View Full Version : fevs booking?
saint13
16 Apr 2006, 20:42
opinions on fevs booking, when i was at the game i thought F**k he's in trouble, but after viewing it again today im not so sure, thoughts?
one camera angle looks fine but the other doesn't look quite as good. forget which one it is. i think he might get off.
blues4flag
16 Apr 2006, 21:30
Not worried, think he'll get off.
Cassius_Clay
16 Apr 2006, 22:34
He'll get off. No head contact.
He'll get off. No head contact.
;)
Wonder whether you would have said that before last week;)
He didn't hit the Demon's player in the head and he was going for the ball. Just be given a slap on the wrist.
He didn't hit the Demon's player in the head and he was going for the ball. Just be given a slap on the wrist.:confused:
:confused:
You know what I meant. Still thinking about the Crows Melbourne match this arvo.
You know what I meant. Still thinking about the Crows Melbourne match this arvo.sorry mate i honestly didn't know what you meant. i was trying to think back if fev did something wrong against the dees in rd.1.
Soft report, Fev should be cleared.
Corrosion
16 Apr 2006, 23:35
He shouldn't be suspended. If Medhurst can get off, Fevola can, as Medhurst actually made contact to the head area, recklessly.
Fev hit Kirk in the chest with his hands, and Kirk kept his head ducked. Common sense should prevail.
. Common sense should prevail. we are talking about the afl tribuneral here.:rolleyes:
saint13
16 Apr 2006, 23:55
we are talking about the afl tribuneral here.:rolleyes:
thats what concerns me, and lets face it, the big fellas record isnt flash:(
Corrosion
16 Apr 2006, 23:55
we are talking about the afl tribuneral here.:rolleyes:
LOL. That's right, how stupid of me to say they have common sense :o
i'd say 2 weeks, but maybe 1 with discounts. even though he didn't hurt kirk, it was dangerous play. hope it doesn't derail Fev, he is going great so far.
I think in cases like this both umpires and tribunal should take in the intent and feeling involved. Fev was involved in a highly inspirational piece of play. He had done an amazing job pushing the ball forward and was very passionate at the time the incident happened.
If I was to get inside his head I felt he was really motivated to lifting the side, had pumped himself up with the first 2 efforts and was very committed to continuing. Kirk was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I really feel like Fev was being very real in this incident. I didnt believe it was the action of a frustrated or bitter Fev as has been the case in some of his other misdemenours.
From a supporters point of view I was respectful of his effort in this passage of play. Wouldn't have wanted him to stop on account of anything. Would be very disappointed if he was suspended for something like this.
bluesforever
17 Apr 2006, 14:19
Can't see why he won't get off... he only had eyes for the ball. We need him to play V Hawthorn otherwise our good start to the season could turn a little sour.
MrAaron
17 Apr 2006, 14:20
He will get off with a severe warning. Like I said in the other thread :rolleyes:
BlueWorld
17 Apr 2006, 14:54
He got a week.:mad:
Andyt30
17 Apr 2006, 16:36
he hasn;t been up yet so he'll get off it if Medhust got of the elbow to houlihans Face which is a lot woser then what Fev did then the Tribunral is Rigged sack the tribunal and get some decent people on there,
players should get the set penelty like the do up here except for abusing tro umpires i rate the tribunal 1/10
Andyt30
17 Apr 2006, 16:44
they were both after the ball what the hell was he surpose to do let the swans player have ball he's not the only player whos done that ya know
stokesy
17 Apr 2006, 18:03
Who knows.
I just want to hear that his cleared.
Andyt30
17 Apr 2006, 18:40
i'm pretty confident he'll get a fine or cleared. tribual been up and down
wish they were constent with reports of similar incidences
i'll laugh if he gets off this will make a few feel like idiots ;) for getting to cocky especally our own supporters who should not say he should go, with or with out him we'll teach the hawks a lesson, lets bash and crash a few players go after the man :) especally their young ones target em :)
blues need to get tough with that don;t be soft be rock hard
BlueWorld
17 Apr 2006, 19:44
he hasn;t been up yet so he'll get off it if Medhust got of the elbow to houlihans Face which is a lot woser then what Fev did then the Tribunral is Rigged sack the tribunal and get some decent people on there,
players should get the set penelty like the do up here except for abusing tro umpires i rate the tribunal 1/10
Is a set penalty system and has been assessed as similar to Medhurst after it went to the tribunal- negligent conduct, medium impact, in play and high contact drawing 125 demerit points.
Problem is Medhurst had no record so got it reduced by 25% by pleading gulity.
Fev's record makes it worse for him and increases the penalty.
stokesy
17 Apr 2006, 19:54
Fev's record makes it worse for him and increases the penalty.
This past record business is utter rubbish.
They should disregard that.
