View Full Version : mrp Fletcher handed two-week sanction
DogMclaren
21 Jun 2010, 17:02
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7570
'Veteran defender Dustin Fletcher has been handed a two game sanction after the Match Review Panel ruled that he kneed Hawthorn's Beau Muston in the first quarter.'
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=7570
'In summary, his previous poor record means that his two-game sanction must remain at two games, even with an early plea.'
DapperDon
21 Jun 2010, 17:03
WTF??
I wasn't even aware he was reported??
**** this sport sometimes.
BomberGal
21 Jun 2010, 17:07
Holy crap.
Was Beau Muston that showy knob? Presumably he put on a nice act.
essendon
21 Jun 2010, 17:09
Absolute bullshit !!!!! They can go and ... .......... The afl
Jonesy1987
21 Jun 2010, 17:09
Don't worry guys, its not like we can't cover him, Pears will do a great job in his absence... oh wait. Not to worry Hooker will carry it by himself, its not like he's returning from a long injury hiatus... oh wait.
Looks like we're moving Hurley back again.
**** you MRP.
DapperDon
21 Jun 2010, 17:11
Absolute bullshit !!!!! They can go and ... .......... The afl
I'll have an 'F' thanks.
spudmaster
21 Jun 2010, 17:15
I'll have an 'F' thanks.
Nice one, Dapper :thumbsu:
F for Fletcher I assume?
Honestly can't remember seeing Fletch do anything to Musto, anyone see anything?
BomberTime
21 Jun 2010, 17:18
I will reserve my opinion until i see the footage..but what a huge loss he would be.
Didnt judd elbow pavlich in the head...no...nothing? I didnt see the offence but heard about it. The MRP considered it not a reportable offence. But it was head high contact, isnt that what the afl are trying to rule out. What a joke the afl is becoming.:mad:
HyperAgressiveDonk
21 Jun 2010, 17:21
Yeah I saw it, not a heap in it but he has a history of this kind of thing. Combine with with his poor record and he got 2 weeks. Pretty stiff, thought one week would be fairer. You guys will appeal I would say. but there will be little chance of getting him off it
I will tell you something. Chris Judd is no doubt a protected species. Discgraceful that he can hit a bloke with an elbow in the head, bust open his face and the AFL say fair game.
We should probably wait til we see some footage of it until we judge. But this is a shock.
Jonesy1987
21 Jun 2010, 17:23
That ****wit Muston deserves more than a knee, That bottom feeding, cherry-picking, showpony stain.
No need for that.
This game is getting weak as pi$$, surely we will appeal. You have to be able to put your knee up to protect yourself or you'll cop one and end up like Tayte Pears. I can see myself not watching the game in 5-10 years if this is an example what the game will be like.
Skeeta Olly
21 Jun 2010, 17:32
Yeah I saw it, not a heap in it but he has a history of this kind of thing. Combine with with his poor record and he got 2 weeks. Pretty stiff, thought one week would be fairer. You guys will appeal I would say. but there will be little chance of getting him off it
0 weeks fair, tbh.
That's what you get for trying to play tight on someone and then clumsily run across their path.
We should probably wait til we see some footage of it until we judge. But this is a shock.
4 minutes left in the quarter if you want to have a look, or if someone wants to make a video.
The Great Barry Besanko
21 Jun 2010, 17:33
get ****ed mrp
Skeeta Olly
21 Jun 2010, 17:35
Hocking has Muston, Fletcher has someone else. The Hawks player leads for the ball, Fletcher follows. Muston turns his back on the ball and heads straight for Fletcher. Muston runs right in front of Fletcher and Fletcher raises his knee.
Rhombus
21 Jun 2010, 17:47
I had my fingers crossed that they would overlook this one but he clearly kneed him.
Macca18
21 Jun 2010, 17:48
This is such frustrating news on a number of levels.
I could say more but would probably be banned due to obscene language. Completely ridiculous.
bombers2011
21 Jun 2010, 17:49
Just saw the footage on the news. What a load of B.S. ESP considering Judd got off...
