Fev.. Rubbed out?

[Captain Judd]

anyone know if Fev has any points left??? If he does and pleads guilty then he might get off...

 

[Blues_Man]

It was a silly thing to do, despite Fev's four goals, Glass was in his mind all day. Fev surcomed to the mind games and had a brain laps, probably will cost him a week.

So his cerebellum was doing circle work ??? they would have been tiny steps ..lol

I think Fev will get a week.

 

[HBF]

The way he went at Selwood looked more like he tried to "block" him, rather than actually punch him. I reckon he'd be about 50/50 to be looked at by the MRP.

 

[blues_gibbo6]

worth a free kick, not really much in it just undisicplined, wasnt apunch more of like sticking his arm in the way. if the tribunals want to be pricks maybe a week, but the umps have been looking after fev lately so id say theyd want him to play in the all star game next week?

 

[len_jet]

worth a free kick, not really much in it just undisicplined, wasnt apunch more of like sticking his arm in the way. if the tribunals want to be pricks maybe a week, but the umps have been looking after fev lately so id say theyd want him to play in the all star game next week?

even if rubbed out, suspended players are capable of playing in the tribute match... Kerr is in.

 

[Andyt31]

even if rubbed out, suspended players are capable of playing in the tribute match... Kerr is in.

he hasn't been up yet and again it could get thrown out seen worse get off but of cause the Commentators make sure he'll get sited saying fev did this to this player but least he didn't turn around and punch the Player in the face it looks similar to the Melbourne player did to fev and he coped 1 week so i'd say if he coped a suspension he'll get 1 but lets wait til we know
least The umpire didn;t report him on the spot so who knows
obsually he didn't think it was a reportable offence

 

[barnesy]

Up until an hour ago, gawn, at least a week no hesitation, but other footage shows the contact was with an open hand and inner forearm, so I actually am confident he can get off with a reprimand.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I can't see how Fev's love tap will get more than a reprimand. Low contact, low impact, negligent, in play. Lowest end of the scale. Given a 25% reduction for an early guilty plea and another 25% for a good recent record (not suspended since Rd 4 2005) would make him a monte for a reprimand. Actually never swung his fist at all, just a block on a tagger with clenched fist protect Judd. Just got it wrong. Be considered no more than negligent.

 

[tigris]

I can't see how Fev's love tap will get more than a reprimand. Low contact, low impact, negligent, in play. Lowest end of the scale. Given a 25% reduction for an early guilty plea and another 25% for a good recent record (not suspended since Rd 4 2005) would make him a monte for a reprimand. Actually never swung his fist at all, just a block on a tagger with clenched fist protect Judd. Just got it wrong. Be considered no more than negligent.

I would have to got the opposite. Some are saying open hand, i'm not so sure. If it was a fist, it was clearly intentional (3 points), medium impact as selwood appeared to be winded for a long time (2 points), and body contact (1 point), in play (0 points). 6 points is 225 demirits and 1 week for an early plea assuming no carry overs.

Even if they class it reckless instead of intentional (2 points), and maybe even low impact if selwood was a faking wussbag (1 point), it would still be 4 points and possibly a week even with carry overs / early plea.

Either way, if it gets picked up by the MRP, it will be a week, and only a week.

 

[Andyt31]

Did anyone See the Matthew Stokes Incident? now he'll cop a weeks or 2 that makes Fevs Nothing so i got a good feeling after the tribunal sees stokes incident they will throw fevs out the door

 

[Jimthegreat]

I would have to got the opposite. Some are saying open hand, i'm not so sure. If it was a fist, it was clearly intentional (3 points), medium impact as selwood appeared to be winded for a long time (2 points), and body contact (1 point), in play (0 points). 6 points is 225 demirits and 1 week for an early plea assuming no carry overs.

Even if they class it reckless instead of intentional (2 points), and maybe even low impact if selwood was a faking wussbag (1 point), it would still be 4 points and possibly a week even with carry overs / early plea.

Either way, if it gets picked up by the MRP, it will be a week, and only a week.

I have to stand corrected on his good record. His one game suspensions in both 2005 & 2006 will actually add 20% to his activation points.

Should surely not be classed as any more than negligent. The way I read it in the link below is it is a level 1 offence, worth 80 points (Negligent, in play, low contact, and with either low or medium impact is a Level 1 offence). Add 20% for the 2 games he's been suspended for in the last 3 AFL seasons that gives him 96. Take away 25% for an early guilty plea gives him 72 points. As every 100 points gives you a week, he should get a reprimand. Given that, he may as well fight the charge if I read it correctly.

It's all described in the link below.

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2008.pdf

 

[tigris]

I have to stand corrected on his good record. His one game suspensions in both 2005 & 2006 will actually add 20% to his activation points.

Should surely not be classed as any more than negligent. The way I read it in the link below is it is a level 1 offence, worth 80 points (Negligent, in play, low contact, and with either low or medium impact is a Level 1 offence). Add 20% for the 2 games he's been suspended for in the last 3 AFL seasons that gives him 96. Take away 25% for an early guilty plea gives him 72 points. As every 100 points gives you a week, he should get a reprimand. Given that, he may as well fight the charge if I read it correctly.