As pumped said, he was involved in an inspiration piece of play and I think just about every Carlton supporter would have been yelling, like myself;
"Go hard Fev, go hard"
"Hit him hard Fev, hit him hard"
"Keep going Fev, keep going"
He did all of that. Kirk got straight back up. fev didn't turn his body to hip and shoulder him.
The whole thing is a joke.
Corrosion
17 Apr 2006, 19:57
Welcome to the world of Netball boys. It's sad, you know, you can't even attack a ball without being reported. Might as well design skirts for the boys this week. Seriously, our game is going soft.
Definately worth a challenge in my opinion. It wasn't rough conduct. it was a tackle that contacted Kirk high because he spent three years picking up the ball.
He hit him with a swinging arm, not a hip and shoulder. Had Kirk picked up the ball and stood up, as Fevola could've reasonably expected him to do, he would've made a waist high tackle. He didn't run past the ball and I'm not sure exactly what else he was supposed to do.
Let's face it, we see men taken high with tackling arms 10-15 times a game. Just because Fevola had to perform a 15-20 metre chase beforehand shouldn't make it any different.
Not sure how it can be considered medium impact when Kirk was unhurt. Leppitsch's strike on Goddard was worse and that was only considered medium impact.
even though nothing happened, we have to understand that it was potentially dangerous and we can't let that sort of contact happen. (potential) head on contact to the head when the player is over the ball is not ok and if the AFL let it go someone will end up in a wheelchair.
even though nothing happened, we have to understand that it was potentially dangerous and we can't let that sort of contact happen. (potential) head on contact to the head when the player is over the ball is not ok and if the AFL let it go someone will end up in a wheelchair.
I agree with you that the hip and shoulder to the bent over head is not acceptable, but that's not what this was.
It was a front on tackle and he fell back in order to get a free kick as exhibited by him getting up straight away. As I said, we see men taken high with tackling arms 10-15 times a game. How this was more dangerous than Medhurst coming off the square to take out Houlihan...
From reports, Carlton are likely to accept the one match :(
From reports, Carlton are likely to accept the one match :(
I hear the same reports... absolute joke. Rubbish report that would've got overturned on appeal but will likely never get there because of Fev's previous record.
Gee I'm glad they set that no grabbing at the face precedent last season with Fevola and Scotland. For those keeping score at home, despite numerous instances of that occurring throughout last year directly on camera, no other team has been charged with that offence.
Andyt30
17 Apr 2006, 21:19
Report what a bloody JOKE Reported for doing nothing hardle a reportable charge if he was going for the man he woud have got him a lot hareder then that, The Umpire is a Joke sack him now hope fev get off and laugh at him. he was reported for nothing how many times has he been reported for nothing a few times :thumbsd:
other Words anyother player dose the same thing better get the Same Treatment or their hell to pay afl and all :mad:
dirk pitt
17 Apr 2006, 21:22
Is a set penalty system and has been assessed as similar to Medhurst after it went to the tribunal- negligent conduct, medium impact, in play and high contact drawing 125 demerit points.
Problem is Medhurst had no record so got it reduced by 25% by pleading gulity.
Fev's record makes it worse for him and increases the penalty.
I think you could have easily challenged the medium impact and high contact parts of that and I would be disappointed in the club if they didnt. Houlihan stayed down, had to be helped up and was groggy afterards. Kirk just got straight up and took his kick.
The replay is also pretty clear that there was no contact to the head. He hit him with a swinging arm across the chest and shoudler.
In the end it was just a front on tackle and Fev did a pretty good job of protecting the player given he fumbled and stayed down at the last minute.
Andyt30
17 Apr 2006, 21:30
how could paul medhurst got out of that that proves my point the Tribunal is a Joke so hope carlton appeals fevs charge :) carlton should have appealed the Medhust appeal and make him face his susspention ;)
I agree with you that the hip and shoulder to the bent over head is not acceptable, but that's not what this was.
It was a front on tackle and he fell back in order to get a free kick as exhibited by him getting up straight away. As I said, we see men taken high with tackling arms 10-15 times a game. How this was more dangerous than Medhurst coming off the square to take out Houlihan...
in my not at all expert opinion, this is more dangerous because it can damage the neck.
Bronx Bomber
17 Apr 2006, 23:49
even though nothing happened, we have to understand that it was potentially dangerous and we can't let that sort of contact happen. (potential) head on contact to the head when the player is over the ball is not ok and if the AFL let it go someone will end up in a wheelchair.
Most actions on the Football field have the potential to cause injury.
Brendan's only other option was to allow Kirk to regain his feet and then run away with the ball, with the pace that Fev was attacking the ball he would have had no chance to realise that Kirk had his head over the ball and if you have a look at the footage, he made front on contact and it wasn't a hip and shoulder to the head it was more of a front on tackle, and also for the AFL to say that this cause the same impact and the Goddard incident in which was left with a broken nose, it is a joke!
