1/3 mark

[The Finger]

Bang! And there it is ... reference 200 to the "Upwey Bloke" incident from no less than 14 weeks ago!! What's next Finger? ... "Upwey Bloke" got off, so then should James Hird and the EFC?! Seriously mate....

No Cheap Whine its just precedent that the YV set for themselves. We have a 20 year player and a League Life Member getting 9 for a accidental collision while earlier a king hit was pushed a side.

 

[Cheap Whine]

Mick has been a fantastic player, no doubt! It would surprise me greatly if he is guilty of a behind the play strike, is there vision of the 'incident'? His good record must have been taken into consideration and to then still get 9 weeks suggests to me much more than just an "accident" has occured.

 

[The Finger]

Mick has been a fantastic player, no doubt! It would surprise me greatly if he is guilty of a behind the play strike, is there vision of the 'incident'? His good record must have been taken into consideration and to then still get 9 weeks suggests to me much more than just an "accident" has occured.

The much more would be who not what at a guess.

 

[Beau knows best]

Are you suggesting that the player struck would be closely related to a league board member finger ???? You seem to know an awful lot considering that in your words "just heard about it"! If the decision is so bad why would Warby not go down the appeal pathway? Also noticed fingered that you did not include your "close mate" Andy Goodwin in the great ruck man debate? Was at Healesville the day he won wandin the 01 grand final off his own boot or fist if you will!

 

[The Finger]

Are you suggesting that the player struck would be closely related to a league board member finger ???? You seem to know an awful lot considering that in your words "just heard about it"! If the decision is so bad why would Warby not go down the appeal pathway? Also noticed fingered that you did not include your "close mate" Andy Goodwin in the great ruck man debate? Was at Healesville the day he won wandin the 01 grand final off his own boot or fist if you will!

Dont know maybe they will.

Yes that 2001 GF was certainly on the back of Andy in the ruck. Still remember hearing that the Woori President had Premiers 2001 T Shirts printed and ready.

 

[sid snot]

Dont know maybe they will.

Yes that 2001 GF was certainly on the back of Andy in the ruck. Still remember hearing that the Woori President had Premiers 2001 T Shirts printed and ready.

i think you have your years mixed up woori finished 5th in 2001 so would have been a good effort to win it from there as it was a final four.
Finished 2nd the next year. Either way Andy was outstanding in both years in the finals. Read the ruck debate all really good players but Charlie Richards and Monkey were outstanding. Best player i have seen in the valley is moorcrooft apologies to the scott brothers.

 

[The Finger]

Good lord Finger. By your own admission you didn't see the "Fevola" incident and there is no vision, so how about you shut the hell up about it as you are hardly qualified to talk about it if you are just going on what other people say.

And the same with this 9 week incident, unless you saw it, shut up.

It costs the club $2,000 to appeal it, win or lose, so it's a tough call for them.

I saw the Fevola incident as did around 1500 others. Monbulk defanatley wanted it followed up but amazingly the league made it disapear as it didnt suit them.

As for Walker well hes played over 340 senior games never been reported and apparently never sent off. Yet hes doing 9 weeks for a bump no one saw. Hear that no one saw that the league spoke to, yet they gave him 9 despite a superb record in all sports on and off the field. Mick by all reports is devastated that he was hung out to dry by what can only be described as a well organised joke by the league.

 

[Upwey Fan]

Dont know maybe they will.

Yes that 2001 GF was certainly on the back of Andy in the ruck. Still remember hearing that the Woori President had Premiers 2001 T Shirts printed and ready.

Wandin beat us in the 2001 Granny and it certainly came about by Goodwins Ruck Work as we were making a charge he kept punching the ball out of bounds-thrown in punched out-thrown in punched out-etc etc did it to perfection he certainly stopped our charge.

 

[Monniehawk]

Good lord Finger. By your own admission you didn't see the "Fevola" incident and there is no vision, so how about you shut the hell up about it as you are hardly qualified to talk about it if you are just going on what other people say.

And the same with this 9 week incident, unless you saw it, shut up.

It costs the club $2,000 to appeal it, win or lose, so it's a tough call for them.

There was vision - compelling stuff. Monbulk had the option of taking it to Investigation and chose to sort it out between the clubs. The League was not involved. The issue is resolved - with Upwey taking action internally. Resolved, except for those who wish to push a barrow for their own personal prejudices.
Others have different recollections of Walker from Finger's pristine account. He was charged for one incident in one game, not for what happened in the other 339. Obviously the Tribunal, Olinda and its player didn't consider it "accidental".
$2,000 is not the cost of the investigation. It is a bond to ensure there are no trivial investigations. It is returned if the investigation is considered worthy of prosecution, with the League having the option to recover any costs from the deposited bond. This obviously influenced the clubs to sort it out in-house.

