View Full Version : What punishment should the Bombers give Fletcher?
Surely we have to do something to get Fletcher to pull his head in? I'm not sure that a monetary fine will do the trick (unless it is pretty significant). From what I understand, he actually has a "no fine" condition in his contract which will need to be amended for his next contract.
No doubt he will feel pretty ordinary at having let his teammates down, however he has shown time and time again that he this is simply not enough.
I think we need to start suspending him for additional matches. Only problem with this is that it hurts the team just as much as it hurts Fletch.
Any other suggestions as to how we can tame Fletchers Tribunal record?
Pornstar
10 Sep 2003, 13:46
A date with Mantis.
thewhippersnapper
10 Sep 2003, 17:15
A little talking to...
Stealth bomber
11 Sep 2003, 01:44
At the very least, the $15,000 spent on his appeal should come out of his pocket.
A date with Mantis.
The way mantis talks about him i think they have already been on a date
Let someone elbow him in the head, like he did to the Freo bloke.
gPhonque
11 Sep 2003, 21:37
Punishment?
For what?
Surely missing 2 finals for absolutely nothing is enough punishment? (albeit completely undeserved punishment)
Bruce Matthews wrote a little article in todays Hun that summed up the entire incident perfectly.
The tribunal said he acted "recklessly."
reck·less P Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.
Heedless or careless.
Headstrong; rash.
Fletcher clearly tried to minimize the contact - how does this constitute "reckless" behaviour?
There's absolutely no way in the world Fletcher deserved to even appear before the tribunal for that incident.
If you want to punish Fletcher for the tribunals inconsistencies and screw-ups, then that's up to you.
I'm sure the club realise that Fletcher is not to blame.
Hence the fact that they appealed what really was a bullsh|t decision.
If you have a copy of todays Hun lying around, you should read that article as it summed up everything I was thinking about the incident.
For what it's worth, I'm not too concerned about losing him anyway. If we run out there switched on, we won't need him.
Although it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the worst tribunal decisions of a lot of very bad tribunal decisions that I've seen in the past few years.
Really, the message the tribunal is trying to send players is exactly the opposite of what players are told to do from the time they first pick up a football.
Something needs to be done about it. The tribunal has been a farce for years now. How much longer must players be unfairly suspended?
The real "dirty" stuff has pretty much been eliminated from our game.
The tribunal are basically nit-picking now.
I guess they have to justify their jobs somehow.
thewhippersnapper
11 Sep 2003, 22:42
Originally posted by Joel
Let someone elbow him in the head, like he did to the Freo bloke.
Do you honestly think that Brodie Holland deserved 2 weeks??
If Fletcher got 2. Then Holland should have got about 5.
Absolutely Disgraceful.
Originally posted by gPhonque
Punishment?
For what?
Surely missing 2 finals for absolutely nothing is enough punishment? (albeit completely undeserved punishment)
Bruce Matthews wrote a little article in todays Hun that summed up the entire incident perfectly.
The tribunal said he acted "recklessly."
reck·less P Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.
Heedless or careless.
Headstrong; rash.
Fletcher clearly tried to minimize the contact - how does this constitute "reckless" behaviour?
There's absolutely no way in the world Fletcher deserved to even appear before the tribunal for that incident.
If you want to punish Fletcher for the tribunals inconsistencies and screw-ups, then that's up to you.
I'm sure the club realise that Fletcher is not to blame.
Hence the fact that they appealed what really was a bullsh|t decision.
If you have a copy of todays Hun lying around, you should read that article as it summed up everything I was thinking about the incident.
For what it's worth, I'm not too concerned about losing him anyway. If we run out there switched on, we won't need him.
Although it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the worst tribunal decisions of a lot of very bad tribunal decisions that I've seen in the past few years.
Really, the message the tribunal is trying to send players is exactly the opposite of what players are told to do from the time they first pick up a football.