It's all described in the link below.

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2008.pdf

Nice link. Thanks for that, I tried to find it earlier but couldnt.

I don't see how you can class it as neglegent. He ran past the contest, directly to selwood and made contact. His intention all along was to make contact, there was clearly no other thought in his mind. As to what the contact he made in the end was, is irrelevant to his intention.

Consider the Maxwell on Murphy bump a couple weeks back. Classed as high, and intentional. This is a borderline call, because whilst I think Maxwell did intentionally mean to hit Murphy, I don't think he intentionally meant to hit him high, it was just that Marc moved a certain way that meant he got hit high instead of body.

My point is, fev may have only "intended" to bump selwood or push him out of the contest, but due to selwood moving, he ended up "striking" him. Still intentional any way you look at it.

Intentional, low impact, body contact, 5 activiation points, level 2 striking offence, 125 demerit points multiplied by 20% is 150.

 

[BartBart]

I have to stand corrected on his good record. His one game suspensions in both 2005 & 2006 will actually add 20% to his activation points.

Should surely not be classed as any more than negligent. The way I read it in the link below is it is a level 1 offence, worth 80 points (Negligent, in play, low contact, and with either low or medium impact is a Level 1 offence). Add 20% for the 2 games he's been suspended for in the last 3 AFL seasons that gives him 96. Take away 25% for an early guilty plea gives him 72 points. As every 100 points gives you a week, he should get a reprimand. Given that, he may as well fight the charge if I read it correctly.

It's all described in the link below.

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2008.pdf

I agree.
At low end it will be negligent or rekless, low impact, body contact. = 3 or 4 activation = Level 1 Strike = 80pts + 20% = 96 pts + carryover pts = a reprimand if he pleads guilty, if he has any carryover pts.
At the high end it would be intentional, medium impact, body contact = 6 activation pts = Level 3 Strike = 225pts + 20% = 270pts + carryover pts.

So it looks like it is likely that it could be anywhere between a reprimand and 2 weeks.

On a side issue, isn't a bit of a joke that carryover points get the 25% plead guilty discount. If a player has, say, 40 carryover points from pleading guilty added to a subsequent offence he gets another 25% discount on those points if he pleads guilty again. A bit like a tax on a tax - but in reverse.

 

[BartBart]

Nice link. Thanks for that, I tried to find it earlier but couldnt.

I don't see how you can class it as neglegent. He ran past the contest, directly to selwood and made contact. His intention all along was to make contact, there was clearly no other thought in his mind. As to what the contact he made in the end was, is irrelevant to his intention.

Consider the Maxwell on Murphy bump a couple weeks back. Classed as high, and intentional. This is a borderline call, because whilst I think Maxwell did intentionally mean to hit Murphy, I don't think he intentionally meant to hit him high, it was just that Marc moved a certain way that meant he got hit high instead of body.

My point is, fev may have only "intended" to bump selwood or push him out of the contest, but due to selwood moving, he ended up "striking" him. Still intentional any way you look at it.

Intentional, low impact, body contact, 5 activiation points, level 2 striking offence, 125 demerit points multiplied by 20% is 150.

In your example, 150pts + carryover pts? -25% (if pleads guilty). So even if the carryover pts are at the high end (90) - he would remain under 200pts - so 1 week with high amount of carryover pts. If he has no carryover pts = 120pts = 1 week + 20 carryover pts.

Does anyone know where to find any players record, carrover pts, etc.?

 

[disconorman]

I think he'll get nothing. He didn't swing his arm, just stuck it out. If he deos get cited, I think you can't claim the discount by pleading guilty if you have carry over points. Bad record eliminates the guilty discount. Could be wrong.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Nice link. Thanks for that, I tried to find it earlier but couldnt.

I don't see how you can class it as neglegent. He ran past the contest, directly to selwood and made contact. His intention all along was to make contact, there was clearly no other thought in his mind. As to what the contact he made in the end was, is irrelevant to his intention.

Consider the Maxwell on Murphy bump a couple weeks back. Classed as high, and intentional. This is a borderline call, because whilst I think Maxwell did intentionally mean to hit Murphy, I don't think he intentionally meant to hit him high, it was just that Marc moved a certain way that meant he got hit high instead of body.

My point is, fev may have only "intended" to bump selwood or push him out of the contest, but due to selwood moving, he ended up "striking" him. Still intentional any way you look at it.

Intentional, low impact, body contact, 5 activiation points, level 2 striking offence, 125 demerit points multiplied by 20% is 150.

Not that often is anything considered "intentional" at the tribunal. Their meaning of "intentional" is interesting. It really has to be on purpose (just short of pre-mediated) before they go with that. Remember Barry Hall played in a GF in 2005 getting a reprimand with the exact same offence.