 

[The Finger]

There was vision - compelling stuff. Monbulk had the option of taking it to Investigation and chose to sort it out between the clubs. The League was not involved. The issue is resolved - with Upwey taking action internally. Resolved, except for those who wish to push a barrow for their own personal prejudices.
Others have different recollections of Walker from Finger's pristine account. He was charged for one incident in one game, not for what happened in the other 339. Obviously the Tribunal, Olinda and its player didn't consider it "accidental".
$2,000 is not the cost of the investigation. It is a bond to ensure there are no trivial investigations. It is returned if the investigation is considered worthy of prosecution, with the League having the option to recover any costs from the deposited bond. This obviously influenced the clubs to sort it out in-house.

Thats not correct at all the League chose not to be involved as it didnt suit there agenda.

As for Walker I'd take anything he say's over a witness that had his vision obscured by a point post. But thats just me.

 

[dgball]

There was vision - compelling stuff. Monbulk had the option of taking it to Investigation and chose to sort it out between the clubs. The League was not involved. The issue is resolved - with Upwey taking action internally. Resolved, except for those who wish to push a barrow for their own personal prejudices.
Others have different recollections of Walker from Finger's pristine account. He was charged for one incident in one game, not for what happened in the other 339. Obviously the Tribunal, Olinda and its player didn't consider it "accidental".
$2,000 is not the cost of the investigation. It is a bond to ensure there are no trivial investigations. It is returned if the investigation is considered worthy of prosecution, with the League having the option to recover any costs from the deposited bond. This obviously influenced the clubs to sort it out in-house.

The quoted $2000 (might even be more?) amount is the cost of having an appeal heard by AFL Vic Country, and you don't get it all back even if you win. The Investigation bond is different and is as you say, is returned if the investigation is not seen as frivolous. Appeals are often made against the severity of the the sentence and over the past few years there have been a few reduced at appeal.

 

[pterodactyl]

Thats not correct at all the League chose not to be involved as it didnt suit there agenda.

As for Walker I'd take anything he say's over a witness that had his vision obscured by a point post. But thats just me.

So what your pointless rant is based on is that because he has played plenty of games he gets given a 'get out of jail free card'? Walker would have had ample opportunity to defend himself and develop a case.

And before you go on about 'his word Vs theirs', up until 3 or 4 years ago when the league adopted Valley Vision, that's how all off ball incidents that were to be investigated were dealt with. Rewind the clock back to the Yarra Glen incident a few years ago. The league hire independent investigators for this reason, and to my knowledge, this particular case at a league level was dealt with by other executives, not the obvious.

Here's a football question for you flinger, you would have to be confident of snagging the double chance this week surely?!

Dgball is correct, you pay the fee regardless of a win or loss. You take 2 cheques with you. If you're successful, you take one home with you. If its deemed frivolous, you surrender both cheques.

Im looking forward to a ripper weekend of footy, going to try and see 3 quarters at three games, Upwey, then Belgrave, then watch the final qtr (hopefully) of Emerald v Monbulk. All teams have plenty to play for, good luck to all.

 

[The Finger]

So what your pointless rant is based on is that because he has played plenty of games he gets given a 'get out of jail free card'? Walker would have had ample opportunity to defend himself and develop a case.

And before you go on about 'his word Vs theirs', up until 3 or 4 years ago when the league adopted Valley Vision, that's how all off ball incidents that were to be investigated were dealt with. Rewind the clock back to the Yarra Glen incident a few years ago. The league hire independent investigators for this reason, and to my knowledge, this particular case at a league level was dealt with by other executives, not the obvious.

Here's a football question for you flinger, you would have to be confident of snagging the double chance this week surely?!

Dgball is correct, you pay the fee regardless of a win or loss. You take 2 cheques with you. If you're successful, you take one home with you. If its deemed frivolous, you surrender both cheques.

Im looking forward to a ripper weekend of footy, going to try and see 3 quarters at three games, Upwey, then Belgrave, then watch the final qtr (hopefully) of Emerald v Monbulk. All teams have plenty to play for, good luck to all.

Wasnt on VV pterodactyl thats the issue I believe. Walker is adament it was unavoidable collision that caught him off guard and he was blind sided. A 350 game exemplery record through out the league has to hold some weight. No players saw it not even the victim saw it. The only evidence they had was a witness that had his vision obscured by a point post. Trust me thats not a joke. The YV tribunal is a joke thats getting worse.

 

[The Finger]

You've no idea why the league wasn't involved. Saying it doesn't suit THEIR (emphasis for spelling) agenda is you making stuff up yet again. Unless you have hard facts as to why the league stayed out of it, again, shut the hell up about it.

Incorrect.




Isn't this the complete opposite of what you were previously saying? There are witnesses willing to come forward, yet you're opinion of a bloke is worth more than that? Perhaps Upwey/Monbulk's opinion of said player was worth more than however many of the supposed 1500 witnesses were willing to come forward (which I suspect was closer to 0 than it was to 1500).

Incorrect again.




Correct, this is the $2,000 I was referring to, to even have the appeal heard. Not the separate investigation "bond" that is dealt with the league itself, not vic country. As dgball suggested, it's used to reduce sentences, which if said player was contemplating retirement anyway, unless Warby were to get the sentence reduced to 1-2 weeks, it's hardly worth the $2,000 loss.