Something needs to be done about it. The tribunal has been a farce for years now. How much longer must players be unfairly suspended?
The real "dirty" stuff has pretty much been eliminated from our game.
The tribunal are basically nit-picking now.
I guess they have to justify their jobs somehow.
I applaud you, that is what I have been trying to get across, fair enough punish him when he does something wrong, but when he has been convicted unfairly, stay off his back, it isn't his fault the AFL & tribunal are corrupt sons of bitches.
Originally posted by gPhonque
Punishment?
For what?
Surely missing 2 finals for absolutely nothing is enough punishment? (albeit completely undeserved punishment)
Bruce Matthews wrote a little article in todays Hun that summed up the entire incident perfectly.
The tribunal said he acted "recklessly."
reck·less P Pronunciation Key (rkls)
adj.
Heedless or careless.
Headstrong; rash.
Fletcher clearly tried to minimize the contact - how does this constitute "reckless" behaviour?
There's absolutely no way in the world Fletcher deserved to even appear before the tribunal for that incident.
If you want to punish Fletcher for the tribunals inconsistencies and screw-ups, then that's up to you.
I'm sure the club realise that Fletcher is not to blame.
Hence the fact that they appealed what really was a bullsh|t decision.
If you have a copy of todays Hun lying around, you should read that article as it summed up everything I was thinking about the incident.
For what it's worth, I'm not too concerned about losing him anyway. If we run out there switched on, we won't need him.
Although it doesn't change the fact that it's one of the worst tribunal decisions of a lot of very bad tribunal decisions that I've seen in the past few years.
Really, the message the tribunal is trying to send players is exactly the opposite of what players are told to do from the time they first pick up a football.
Something needs to be done about it. The tribunal has been a farce for years now. How much longer must players be unfairly suspended?
The real "dirty" stuff has pretty much been eliminated from our game.
The tribunal are basically nit-picking now.
I guess they have to justify their jobs somehow.
It was a silly action that IMO deserved to at least be brought up to the tribunal. I agree it was soft and certainly didn't deserve 2 weeks (I thought he should probably get a week, but given how soft it was he could easily have got off)
But this doesn't change the fact that he has put himself in this situation AGAIN. Why don't we see Hird getting suspended for finals? I'll tell you why, because he actually has his head screwed on right.
Fletcher has to learn not to put himself in these situations, and missing finals clearly isn't doing the trick.
Originally posted by TD
It was a silly action that IMO deserved to at least be brought up to the tribunal. I agree it was soft and certainly didn't deserve 2 weeks (I thought he should probably get a week, but given how soft it was he could easily have got off)
But this doesn't change the fact that he has put himself in this situation AGAIN. Why don't we see Hird getting suspended for finals? I'll tell you why, because he actually has his head screwed on right.
Fletcher has to learn not to put himself in these situations, and missing finals clearly isn't doing the trick.
Couldn't have put it better myself TD. Im getting sick of this **** happening all the time. We are a better side with fletch at full back. Having him in the stands does us no good at all and fletch needs to realise that.
dougthelegend
12 Sep 2003, 10:46
whoever wants him suspended for additional matches is nuts
he's our most important player - if he's available he plays, simple.
Originally posted by dougthelegend
whoever wants him suspended for additional matches is nuts
he's our most important player - if he's available he plays, simple.
Short term pain for long term gain.
dougthelegend
12 Sep 2003, 11:02
Originally posted by TD
Short term pain for long term gain.
he'll already be feeling **** for letting the team down again.
Originally posted by dougthelegend
he'll already be feeling **** for letting the team down again.
Very true.....but the Key word you said there was "again".
I bet he was also feeling **** for letting the team down last year, and i bet he would have been feeling **** had he not got off the charge earlier this year. But that hasn't stopped him from doing it again, has it. And I doubt it will stop him from doing it next year either.
Originally posted by BomberAUS
Do you honestly think that Brodie Holland deserved 2 weeks??