Skeeta Olly
21 Jun 2010, 17:51
Here's the incident
http://i48.tinypic.com/flhu8z.jpg
Kaiser Powser
21 Jun 2010, 17:58
Here's the incident
http://i48.tinypic.com/flhu8z.jpg
Even from those four still shots you can see that Fletcher is trying to follow Roughead, while Muston cuts in front to block his run. You would think that alone would enable them to downgrade it from intentional to reckless, I mean Fletcher did not even initiate the contact. This is Kakaesque.
james_omahoney
21 Jun 2010, 18:26
It's a free kick to Fletch for a start - shephard off the ball (or interference in a contest, whatever you want to call it).
Very harsh.
Jonesy1987
21 Jun 2010, 18:29
Saw the footage on Ten, worst episode ever. Nothing in it what so ever, hope we appeal.
What the ****??
So the bloke who is not even watching the ball gets away with murder.
The umpires even said over the TV microphone on the night "Watch him blocking Fletchers run, let him run at the ball" and he still gets away with it..
You think common sense would prevail on this one, not a previously poor record
God, you gotta wonder sometimes :rolleyes:
Towno78
21 Jun 2010, 18:31
It is a 3 match ban btw, 2 if he accepts with an early plea.
But there is absolutely no ****ing way he should accept anything. What a bloody disgrace. All he does is try to brace himself as Muston is running at him, and accidentally catches him with a knee and Muston receives a very minor corky to the thigh.
When the hell was an accidental corky worth looking at let alone 3 bloody weeks!!
What this incident does highlight though, is the one thing that annoyed more than anything else on Friday and that was Muston's tactics on Fletcher that were never penalised. Every single time Muston would turn away from the ball and simply tackle Fletcher to keep him away from aerial contests. If Fletcher was a forward he would've kicked 20 goals, that's how many free kicks he would have received in front of goals. Why the hell do forwards play by different rules!?
At one stage in the 3rd quarter you even hear 1 ump telling another ump to watch out for it, yet still nothing... Apologies for the rant, probably the wrong thread for it.
spudmaster
21 Jun 2010, 18:34
Could be worth contesting it and risking the 3 weeks rather than taking the early plea to get it down to 2.
Adelaide, Melbourne and Eagles for you guys. How important Fletch is for the Eagles match will no doubt play a part in whether they feel it's worth contesting the charge or not. Thankfully there's no huge power forwards in that group of three that need shutting down if it's any consolation (could have been suspended at a worse time)
How Judd continues to get off astounds me, it really does.
stugots
21 Jun 2010, 18:37
have to appeal this one - saw it on the night & thought nothing of it
& still dont, what a crock
Here's the incident
http://i48.tinypic.com/flhu8z.jpg
Sorry Skeeta but just wondering if I could have a link to the footage? Would be interesting to see in real time. Thanks!
Skeeta Olly
21 Jun 2010, 18:47
No sorry. As you could probably tell, I was watching the incident on the AFL site.
No one has any video footage ?
I didnt notice anything, was quite shocked when I opened up the AFL site.
You guys are a bit harsh on Musto too, he performed his role quite adequately IMO.
Darealrath
21 Jun 2010, 19:02
You are kidding me. This is becoming a farce.
Just watched the replay a few times on the AFLs match analyser. Didnt look to be much in it, you guys are definitely getting a rough deal here. I know I would be ropable if it were a hawks player in that position. Best of luck at the tribunal :thumbsu:
tha Freak
21 Jun 2010, 19:54
This is Bullshi#t! It's time an Official from Essendon came out and made a strong statement backing Fletch and deriding the decision to lay the charge in the first place. I'm sure that the charge will be fought and I hope that Essendon let it be known that they are not impressed with the process.
http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/
Down the bottom there is a 'choose events' toolbar. You can choose the Free Kick option. Then on the Essendon event part click the one that refers to '23:48 MINS|LEROY JETTA|FREE KICK' and the incident is about 1min 30secs later.
Absolutely nothing in it. Muston runs straight into Fletcher's knee, whether he raised it to protect himself or in the motion of running.
OzBomber
21 Jun 2010, 20:10
http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/
It says I'm not from Australia. :o I live in Melbourne...
TeamHurley
21 Jun 2010, 21:07
I just saw the footage. 3 weeks is way over the top.
Muston ran into fletchers path not looking at the ball.
