Clarkson highly critical of North and Petrie.

[Harry Yorkie]

Clarkson is the biggest sook in the league. Small man's syndrome.

Chris Scott disagrees

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

The media efforts from players and officials are more often then not sanitised, bland and not worth watching. It's good to see blokes just call it as they see it. Threads like this are an indication why they don't bother, there's always someone out there just itching to be offended and start whining to anyone who will listen.

 

[Scoopar]

North becoming the prima donna's of the AFL. If it's not Scott, Harvery or Petrie sooking, it's Bradshaw.

Excuse me? Granted Brad Scott has carried a couple of times this year.....
BUT, Sorry I must have missed those Brayshaw, Harvey & Petrie issues. Any chance of enlightening us as to when Brayshaw, Boomer or Petrie have behaved like prima donnas?

And it's Brayshaw, not Bradshaw.

 

[hutchy31]

The media efforts from players and officials are more often then not sanitised, bland and not worth watching. It's good to see blokes just call it as they see it. Threads like this are an indication why they don't bother, there's always someone out there just itching to be offended and start whining to anyone who will listen.

This. I've just watched it and he wasn't rabidly calling out North or anything, there was a sensible point there.

Generally, the footy analysis shows are crap when there's a guest - uninteresting media speak generally. Every game is a challenge, only focusing on this week, really enjoying my footy blah blah ******* blah.

 

[bugalugs213]

Nothing new from Clarkson, pass the buck as usual.

Yeah you'll have a lot of support on that one. Clarkson does it do often.

 

[Pharaoh]

Actually it was a really great interview, particularly the part about equalisation and getting the competition back onto even terms as quickly as possible.

 

[SkyHawk]

I think "highly" critical is an exaggeration.

 

[Daveismad]

I agree with clarkson ...why this media trawling for 4 days

But it's $$$$$$$$

Why....it sells foxtel subscriptions and newspapers and Internet deals that's why

There is big money to be made in dragging a case out till Tuesday .......the afl saturates us ......it's daily

Games Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday then Monday tribunal, Tuesday is appeals night ...Wednesday is the only night off...then Thursday night is team selection night ........it just keeps rolling and it's by design to keep us talking footy

 

[Pusswah]

Soo.....you have absolutely no idea what the thread is about or what was said. You just thought you would add something completely irrelevant, and what's more, completely incorrect. Nice

It was about influencing the outcome - I don't think it did.
It was always going to be all over the media, it was a s**t act.

 

[thethinkingcat]

Clarko's an awesome coach don't get me wrong there. However, he's entitled to his opinion and if he thinks that things should of been handled better then so be it. That's his call. He has every right to make his opinions heard.
What north and the afl did was ok in my opinion. However what those media programs did was ask the wrong questions. If those questions weren't asked in the first place i think clarko along with anyone else who disagrees would have been happier.

 

[pacman]

I couldn't find another thread on this which i was shocked about, but i was more shocked at what i heard from Clarkson on 'On the Couch' tonight. Speaking about the Lake/Petrie incident, He said that he was disappointed in both North and Drew Petrie for how they handled the media after the incident and in the lead up to the tribunal case. In my opinion, and this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Geelong supporter, I'm not a hater like some, I thought it was very poor from Clarkson to call out North and Petrie like that. I don't know what he expects them to do, just ignore the Media all together? Why should North players and the coach just ignore Media commitments because someone from the opposition has done something wrong. I could imagine Brad Scott would be seething after hearing that?

Thoughts?

He mentioned the AFL and the Hawks handled it poorly also.
Why not mention that?

Believes there is a better way, pretty sure he's right.

 

[cammo78]

Yep, Media got Viney off (rightfully so too mind you), Media got Lake the level of suspension he got. Every media outlet was talking about 4 weeks etc etc, and not surprisingly, it's what he got.

It's also what he deserved.

Don't blame the media for Lake's stupidity.

 

[Smoky]

When will North learn to be professional about any of their on field incidents... and just let Brad Scott handle them!