If Fletcher got 2. Then Holland should have got about 5.
Absolutely Disgraceful.
Where did I say that Holland deserved two weeks? :rolleyes:
He should be made to sit next to robert walls and listen to ALL his comments for the entire match on sat night. It might just scare him straight!
gPhonque
12 Sep 2003, 13:50
Originally posted by TD
It was a silly action that IMO deserved to at least be brought up to the tribunal. I agree it was soft and certainly didn't deserve 2 weeks (I thought he should probably get a week, but given how soft it was he could easily have got off)
But this doesn't change the fact that he has put himself in this situation AGAIN. Why don't we see Hird getting suspended for finals? I'll tell you why, because he actually has his head screwed on right.
Fletcher has to learn not to put himself in these situations, and missing finals clearly isn't doing the trick.
A silly action!?
Fletcher's running at the player with the ball - the player (Hayden) gets rid of it quickly (as Bruce Matthews stated - a "lookaway" handpass) - and Fletcher has all of 0.3sec (or thereabouts) to change his momentum and avoid the collision or at least minimize the contact.
Which he did.
(minimize the contact in what could have been a nasty incident)
....and you call that a silly action?
I know who's silly around here.
How about you explain why you believe it was silly?
As I said in my last post, the message the tribunal is sending players is doing more damage to our game than anything Fletcher has done on the field in the past couple of years.
If you've ever played football before in your life, (not saying you haven't) you would know that 99% of kids are taught to never take a backwards step - ALWAYS go for the ball, and if the opposition has possession, then attack him as hard as you can.
I think the line between "FREE KICK" and "REPORT/SUSPENSION" has become far too fuzzy.
There was absolutely no malice, intent, OR damage done whatsoever in this incident.
Why was it a 2 week suspension?
For what reason is Fletcher not playing this week?
You can complain about Fletcher all you like, but you're missing the point. Fletcher is a backman who's job is to stop the other guys. Fletcher does this better than most BECAUSE of the way he plays the game.
Yet you don't understand this.
You are essentially asking that Fletcher CHANGE the way he plays the game, in which case he WOULDN'T BE THE SAME PLAYER.
Rather than miss the point for the rest of your lives, you should look at the real problem, and despite what you believe, it is NOT Fletcher.
Ask yourself why a player was suspended for playing the game in the manner in which he's been taught to play all his life.
I understand where you're coming from, but the fact remains that it is Fletcher who regularly gets himself reported. Yes, the offence was soft, but regardless he gave the umpires an excuse to report him.
Just out of curiosity, what did you think of Fletchers actions when he got reported earlier in the year? Did you still think that is the way Fletcher should be playing? Throwing his elbows around in the last minute of the game?
I'm not only talking about this incident, i'm talking about the collective incidents. The fact that they happen with monotenous regularity.
If Fletchers hit on Hayden was a necessary action, then why dont we see 60% of the players getting reported every week? Surely this wasn't the only time where someone did a "lookaway handpass" this week?
Fletcher is a fantastic footballer, but he is no better than I am when he is sitting in the Grand Stand.
And for the record, I agree that 2 weeks was way too harsh. But one week wouldn't have been unreasonable. And given the circumstances, one week is probably not a whole lot different to 2 weeks.
gPhonque
12 Sep 2003, 19:59
Originally posted by TD
If Fletchers hit on Hayden was a necessary action, then why dont we see 60% of the players getting reported every week? Surely this wasn't the only time where someone did a "lookaway handpass" this week?
Why aren't 60% of players as good as Fletcher?
(make that 95%)
?
Sure - Fletcher could go about his business carefully as you seem to be encouraging, but he'd be half the player he is now.
thewhippersnapper
13 Sep 2003, 00:19
Originally posted by Joel
Where did I say that Holland deserved two weeks? :rolleyes:
I didn't say you did.
Im just asking a Question and what an honest answer as all Collingwood Fans I have seen or heard have said that 2 was about right.