Fletcher raises his knee and corks him. Looked pretty deliberate.
George Washington..
Footage?
****ing hell. We finish the match with an apparent clean bill of health, and then lose two key defenders. :mad:
George Washington
21 Jun 2010, 21:56
George Washington..
Footage?
Sup.
ctdcCei_a_s
Oops, disregard the Fleet Foxes in the background.. forgot to turn off my music while recording...
Makes it better, tbh.
You're kidding, aren't you; Fletcher gets offered two weeks for that?
**** me.
Skeeta Olly
21 Jun 2010, 22:01
G.W, got a clip of Jetta's run along the wing?
George Washington
21 Jun 2010, 22:04
G.W, got a clip of Jetta's run along the wing?
If you give me the time or a rough indication of when it happens I can put it up. Don't have time atm to go through the entire thing.
Boucks09
21 Jun 2010, 22:12
If you give me the time or a rough indication of when it happens I can put it up. Don't have time atm to go through the entire thing.
What about footage of the Sam Mitchell miss and the Essendon BigFooty clan rising en masse and giving him a solid 20 seconds of abuse?
bombers2011
21 Jun 2010, 22:19
As Hirdy said tonight on TV, Sheedy taught Flecther to do that.
It's the way he has always played, that is, If someone is blocking your run at the ball: You make them hurt. Problem being that game has now become so sanitised that the mere whiff of an intention to hurt spells trouble. And watching this footage over and over only makes me wish that he had hurt that skid mark Muston a little more.
Simon_Nesbit
21 Jun 2010, 23:39
Don't understand how he can get 2 weeks for that, and nothing for the Franklin hit. Thought both would be reprimand/warning at worst, and most likely just a mention (insufficient force as both played on).
Considering Judd got "lucky" again, I'd appeal, but Franklin shows that common-sense doesn't actually mean anything.
What about footage of the Sam Mitchell miss and the Essendon BigFooty clan rising en masse and giving him a solid 20 seconds of abuse?Hahahaha.
What made it even sweeter was Jobe kicking the captain's goal not too long after.
smcateer
22 Jun 2010, 06:43
Sup.
ctdcCei_a_s
Oops, disregard the Fleet Foxes in the background.. forgot to turn off my music while recording...
Tah, GW.
Oh and :eek:.
Slattery_20
22 Jun 2010, 08:05
Don't understand how he can get 2 weeks for that, and nothing for the Franklin hit. Thought both would be reprimand/warning at worst, and most likely just a mention (insufficient force as both played on).
Considering Judd got "lucky" again, I'd appeal, but Franklin shows that common-sense doesn't actually mean anything.
It's utter, utter disgraceful bullshit.
Outright cheating.
Bloke with a bad name bumps a bloke - happens dozens of times a game - who runs into his path while being shepherded off the footy. Utter nothing incident. I double taked then triple taked at the citation - surely they meant the one he dropped knees into Buddy?
MRP can GAGF.
The Dons should argue that Muston came from behind Hocking into Fletcher's path, Fletcher made an instinctive action to protect himself from harm by putting his arms up in front of himself and lifting his knee..... which is EXACTLY what happened. He had just as much chance of hurting Hocking as Muston given both were moving.
Seriously, what the absolute **** is going on with this game at AFL level?
And to think that Judd intentionally elbowed a player in the head (OK, maybe it was meant to be McFlee, not Pavlich) and split him open under the eye, yet gets off as the MRP said the contact was not forceful enough to constitute a charge... GIVE ME A ****ING BREAK!!!!!!!!!!
Yep - what a joke. A JOKE! Its certainly not a level playing field - Fletch gets plucked from nowhere and pinged for a couple of weeks for nothing, Judd elbows a bloke in the head causing some serious damage and gets nothing... WTF!!!
Have to play Hurley back now - surely they'll bring in M.Williams or Neagle - surely...
Fletch should appeal, I don't think there was much in that report. Judd was extremly lucky to get off.
Skeeta Olly
22 Jun 2010, 12:06
Accepted ban.
Pevers-Legend
22 Jun 2010, 12:06
Sounds like we have accepted the decision.
Madness.
Bollocks.
