunal works on balance of probabilities. So Grace Qc, has cast doubt on: what the umpire saw, when Oliver was hit the relevance of the medical report because he asserted there was no diagnosis by the doctor. Uses a twisted newspaper report rather than the actual vision. uses the sequence of events incorrectly Grace QC has probably succeed in casting sufficient doubt on the balance of probabilities. Schofield will get off.

Now Grace QC is saying Oliver hurt his face when he struck Schofield's spine and the MFC medical report was based on Oliver' self reporting rather than a 'diagnosis by the doctor'. Therefore medical report should be ignored...#fakelogic

"David Grace QC said Rosebury's eyes aren't looking at the incident, based on the photo. Rosebury said he was looking. Grace is trying to show the jury his phone. Grace has now presented his phone to the jury so they can see the phone". You would think a lawyer would have the photos printed out to a reasonable size and put on a screen rather than a phone of a few inches which has to be handed from one tribunal member to another. Very cunning by lawyer!

Follow proceedings here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-27/live-houli-schofield-front-the-afl-tribunal Can't see how Schofield can plead not guilty to striking when his lawyer agrees it was intentional and high contact (but negligible force).

I doubt it. The nearest umpire said he thought it was 'careless'. And, I doubt the AFL would want one of its multicultural ambassador's out for too long.

Houli hit found to be intentional! Now the penalty is to be determined. AFL wants 4 weeks, Defence wants 2. Defence relays character witnesses comments: The Prime Minister says Houli is a great guy. Waleed Aly comment apparently were he is a great guy "in the face of racial abuse, which Aly has seen time and time again." No evidence of the racial abuse appears to have been provided. I think the Aly reference was a general comment not related to the Lamb incident or the game on Sunday. Houli gets 2 weeks. Am really surprised his defence played the 'nice guy who has to put up with racial abuse' card. I thought we were past that. Maybe the Tribunal is in a lenient mood. Wouldn't be surprised if Schofield found to be intentional and get the original 1 week.

It has now dc 41,284 slow increase but increase nonetheless!

Provocative - Clarrie is playing with fire! He should quit while he is ahead! David Neitz is on the Tribunal so no fear of it being a kangaroo court staged by the AFL.

As of this year the AFL does for Etihad tenants. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-etihad-stadium-bonuses-for-clubs-20170330-gvaewt.html Not fair in my book. Its not as if Carlton and Essendon or even the Bulldogs need an extra recurring money leg up given they are running record memberships.

Dynamic pricing doesn't really work when there is a low chance of a sell out. It works when Demand is greater than the Supply so they can increase the price and the tickets will still sell. Those that raise prices when that isn't the case have low(er) attendances as my post above has highlighted.

He can't challenge on 'Deliberate' as the umpire who reported him was right there. It was graded 'low impact' so he must be wanting to argue it should have been graded 'insufficient force'. This means calling into question the MFC's doctor reports. That is a slippery slope if the Tribunal overturns the MRP on that. This may be a long bow but I'm beginning to think that all this halabaloo is to unsettle us and we lose a game or two. After all the likes of WCE, and Commentators that are just fan boys for their ex teams have a lot to gain from us dropping a game or two - they are all contenders for the 8!

That is why the recent Nth vs Sk game had only 26,000 and StK had 15,000 at the weekend. Their members won't pay the extra so voted with their feet! And rightly so!

Its somewhat of a dubious honour as 'dynamic pricing' is used when they expect a full house. Which we never do at Home games. We don't have enough supporters to fill the G and the Home games we play there are vs interstate teams or Etihad tenants with low members (Nth. StK. WB) so our Home game attendance is low. I suspect if mfc had the opportunity to use 'dynamic pricing' we would as we can ill afford to give up extra revenue. Having said that, what Essendon did to increase the price of ANZAC day tickets by over 40% was blatant exploitation of footy goers. Completely unethical especially in light of the occassion on which the game is held.