Bronx Bomber
18 Apr 2006, 00:04
From reports, Carlton are likely to accept the one match :(
What reports are these?
News on fox footy during WLF.
FWIW (I'm a Sydney fan) I'm a little surprised and disappointed that Fevola hasn't been cleared. I understand fully why the umpire booked him on the night, but there was certainly nothing malicious in it, nor particularly clumsy in the context of the play where it occured. I know I'd be very disappointed if a Swan got rubbed out for a similar incident.
Yes, you have to protect a player with his head over the ball, but you also have to let players compete for the ball. Was definitely a free to Kirk but that should be the end of it IMHO.
Snoozer
18 Apr 2006, 11:12
1 week, pretty fair I reckon. I'd have been surprised if the Ump didn't report him on the night because it looked very crude.
Could have done some serious damage to Kirk... it was stupid more than anything... some idiot before posted "what was his option, let Kirk run away with the ball", no he had the option to take one steadying step and lay a legal tackle, Kirk wouldn't have run away... might have got a handball away, might have got tackled and we get a free kick, who's to know??
The fact that there was no head contact was pure luck, not through duty of care by Fev.
The Old Dark Navy's
18 Apr 2006, 12:19
some idiot before posted "what was his option, let Kirk run away with the ball", no he had the option to take one steadying step and lay a legal tackle, Kirk wouldn't have run away... might have got a handball away, might have got tackled and we get a free kick, who's to know??
A fellow supporter had an opinion that you don't agree with. Does that make them an idiot? Who know what would have happened if Fev had have hesitated. For all he knew Kirk would be clean with the ball and get it out quickly. He then could have been dragged to the phone for not applying enough pressure. He was on top of Kirk when he realised Kirk was going nowhere and did try to limit the contact. It's what a spur of the moment action not knowing what was going to unfold. It looked clumsy and it is pretty easy to say he could have done things differently watching a replay but at the time, many of us may have done the same thing.
Snoozer
18 Apr 2006, 12:52
A fellow supporter had an opinion that you don't agree with. Does that make them an idiot? Who know what would have happened if Fev had have hesitated. For all he knew Kirk would be clean with the ball and get it out quickly. He then could have been dragged to the phone for not applying enough pressure. He was on top of Kirk when he realised Kirk was going nowhere and did try to limit the contact. It's what a spur of the moment action not knowing what was going to unfold. It looked clumsy and it is pretty easy to say he could have done things differently watching a replay but at the time, many of us may have done the same thing.
If that person actually watched the incident, then yes to have an opinion like that justifies an idiot tag.
Yes Kirk may very well have been clean with the ball, he may well have been in a wheelchair as we speak.
Fev had every intention to knock him A over T. Players might have their head over the ball on 100 different occasions in a match, but don't get cleaned up because the tackler chooses to excercise a duty of care. You can't back away from the fact that it was neglegent and clumsy and had potential to cause serious injury... plenty of blokes have been rubbed out for less.
The Old Dark Navy's
18 Apr 2006, 13:22
If that person actually watched the incident, then yes to have an opinion like that justifies an idiot tag.Firstly, a non abusive, non trolling remark based on someone's opinion, is never a justification for personal abuse.
Secondly, have you ever seen a player slow down while approaching a player in possession of the ball and then seen that player get a quick underground handball off to a supporting teammate? I have numerous times. Happens all the time when players don't want to be sidestepped or overrun the play, the slow down and try to corral the player who then dishes off to a teammate who has made position a few metres away. Frustrating as all hell not to mention very conservative.
Thirdly, I have also commented elsewhere that had Kirk regained his feet and Fev measured his run a fraction too late, then Kirk could EASILY have dished the ball off. Let's not forget Fev had beaten a Sydney opponent to get the ball down the line in the first place. That Sydney opponent was in the vicinity. Kirk would handle the ball cleanly 99 times out of 100. He would have got to his feet 99 times out of 100 before Fev had arrived. At what point in a 3 second run do you think to yourself that Kirk is not going to get up, that he is not going to get the ball out, that this is going to be messy? I think you are being very harsh of Fevola who was doing what he has been getting applauded for so far this year. Chasing and applying pressure.
Potentially dangerous - yes, Very clumsy - ultimately yes. Are we people idiots for pondering his options or backing his intent? I don't think so.
murphster
18 Apr 2006, 13:38
If that person actually watched the incident, then yes to have an opinion like that justifies an idiot tag.
Yes Kirk may very well have been clean with the ball, he may well have been in a wheelchair as we speak.
Fev had every intention to knock him A over T. Players might have their head over the ball on 100 different occasions in a match, but don't get cleaned up because the tackler chooses to excercise a duty of care. You can't back away from the fact that it was neglegent and clumsy and had potential to cause serious injury... plenty of blokes have been rubbed out for less.