Judd gets nothing for busting a guy open, and Fletch gets two for that?
ManWithNoName
22 Jun 2010, 12:22
With his record, deserves it. Why the **** is he raising his knee into an opponent so far off the ball like that? FFS if it was in an actual contest he could maybe try justifying it by saying it was an accident. But that was just dumb and stupid.
Great player, but christ he's an idiot sometimes.
Longy413
22 Jun 2010, 12:45
Not sure why there is anger at the MRP, he kneed him.
Perhaps we're entitled to feel a little anger towards HFC who may well have brought some attention towards it I'm led to believe.
Regardless, Fletch only has himself to blame.
It was soft and intentional.
Judd's was firm enough to require stitches, to the head, and intentional.
I'm furious with the MRP because once again - and like the umpires - they show an extreme lack of consistency when it comes to their decision making.
HyperAgressiveDonk
22 Jun 2010, 13:32
Why all the hate for Muston.
From all reports he's a really nice guy :)
Anyhow back to the Fletcher incident, there is no doubt in my mind that Dustin knew what he was doing. I agree it was soft and if I had my way this kind of thing wouldn't be looked at. I think the game is sanitised to a point where it does detract from the spectacle. Though, with the rules the way they are, you just can't deliberately inflict pain on others in that manner anymore.
I understand your frustration, as we were deprived of Buddy for 3 games this year because of very soft suspensions. I don't agree with the way the game is going, but the MRP have made it pretty clear you can't do things like that anymore and get away with it, unless your Chris Judd...
Not sure why there is anger at the MRP, he kneed him.
Perhaps we're entitled to feel a little anger towards HFC who may well have brought some attention towards it I'm led to believe.
Regardless, Fletch only has himself to blame.
Have to agree.
Extremely soft but fletcher has too many priors.
Stuffs up the structure of our team - Probably means that Hooker plays on Tippett - Prefer Hooker on the half back line.
What a disaster !
they can argue that fletch went out of his way to raise his right knee... when he was turnng right n muston was running past fletcher(to the left). it does look like he stop for a split second.. corks him n then goes on his way
but even so its utter bullshit
TeamHurley
22 Jun 2010, 16:24
Have to agree.
Extremely soft but fletcher has too many priors.
Stuffs up the structure of our team - Probably means that Hooker plays on Tippett - Prefer Hooker on the half back line.
What a disaster !
I remember last time this happened.
james_omahoney
23 Jun 2010, 19:51
Not sure why there is anger at the MRP, he kneed him.
Perhaps we're entitled to feel a little anger towards HFC who may well have brought some attention towards it I'm led to believe.
Regardless, Fletch only has himself to blame.
Chris Judd opens a guys face up and gets nothing.
Rance punches Buddy in the face and gets off.
Fletcher knees Muston in the leg and gets 2 weeks.
Judd also has a history of dirty tactics and lieing.
Think it's pretty clear why people are angry.
Longy413
24 Jun 2010, 08:00
In comparison to other incidents it might not be as bad, but it doesn't change the incident itself.
djboonie
24 Jun 2010, 11:21
Very stiff IMO.
Punishment didn't match the crime.
And Judd walks... :confused:
Bollocks.
Judd gets nothing for busting a guy open, and Fletch gets two for that?
It seems the Kennedy/Sylvia incident has created some sort of alternate universe that the MRP visit from time to time.
In comparison to other incidents it might not be as bad, but it doesn't change the incident itself.
You're right, it doesn't, but the frustrations of the viewing public are based on factual evidence that the MRP simply are not consistent.
Slattery_20
24 Jun 2010, 15:11
If that Fletch one was bad enough, the one in rd 6 where Hodge blatantly whacked Welsh to the back of the head was worth 3 or 4.
It wasn't, should have IMHO been a few points tho - and so should this one.
Which is the real irritation. The guidelines they set allow a massive range of penalties, from insignificant points penalties for fairly insignificant incidents, to big 3-6 week holidays. There should be so, so many tiny little points reprimands every week, but there never is, and one or two of them seem to get picked out as worth a week or two.
Longy413
24 Jun 2010, 17:07
You're right, it doesn't, but the frustrations of the viewing public are based on factual evidence that the MRP simply are not consistent.