I'd be interested to know what the supposed extra 6 weeks is for. 3 weeks for hitting a bloke behind the ball whether it be accidentally or whatever, is understandable, regardless of who it was doing the hitting. I'm not saying it was warranted, but I am just saying 3 weeks for an act like that is not unheard of. But the 6 weeks extra, it must be something severe such as pushing a trainer out the way or something like that.

At least try and get something right. Player injured doesnt mean something untoward happened. Unlike the Fevola incident where a player decided to king hit another this was accidental contact. But like I said the tribunal is a joke that follows no procedure's or protocol.

 

[ManInWhite]

I'm going to ask the obvious question. If it was an "unavoidable collision" it can't have been too near the play for "no player to see it" or no YV vision.

 

[The Finger]

I'm going to ask the obvious question. If it was an "unavoidable collision" it can't have been too near the play for "no player to see it" or no YV vision.

Players crossing each other on leads Walker following his opponent, Olindas forward doubling back to block and they collided 15 meters out in front of the goal umpire who saw nothing untoward.

 

[ManInWhite]

Strange though - Alastair Lynch was an AFL Life Member and All Australian so maybe the AFL tribunal should have let him off too..

 

[The Finger]

Strange though - Alastair Lynch was an AFL Life Member and All Australian so maybe the AFL tribunal should have let him off too..

Thats the sort of intelligent response you'd expect from a person with no involvement in the game ever.

 

[ManInWhite]

Your comebacks are worse than your arguments.

 

[Backhoe]

Lets get 1 thing straight here. Just because you play over 300 games does not give you the right to a get out of jail free card. You do the crime you do the time. That is not the argument. Mick felt as though he had done nothing wrong, it was a bump/collision as 2 backs & 2 forwards were jostling for position in criss cross leads. There is no vision on video. From the investigation 6 players, 1 trainer & all 6 umpires were spoken to & only 1 person saw the original incident & said players ran into each other. There was however a spectator who claimed they saw incident, called it an elbow however also said "my view of elbow connecting was obscured by the point post". The end result is a suspension which Mick is disappointed in but as he has "done all his career, he has accepted the decision & moved on. He is now helping the team prepare to win tomorrow to make the finals. I suggest everyone else does the same & MOVES ON. There are some cracking games tomorrow. Good luck to all involved & here is too hopefully a wonderful finals series.

 

[The Finger]

Your comebacks are worse than your arguments.

Yes the Lynch example was fantastic.

 

[Monniehawk]

Thats not correct at all the League chose not to be involved as it didnt suit there agenda.

As for Walker I'd take anything he say's over a witness that had his vision obscured by a point post. But thats just me.

Totally wrong.
I was directly involved in the resolution. You weren't!!
Central to that negotiation was to keep it in the hands of the clubs, so Monbulk did not opt for an Investigation but did keep the League in touch with proceedings. The League was asked by both clubs to assist in the mediation, but nothing more.
You would certainly take the opinion of a mate. You have a vested interest in that. Try talking to the victim! But then, I guess that doesn't suit your agenda.
Opinion masquerading as fact doesn't alter the facts.
You have chosen wilful blindness over the truth.

Again!

 

[The Finger]

Totally wrong.
I was directly involved in the resolution. You weren't!!
Central to that negotiation was to keep it in the hands of the clubs, so Monbulk did not opt for an Investigation but did keep the League in touch with proceedings. The League was asked by both clubs to assist in the mediation, but nothing more.
You would certainly take the opinion of a mate. You have a vested interest in that. Try talking to the victim! But then, I guess that doesn't suit your agenda.
Opinion masquerading as fact doesn't alter the facts.
You have chosen wilful blindness over the truth.

Again!

Great post. So here we have the YV Football League fully aware that a player was knocked out and chose to ignore it just as I said.

The victim didnt see what happened and gave evidence to back that up. Those that saw it swear it was accidental. But hey not that you have an agenda.

 

[sportguru]

Wouldnt suprise anyone with the Kangaroo Court that is the YV Tribunal. Heard that it was a accidental bump that left both pretty sore. Given the bloke from Upwey that knocked Fevola out got nothing Walker could have got anywhere from zero to Life.

"Bloke" from Upwey was not reported for striking Fevola, so explain how the Tribunal could find him guilty.

I can see it now, a mate of Finger's get a few weeks in 10 years time and he will still be using the line "Given the bloke from Upwey that knocked Fevola out got nothing" as justification for his view

 

[The Finger]

"Bloke" from Upwey was not reported for striking Fevola, so explain how the Tribunal could find him guilty.

I can see it now, a mate of Finger's get a few weeks in 10 years time and he will still be using the line "Given the bloke from Upwey that knocked Fevola out got nothing" as justification for his view

He didnt get reported because the league decided to ignore it. Allowed the two clubs to sort it out. Is this a practise offered to other clubs or just these two?