 

[Jimthegreat]

In your example, 150pts + carryover pts? -25% (if pleads guilty). So even if the carryover pts are at the high end (90) - he would remain under 200pts - so 1 week with high amount of carryover pts. If he has no carryover pts = 120pts = 1 week + 20 carryover pts.

Does anyone know where to find any players record, carrover pts, etc.?

I found it earlier. Other than wrestling, which doesn't count, Fev has 2 matches that will add 20% to his record, 2005 against Freo and 2006 and the Swans (one match each). it's 10% for each match and caps at 50%. He been to the tribunal a bit but alot for silly wrestling type charges.

 

[BartBart]

I found it earlier. Other than wrestling, which doesn't count, Fev has 2 matches that will add 20% to his record, 2005 against Freo and 2006 and the Swans (one match each). it's 10% for each match and caps at 50%. He been to the tribunal a bit but alot for silly wrestling type charges.

But carryover pts are something separate. They are leftover pts from a previous offence. So, if a player has 120pts for an offence after 25% guilty plea, he gets 1 week and 20 pts added to next offence. It was the residual pts I was wondering about.

 

[tigris]

Not that often is anything considered "intentional" at the tribunal. Their meaning of "intentional" is interesting. It really has to be on purpose (just short of pre-mediated) before they go with that. Remember Barry Hall played in a GF in 2005 getting a reprimand with the exact same offence.

This cracked me up... you mean it has to be on purpose for the tribunal to class it as intentional? That's crazy talk.

My point was, I don't think they will class the actual strike as intentional, but the contact definitely was. Use the term pre-meditated if you want, because it looked to me like the big fev had definitely pre-meditated some form of contact on selwood. He may have only intended to block him or something, but that is irrelevant. Intentional in my book.

People refer to barry hall playing in the granny... did he actually get off, or did he get the hearing delayed? Maybe I am thinking of andrew dunkley way way back. Was barry's under the points system? If not then it doesn't count.

 

[BartBart]

This cracked me up... you mean it has to be on purpose for the tribunal to class it as intentional? That's crazy talk.

My point was, I don't think they will class the actual strike as intentional, but the contact definitely was. Use the term pre-meditated if you want, because it looked to me like the big fev had definitely pre-meditated some form of contact on selwood. He may have only intended to block him or something, but that is irrelevant. Intentional in my book.

People refer to barry hall playing in the granny... did he actually get off, or did he get the hearing delayed? Maybe I am thinking of andrew dunkley way way back. Was barry's under the points system? If not then it doesn't count.

I think you are thinking Dunkley - where the hearing got delayed. Hall's got reduced from Not in Play to In Play - even though it was a long, long way away from the ball. That decision basically meant that any contact in the field of play is in play - even if it is in on e goal square and the ball is in the goal square at the opposite end of the ground. It was just a convienent way for the tribunal to avoid suspending a player in a GF. And it now means there is no In Play/Not In Play category any more.

 

[MPH78]

My initial reaction at the game was 'oh no'....

Upon seeing the replay a few times now, I honestly don't believe there was much in it.

 

[Jimthegreat]

This cracked me up... you mean it has to be on purpose for the tribunal to class it as intentional? That's crazy talk.

My point was, I don't think they will class the actual strike as intentional, but the contact definitely was. Use the term pre-meditated if you want, because it looked to me like the big fev had definitely pre-meditated some form of contact on selwood. He may have only intended to block him or something, but that is irrelevant. Intentional in my book.

People refer to barry hall playing in the granny... did he actually get off, or did he get the hearing delayed? Maybe I am thinking of andrew dunkley way way back. Was barry's under the points system? If not then it doesn't count.

Read the intepretation of "intentional" and "reckless" in the link before anything cracks you up. It's not as back and white as you might think. You might be laughing the other side of your face. You find not that much is actually considered "intentional". You might find it might be classed as "reckless" (just short of the interpretation of "intentional". Not negligent as I first thought after reading the explanations of each category). With low impact and and body contact it's still 4 activation points, which is a reprimand even with Fev's extra 20% loading (as long as they don't make it "medium" impact).

As for Hall it was the exact same offence in GF week on Maguire from St.Kilda and brought a reprimand. Surely you remember that. I went with "negligent" but Hall's that evening was considered "reckless" if we're looking for precedent. So I have to go with that. Sydney wanted to challenge the rating of "reckless" and have it downgraded "negligent" but decided against that as they could not have claimed the 25% discount for the early plea. In those days there was the extra category of "in play and "behind play" and by getting the change changed to "in play" at the Tribunal downgraded Hall's one week suspension to a reprimand.

 

[BartBart]

I think it will be at the lower end - reprimand or 1 week. Probably depend on how many carryover pts involved. If it is 1 week, it won't be the end of the world.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I think it will be at the lower end - reprimand or 1 week. Probably depend on how many carryover pts involved. If it is 1 week, it won't be the end of the world.

Seems the actual carryover points expired 2 games ago.

 

[Mike_blues]

get a week early plea repremand
end of story
nothing in it compared to stokes