So does that make this one wrong? Or the others?
I'd argue the others.
james_omahoney
24 Jun 2010, 22:34
In comparison to other incidents it might not be as bad, but it doesn't change the incident itself.
I'd argue it does. The others incidents were deemed to be of too low an impact. I don't see how in comparison Fletcher's was forceful enough to warrant a 2 week suspension. That's not even taking into consideration the part of the body where contact was made.
Longy413
25 Jun 2010, 08:16
Fletcher's incident was deemed to be of low impact.
Had it not been carry over points and his bad record, an early plea would have reduced it to one.
He got three activation points for intentional contact and I'm not sure how we can argue that.
So does that make this one wrong? Or the others?
I'd argue the others.
Yeah, others. And plenty of them too.
Let's face it, the MRP is a lottery and as much as I'd like to think it's not the case, it seems it does matter who you are.
centurion
25 Jun 2010, 13:23
Yeah, others. And plenty of them too.
Let's face it, the MRP is a lottery and as much as I'd like to think it's not the case, it seems it does matter who you are.
And problems continue. For the upteenth bloody time, all we want as supporters is consistency and fairness.
james_omahoney
25 Jun 2010, 19:36
Fletcher's incident was deemed to be of low impact.
Had it not been carry over points and his bad record, an early plea would have reduced it to one.
He got three activation points for intentional contact and I'm not sure how we can argue that.
No, the other two incidents were said to be under the 'low impact' threshold, effectively too low to qualify. I'm saying that means Fletcher's was also not forceful enough to qualify for points.
Longy413
27 Jun 2010, 14:44
But once they decided it was intentional he was in trouble.
Without the intent, the force might not have been great enough, but once the intent was decided the force didn't really matter.
But once they decided it was intentional he was in trouble.
Without the intent, the force might not have been great enough, but once the intent was decided the force didn't really matter.
So are you saying that Chris Judd had no intent !
Longy413
27 Jun 2010, 15:27
Yaco - Not sure if you've read through the thread, but I'm not saying Judd should have got off.
My argument isn't that because Judd got off, Fletch should have got off as well.
My argument is that the Fletcher decision was correct and Fletch only has himself to blame. They shouldn't have let Fletcher off because they let Judd off, it's the other way around, they both should have gone.
Yaco - Not sure if you've read through the thread, but I'm not saying Judd should have got off.
My argument isn't that because Judd got off, Fletch should have got off as well.
My argument is that the Fletcher decision was correct and Fletch only has himself to blame. They shouldn't have let Fletcher off because they let Judd off, it's the other way around, they both should have gone.
Longy
Its been raining all weekend in Hong Kong so it must have affected my brain:)
It will be interesting to see the wash up from the Johnston/Baker incident.
Pavlich and Baker both got stiches and spent time of the ground - It will be interesting to see whether Johnston's strike has enough force to be considered a reportable offence.
Then again - Buddy Franklin has his tooth knocked out by Rance of Richmond last year - and it was considered to be not enough force to be reported.
I wait with interest the decision of the MRP.
Yaco - Not sure if you've read through the thread, but I'm not saying Judd should have got off.
My argument isn't that because Judd got off, Fletch should have got off as well.
My argument is that the Fletcher decision was correct and Fletch only has himself to blame. They shouldn't have let Fletcher off because they let Judd off, it's the other way around, they both should have gone.
I wait with interest the MRP's decision.
Longy413
28 Jun 2010, 08:27
So do I.
They're inconsistent and it's frustrating.
Unfortunately for us, the Fletcher decision is one they got right.
So do I.
They're inconsistent and it's frustrating.
Unfortunately for us, the Fletcher decision is one they got right.
Johnston got 3 weeks - 2 weeks with an early plea for the elbowing incident.
Judd can consider himself lucky.
james_omahoney
2 Jul 2010, 20:04
So do I.
They're inconsistent and it's frustrating.
Unfortunately for us, the Fletcher decision is one they got right.
Cool. So you understand why people are angry then. Glad we cleared that up.
Longy413
2 Jul 2010, 21:41
Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't be angry.
I'm angry.
Not at the Fletcher decision though, well not at the MRP anyway.
Angry at Fletch.