Fletch Gets 2

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by Macca19
I disagree. He left the ground and collected Hayden with a forearm to the face. Its not like his shoulder was tucked in either...his arm was a mile away from his body. Thats a textbook charge/strike and ALWAYS gets matches. When you leave the ground then your done for. That added with Fletchers pathetic tribunal record - 11 times in 10 years hes been reported for just about everything under the sun other than time wasting, then he was almost certainly gonna get weeks.

Instead of blasting the system, the tribunal, the umpires, the freo players....how bout someone get in Fletchers ear and say hey...this just isnt bloody good enough.

As a neutral with no axe to grind, I agree with you. Left the ground and forearm to the face, was reckless and avoidable, therefore guilty. Worth 1 or 2 weeks, look at the record, gets 2. Fair enough.

The comparative issue never works. Should a nurse get paid more than an accountant? do our politicians deserve all the travel perks? Are the criminal sentences for fraud versus burglary equitable? If I stuff up one thing, should I make the same mistake next time to be consistent or try to get it right next time? Do 2 wrongs make a right?

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Macca19
Burgoyne got 2 in the first round for a similar thing.

Fletcher gets 2 for this.

Waite got 2.

Id say its pretty consistent.

Agreed completely, if anything Fletcher should have got an extra week for his past record.

What's stuffed people up is that Holland should have got 4 or 5, and because he only got 2 people are using him as the benchmark. If Holland was the benchmark rarely would we see players get suspended at all.

Use Matthew Carr as the benchmark and Fletcher should have got 5 weeks.

But no question Fletcher was guilty, and 2 weeks seems about right, even if it happened just because he was a clumsy oaf.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by hotpie
Correct.

Two weeks was the correct punishment. Good to see that clumsiness is no longer an excuse.

(Brodie could have got perhaps an extra week, but to say he got off "extremely lightly" is an exagerration in the extreme.)

Perhaps got an extra week? On the evidence of almost everything that has transpired this year, he definitely should have got an extra week at least.

An extra week on top of the two he already got is a penalty increase of 50% which is not insignificant. Two weeks extra which you could make a case for would double the penalty. Sorry, no exageration IMO but I did state that some black and white wearers wouldn't agree.

 

[CFE]

I agree Holland's was EXTREMELY lucky to get 2. I thought 3 weeks.

If they are claiming it as a reckless act, then it is exactly the same as Cloke in last years Prelim.

Only Cloke had eyes for the ball.

Serves him right, he can't help himself...

 

[Kenno25]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
Firstly pleading guilty was a no-brainer, could hardly have denied it. Secondly, are you referring to that jumper/chest tap as being justification for Brodie's king hit?

Pleading guilty always gets you less of a sentence and no Holland wasn't justified in hitting Williams, but he was hit in the mouth and not the chest with a jumper punch and therefore was provoked. I thought he perhaps should have got 3 weeks, but you win some you lose some, plenty of Pies players have been crucified over the years too !! (Tarrant last year for example)

 

[Chris_Judd]

Essendon supporters need to uncover the other eye..... look at Fletchers tribunal record... and then look at the blatant elbow.... he was lucky he only got 2.

 

[FreoDocker]

I thought he should have got off.
How Holland can get the same sentence for belting a bloke behind play is a joke.

 

[jerry springer]

2 weeks what a joke.its a joke that he even got reported

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Kenno25
Pleading guilty always gets you less of a sentence and no Holland wasn't justified in hitting Williams, but he was hit in the mouth and not the chest with a jumper punch and therefore was provoked. I thought he perhaps should have got 3 weeks, but you win some you lose some, plenty of Pies players have been crucified over the years too !! (Tarrant last year for example)

Fair points but I have an issue with the provocation defence. The use of this as a defence is generally built around a deed done as a reflex reaction to something that preceded it. Player A grabs Player B by the throat and Player B smacks him in the gob or if you like, Player A lies on top of Player B and Player B bites Player A's testicles! No doubt Brodie felt he owed Williams something to restore his pride but he let the situation die for a few seconds until Williams was standing beside him watching the play and then chose his moment. Not a reflex and definitely looked like a planned get square. Had time to rethink it and chose not to.

 

[thewhippersnapper]

I dont know how he got 2.

It should have been 1 at the most.

If his is worth 2 then Holldands was worth about 5.

They have to appeal this.

 

[IceTemple]

If he had mashed the players head in he would still have only got two weeks. It was the recklessness that got him plus past record (though apparently past doesn't always come into play where the tribunal is concerned in its delibs as they have stated).

I think it is way past the time for a certain "grading" type scenario so that a more consistent and transparent tribunal system can work.

Hollands incident was different to Fletchers and Fletch could have done some really serious stuff to the Freo player and that is probably what the tribunal looked at.