Let me tell you if Fev wanted to hurt him he would still be on the ground now, Fev checked his run and put his hip into Kirks shoulder just to knock him over backwards if anything his action was responsible he could have kept running at full pace like he was and went straight on and taken Kirks head off his shoulders with his hip like say Pickett would have done. How Medhurst who jumped off the ground with his forearm raised and aimed at Houla's head can get off and Fev gets suspended for intentionally trying to not hurt Kirk is a joke and if you can not see that it is you that is the IDIOT.:thumbsd:
Snoozer
18 Apr 2006, 16:51
Firstly, a non abusive, non trolling remark based on someone's opinion, is never a justification for personal abuse.
Secondly, have you ever seen a player slow down while approaching a player in possession of the ball and then seen that player get a quick underground handball off to a supporting teammate? I have numerous times. Happens all the time when players don't want to be sidestepped or overrun the play, the slow down and try to corral the player who then dishes off to a teammate who has made position a few metres away. Frustrating as all hell not to mention very conservative.
Thirdly, I have also commented elsewhere that had Kirk regained his feet and Fev measured his run a fraction too late, then Kirk could EASILY have dished the ball off. Let's not forget Fev had beaten a Sydney opponent to get the ball down the line in the first place. That Sydney opponent was in the vicinity. Kirk would handle the ball cleanly 99 times out of 100. He would have got to his feet 99 times out of 100 before Fev had arrived. At what point in a 3 second run do you think to yourself that Kirk is not going to get up, that he is not going to get the ball out, that this is going to be messy? I think you are being very harsh of Fevola who was doing what he has been getting applauded for so far this year. Chasing and applying pressure.
Potentially dangerous - yes, Very clumsy - ultimately yes. Are we people idiots for pondering his options or backing his intent? I don't think so.
Firstly, grow a thicker skin if you're offended by something like that. Jesus, no wonder the footy world is becoming a more boring place if you can't call someone an idiot.
Secondly, so you reckon Fev should have charged like that?? So Kirk picks the ball up cleanly and steps around him cos Fev's running to quick to lay the tackle. Error. Kirk fumbles the ball and Fev lays him out with a high hip and shoulder. Error. Fev saw him fumble the ball... it only takes a fraction of a second to steady yourself, still hit the opposition player at a reasonable speed, but at least look as though you've excercised some duty of care.
Thirdly, I recognise that he was chasing and applying pressure which is great, back his intent by all means.... but there was definitely the option there to do it with more care. He had time to steady himself... if only he didn't get carried away he'd be able to apply pressure to opposition defenders this week.
The Mighty Port Power
18 Apr 2006, 17:00
It was a very soft report. Unlike other examples (Pickett last year for example) the ball was very close to the play, I would love to hear one of these brainiacs that agree with the report say exactly what Fev was supposed to do, running to tackle at pace like he was, the guy unfortunately was not born with air breaks. It really was a wrong place and the wrong time incident, Fev was running in to lay a solid tackle or bump, and kick decided to handle the ball like a sunday afternoon paddock player. IF Fevola wanted to hurt Kirk in that position, he could have done some SERIOUS damage to him, yet Kirk was able to continue playing. It was a footy bump.
The Old Dark Navy's
18 Apr 2006, 17:10
Firstly, grow a thicker skin if you're offended by something like that. Jesus, no wonder the footy world is becoming a more boring place if you can't call someone an idiot.
I'm not offended by the term idiot. However, there are rules against personal abuse and while that may be mild, there is no need for you to do it. Why post with such anger towards players and fellow posters so often. If posters want to be brow beaten they can go to the main board.
Your own idea of what is acceptable doesn't come into it when all is said and done.
We should all be constructive and respectful of others whether agreeing or not. Is that clear enough?
Regards
It was a very soft report. Unlike other examples (Pickett last year for example) the ball was very close to the play, I would love to hear one of these brainiacs that agree with the report say exactly what Fev was supposed to do,*snip* he could have done some SERIOUS damage to him, yet Kirk was able to continue playing. It was a footy bump.
that's the point, he could have done some serious damage. what he was supposed to do is not put the other player in that position. we wouldn't like it if the positions were reversed and serious damage was done to Fev.
all said, I think it's not a big deal, it was mostly unintentional and it's fair to ask the player to sit out for a week. this will help the player to change his instincts so that it doesn't happen again. if a free kick was the only penalty, then you certainly wouldn;t think twice about doing it again.
With Fev out.... Does any-one think J. Kennedy is ready for a game.. If not, considering waite is under injury cloud, who is going to kick goals on friday night?
With Fev out.... Does any-one think J. Kennedy is ready for a game.. If not, considering waite is under injury cloud, who is going to kick goals on friday night?
not hawthorn *fingers crossed*