Looks like Eagles may appeal the 1 week for Schofield. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/eagles-consider-challenging-schofield-ban That is their right but I don't like these comments from Simpson. "I just hope Clayton's OK. I hope he made the flight back," a tongue-in-cheek Simpson told 6PR". "We can't dispute the medical report. Also, I'm one of the people who can't comment on it either, so we'll let it run its course and we'll get on with it. Is he doubting the mfc doctor's report? He also said: "All the commentary around it, you sort of accept it from media outlets, but when players get involved it's probably another issue that we've got to look into". Have any current players commented on Oliver reaction? Or is Simpson grandstanding a bit. I think it is one thing for commentators to say Oliver embellished the impact but it is another thing to not accept his post game explanation, effectively saying he lied. This is becoming quite unpleasant. More so when the coach takes up the narrative instead.

I have no particular knowledge of how many concussions it takes for a club to be really cautious with a young player. But it must put a lot of pressure on the player to keep playing when the coach (Richardson) says: "Paddy would've played this week if he had have pulled up well but the reality is he's still a little bit off and so he won't play this week," http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/six-and-out-for-concussed-st-kilda-forward-mccartin The kid has had 6 concussions in a 2 years. I hope the AFL doctor's monitor this sort of stuff. I can't help compare how mfc is going about an almost identical situation with Gus. We pulled him out altogether and told him to take his time physically and psychologically. Every week Misson says he is coming along fine but there is no time frame for his return. If I was a parent i know which club I would want my son at

Quote: "...Friday night will be like Roos watching his sons, Dylan and Tyler, playing against each other...When you go to any footy club you make emotional attachments,” Roos said. ... Now I’m very attached to Melbourne. The lack of success is part of it and I’m sympathetic to their plight. It’s exciting for Melbourne, they’ve been kicked for so long. I’m happy for Jack Watts and Nathan Jones and Max Gawn. I’m going for the Demons.” I think he bleeds red and blue!

Goodwin said it will be great to 'see a smile on Jesse's face again' when he returns to play. Clearly, Jesse is itching to get on the park again Friday night is already a huge game. Having Jesse back will make it even bigger!

Not all good news dc - he said Jonesy out for another 5 weeks! That means a return of round 21. But Jonesy being as tough as he is, will be doing his best to get back much earlier!

It seems our doctors may have come to the party! http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/richmond-defender-bachar-houli-referred-directly-to-the-tribunal-for-jed-lamb-hit-20170626-gwyqyy.html "...vision of Schofield making contact with Oliver's jaw, combined with the strong medical report from the Demons, led the MRP to deem the strike as intentional with low impact to the head... The decision to sanction Schofield by definition rules out any possibility for the MRP to claim that Oliver was staging." At last the MRP see sense!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-26/mrp-houli-straight-to-tribunal-eagle-banned-for-oliver-hit The Carlton doctors strike again: "RICHMOND defender Bachar Houli has been sent straight to the Tribunal for his strike on Carlton's Jed Lamb after the Match Review Panel graded the hit as intentional and high impact...with a medical report from Carlton crucial in the finding against the Tigers defender". The hit on Lamb looked pretty serious so the MRP probably reached the right decision. But can't help feel that the Carlton medical reports in this case and those on Hogan and Lewis are sending a message that any opp player that dares touch a blue boy will find themselves out on a limb.

Schofield gets 2 down to 1. Deemed intentional. The right call IMV. So rubbish to all the media who tried to make it a Clayton story!

That may be so but that still image in an AFL article is what the wider public sees, not the video and easily misinterpreted as I did. True, but replays usually sow the actual time/quarter. Overall, I didn't like it. Ch 7 have form - they edited their post game telecast of the Sydney rooms last Friday night to portray them as being uncooperative and disruptive. https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/swans-hit-back-at-roaming-bt-spray-following-friday-night-controversy-ng-b88517428z Ch7 have their agendas and their favourite teams. We aren't on that list.