 

[MrFujiMoto]

I couldn't find another thread on this which i was shocked about, but i was more shocked at what i heard from Clarkson on 'On the Couch' tonight. Speaking about the Lake/Petrie incident, He said that he was disappointed in both North and Drew Petrie for how they handled the media after the incident and in the lead up to the tribunal case. In my opinion, and this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Geelong supporter, I'm not a hater like some, I thought it was very poor from Clarkson to call out North and Petrie like that. I don't know what he expects them to do, just ignore the Media all together? Why should North players and the coach just ignore Media commitments because someone from the opposition has done something wrong. I could imagine Brad Scott would be seething after hearing that?

Thoughts?

I agree with him 100%, and not because it is Clarko. The fact that any matter sent to the tribunal is allowed to be discussed in the media by the parties involved makes the tribunal a joke. If it is at the tribunal there should be a ban on invested parties talking to the media until the findings.

I think he should be more disappointed in Lake

He was very critical of Lake straight after the game, until he spoke to Lake and looked at the vision.

Whichever was you cut this one it was a trial by media and that's what should be stopped

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Hawthorn player Lake is responsible for his own actions, as the coach of Hawthorn Clarkson should be concerned about what his players do not what opposition players say to the media. His actions are what earned him his 4 weeks not media comments.

His actions deserved a sanction, 4 weeks was to do with the media uproar and the views on how this "looked' as much as it was the actions. If it was not the media why was the penalty so harsh when the tribunal typically (if you can use that term with the tribunal) look at the end result as a major factor. I.e - Petrie went on to dominate the game, no injury sustained and footage showed clearly barely any contact made. There was more contact from Petrie to Lakes eye and face, prior to the "choker hold", than there ever was by Lake to Petries throat. After the media beat up and international coverage, the tribunal had to make a stand. now my view is the penalty was to show that the AFL were tough on these sorts of incidents that make the game look bad, not based on the incident itself.

 

[grouse mate]

His actions deserved a sanction, 4 weeks was to do with the media uproar and the views on how this "looked' as much as it was the actions. If it was not the media why was the penalty so harsh when the tribunal typically (if you can use that term with the tribunal) look at the end result as a major factor. I.e - Petrie went on to dominate the game, no injury sustained and footage showed clearly barely any contact made. There was more contact from Petrie to Lakes eye and face, prior to the "choker hold", than there ever was by Lake to Petries throat. After the media beat up and international coverage, the tribunal had to make a stand. now my view is the penalty was to show that the AFL were tough on these sorts of incidents that make the game look bad, not based on the incident itself.

Well if thats the case they probably should of charged him with bringing the game into disrepute then. $1 mil fine and a year off might be more fitting.

 

[theyellowsash]

good on petrie and north. players code for bumps or niggle is one thing but why should they protect a guy who nearly put petrie to sleep by suffocating him. biggest dog act since barry hit staker and i hope he never plays again for whatever reason, that kind of stuff is neither tough nor footy.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I haven't seen the interview, so can only comment broadly about the issue.

I think people overstate the role that the media has on the tribunal. I don't think the MRP listens to commentators at all. The Media's job is to create stories - that is what they are doing... I don't like a lot of what they say/do around footy, but I don't think they impact the MRP in the majority of cases - and the occasional may be more due to the media having an impact on the AFL head office.

I do agree that players/teams involved should not say anything to the media regarding particular incidents, and a "no comment" should be the standard response. However, I don't think any club can really use that as an excuse, (particularly Hawthorn in this case) because for the most part those comments aim to minimise the incident. (Campbell Brown-Chris Judd anyone?)
I have no problem with players defending themselves in the MRP as Petrie did in this case - they would be negligent not to.

As for medical reports - I think the AFL really needs to look at having independant doctors on game day. You would hope that club doctors are immune to the pressures that would be placed on them by the club to give an assessment that works best for the club (eg. the concussion ruling or in these cases that might influence the MRP), but they are still employees of the clubs... it's time that someone independant does those assessments.

A suggestion for the MRP to meet on Sundays is just unreasonable. If we want them to treat incidents professionally then you need to give them time to fully assess the case, which should requires an in depth look and previous similar cases - clubs/players/legal teams should also be given time to consider their response to a case. Clearly you still want it done well before following week - so early in the week, as they do now, is a reasonable comprimise IMO.