I thought one week was plently but I aint going to go off at anyone but Inspector Gadget. The guy just does not seem to have his head screwed on right! Why do it in a final? Why do it at all? Why not be more careful when you are as gangly as he is (plenty of others have been and haven't done the time he has)? Why can't he learn after the first half-dozen times? Why does the club not do something about it?

Stuff the media as it aint their fault he did it. Sure they replayed it 50000000000 times and pronounced guilt but geez he deserves to be crucified if he can't learn. We can't turn back the clock and not have tv & commentators who are not biased. We just have to get used to it!

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by Macca19
I disagree. He left the ground and collected Hayden with a forearm to the face. Its not like his shoulder was tucked in either...his arm was a mile away from his body. Thats a textbook charge/strike and ALWAYS gets matches.

Why did he get off earlier in the year then, particularly when that was much worse. Tribunal continues to be terribly inconsistent.

 

[Kenno25]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's
No doubt Brodie felt he owed Williams something to restore his pride but he let the situation die for a few seconds until Williams was standing beside him watching the play and then chose his moment. Not a reflex and definitely looked like a planned get square. Had time to rethink it and chose not to.

We're talking Brodie Holland here, his brain impulses would be akin to Homer Simpson.......stupid brain

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by M29
If it was that bad, why wasn't he reported on the spot?

1 week was all it was worth.

Sinclair and Stevens didn't get reported on the spot either. The umpires are too scared to make reports sometimes. IMO 2 weeks is about right but 1 could have been understandable too. At the end of the day Fletcher HAS to learn a lesson at some stage.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Originally posted by MarkT
Sinclair and Stevens didn't get reported on the spot either. The umpires are too scared to make reports sometimes. IMO 2 weeks is about right but 1 could have been understandable too. At the end of the day Fletcher HAS to learn a lesson at some stage.

But the umpire commented on the night - not that bad - just a free kick - what he can change his mind on that - well perhaps we should change the score after the fact as well when a goal umpire makes an a rse of of mistake. That won;t happen.

Let's face it - Pavlich put Bolton in a headlock and pushed his head into the gorund - but no report - why?? If Fletch did it - 2 weeks guaranteed.

 

[TD]

Originally posted by Pevers-Legend

Let's face it - Pavlich put Bolton in a headlock and pushed his head into the gorund - but no report - why?? If Fletch did it - 2 weeks guaranteed.

Half the reason why Fletchers record is so bad is because he gets reported for incidents that others dont...shaking a goal post, soft as butter sly punch under a pack ala Chris Tarrant (which funnily enough was never replayed on channel 9)

Mind you, the other half of the reason why his record is so bad is because he will never f#$king learn!

 

[Dave]

Silly boy. With his record was always going to get 2 unless he pleaded guilty. Agree with Rob's comments wrt Holland.

Hopefully the boys can use this as a spur against Port, that and pretty much being written off for the second week running.

 

[funky_monk]

Originally posted by Macca19
I disagree. He left the ground and collected Hayden with a forearm to the face. Its not like his shoulder was tucked in either...his arm was a mile away from his body. Thats a textbook charge/strike and ALWAYS gets matches. When you leave the ground then your done for. That added with Fletchers pathetic tribunal record - 11 times in 10 years hes been reported for just about everything under the sun other than time wasting, then he was almost certainly gonna get weeks.

Instead of blasting the system, the tribunal, the umpires, the freo players....how bout someone get in Fletchers ear and say hey...this just isnt bloody good enough.

What he said. Good post.

guilty 9 of those 11 times as well. If track record counts for anything (and it should) he got what he deserved.

 

[morgoth]

Holland pleaded guilty, I Flectcher had pleaded guilty he may have got one. With his record it was always gonna be two if he was found guilty.

Holland got of light but that is the problem with the tribunnal, no consistency and it really is a luck of the draw type place.

Time to fix it, it is ****e.

 

[morgoth]

A lot of us saw Hird throw a punch but that has not seen the light of day. The Fletcher one was to blatant not to be noticed.

 

[robbie67]

Originally posted by morgoth
A lot of us saw Hird throw a punch but that has not seen the light of day.

Please tell me you're not talking about the Pavlich episode?

 

[mic59]

Originally posted by GoSainters10
I'm not saying he shouldn't of got 2 weeks but basing on the fact that Holland got 2 weeks he should have got off!

Based on the fact that Holland got 2 weeks nearly everybody should get off.

 

[FreoGirl]

I guessed two.

Holland doesn't have the same record as Fletcher. Hopefully Fletcher might start to understand that what he does is not acceptable?

 

[topdon]

Essendon must appeal. Thats a utter joke!

 

[McGough27]

Originally posted by Darealrath
2 weeks, nice job Ed. Covering all bases just in case.

What a ******* joke. I'm emailing the club to demand they appeal. Take it to court. I don't care - this is a disgrace. Even the umpire thought he should have got off ffs.

If the umpire thought he should have got off , why did he lodge the report in the first place ?