 

[Cynic]

I think people overstate the role that the media has on the tribunal. I don't think the MRP listens to commentators at all. The Media's job is to create stories - that is what they are doing... I don't like a lot of what they say/do around footy, but I don't think they impact the MRP in the majority of cases - and the occasional may be more due to the media having an impact on the AFL head office.

The thing is it is impossible to know. If we could work out what a player should be or have been charged with objectively, then we could comment. Because no one has any idea on which small clause/grey area an incident will be classified with there is a risk the media will effect the outcome. Personally the AFL acts, and I suppose it is, a like a big business where decisions, including the MRP decisions, are made with consideration to the effect it will have in the media.

 

[QuietB]

The media efforts from players and officials are more often then not sanitised, bland and not worth watching. It's good to see blokes just call it as they see it. Threads like this are an indication why they don't bother, there's always someone out there just itching to be offended and start whining to anyone who will listen.

The problem is not that the media get criticised for doing what they did to Lake.

The problem is the media picks and chooses when it wants to go.

Lake/Ballantine/Crowley etc. get crucified.

Insert media love child and assassinating an umpire would get completely overlooked as an aberration.

Anyway, the media s**t storm around Lake was mostly Clarko's fault - he got the ball rolling. Not his best effort and he acknowledged as much.

 

[MrFujiMoto]

Well if thats the case they probably should of charged him with bringing the game into disrepute then. $1 mil fine and a year off might be more fitting.

Funny, let's compare his on field actions (nothing more than two players wrestling when it all boils down to it) with those of people cheating and rorting the system. If we were able to seriously assess it, players do plenty worse on a regular basis when they stand and wrestle and jumper punch each other. None of these guys get 4 weeks, do they?

 

[ScoobySnacks]

I haven't seen the interview, so can only comment broadly about the issue.

I think people overstate the role that the media has on the tribunal. I don't think the MRP listens to commentators at all. The Media's job is to create stories - that is what they are doing... I don't like a lot of what they say/do around footy, but I don't think they impact the MRP in the majority of cases - and the occasional may be more due to the media having an impact on the AFL head office.

I do agree that players/teams involved should not say anything to the media regarding particular incidents, and a "no comment" should be the standard response. However, I don't think any club can really use that as an excuse, (particularly Hawthorn in this case) because for the most part those comments aim to minimise the incident. (Campbell Brown-Chris Judd anyone?)
I have no problem with players defending themselves in the MRP as Petrie did in this case - they would be negligent not to.

As for medical reports - I think the AFL really needs to look at having independant doctors on game day. You would hope that club doctors are immune to the pressures that would be placed on them by the club to give an assessment that works best for the club (eg. the concussion ruling or in these cases that might influence the MRP), but they are still employees of the clubs... it's time that someone independant does those assessments.

A suggestion for the MRP to meet on Sundays is just unreasonable. If we want them to treat incidents professionally then you need to give them time to fully assess the case, which should requires an in depth look and previous similar cases - clubs/players/legal teams should also be given time to consider their response to a case. Clearly you still want it done well before following week - so early in the week, as they do now, is a reasonable comprimise IMO.

The Viney case was a clear example of the AFL being influenced by the media to come to a decision

 

[ScoobySnacks]

The problem is not that the media get criticised for doing what they did to Lake.

The problem is the media picks and chooses when it wants to go.

Lake/Ballantine/Crowley etc. get crucified.

Insert media love child and assassinating an umpire would get completely overlooked as an aberration.

Anyway, the media s**t storm around Lake was mostly Clarko's fault - he got the ball rolling. Not his best effort and he acknowledged as much.

*cough* A Goodes *cough*

 

[Daveismad]

It was about influencing the outcome - I don't think it did.
It was always going to be all over the media, it was a s**t act.

....

Take a camera out to a nightclub or pub on Friday night and you'd see worse .......

That doesn't are it right but we needed to put it into perspective

 

[Daveismad]

The Viney case was a clear example of the AFL being influenced by the media to come to a decision

Media shapes public opinion on many things

And I reckon that's not always bad thing either

50,000 footy fans made it very clear ...probably more that we didn't like what lake did

On the flip side lake was serial killer either but for four days he was made out to be

I firmly believe the afl likes the theatre of it ......it sells papers, it sells foxtel packages

It's bucks