MRP / Trib. Should Hams be Suspended ?

[Eagle87]

Do you not think the club would not have challenged if they thought they had a chance of winning? Some people are going way over the top here. At least Hams gets to play another game, if we had challenged and lost he'd be out for all of the remaining games.

Seriously some people need to get a grip. The Eagles are one of, if not the most loyal clubs going around. Yes I do remember booting Ben Cousins.

Which part of the match review panel do you disagree with? Or have you not read it and just having a whinge? The penalty may be a tad accessive but I do not disagree with any of the MRP findings in regards to high contact, high impact etc

The WCE team forum is turning into a joke

You make a fair point in that last sentence. There is no doubt an ever increasing number of logically stupid people in here.

That said, it's humorous that you are one ofthem and lack the necessary self-awareness to see that.

The legal advice, such as it was, presented to the club suggested solid grounds for appeal and a reasonable chance of some success basedon 2 grounds. The club (either Nisbett, Barnaba or both) decided we are better to focus on the game ahead rather than have any distractions. That's soft. It would have never happened under Gooding or any previous President. Never.

The 1 game Hams may now get is Geelong ... at Geelong. I mean do our chances change substantially with himin the side????

He shouldn't have been suspended based on the laws of the game and on basic logic. Teams may now be encouragedto send any player subject of a borderline high hit to hospital in full knowledge that that's the difference between an opponent getting off or getting a month - potentially huge in a finals campaign. Of course, in reality we all know that if that was GAblett, a week before finAls, he gets off.

We needed to appeal because it was a terrible and inconsistent decision and because we are the ****ing West Coast Eagles.

The sooner soft **** market focused dicks like Barnaba are gone, the better.

 

[Keys]

Makes you wonder if a condition of the AFL's "leniency" after their investigation was that we could never challenge a decision of theirs again.

Ever.

On and off field we have lacked any real spirit since 2007.

 

[Mattman93]

You make a fair point in that last sentence. There is no doubt an ever increasing number of logically stupid people in here.

That said, it's humorous that you are one ofthem and lack the necessary self-awareness to see that.

The legal advice, such as it was, presented to the club suggested solid grounds for appeal and a reasonable chance of some success basedon 2 grounds. The club (either Nisbett, Barnaba or both) decided we are better to focus on the game ahead rather than have any distractions. That's soft. It would have never happened under Gooding or any previous President. Never.

The 1 game Hams may now get is Geelong ... at Geelong. I mean do our chances change substantially with himin the side????

He shouldn't have been suspended based on the laws of the game and on basic logic. Teams may now be encouragedto send any player subject of a borderline high hit to hospital in full knowledge that that's the difference between an opponent getting off or getting a month - potentially huge in a finals campaign. Of course, in reality we all know that if that was GAblett, a week before finAls, he gets off.

We needed to appeal because it was a terrible and inconsistent decision and because we are the ****ing West Coast Eagles.

The sooner soft **** market focused dicks like Barnaba are gone, the better.

Superb post.

 

[Mattman93]

Makes you wonder if a condition of the AFL's "leniency" after their investigation was that we could never challenge a decision of theirs again.

Ever.

On and off field we have lacked any real spirit since 2007.

Maybe not explicitly, but I think the AFL would have made that clear in one way or another.
If this was Didak, he'd get off every day of the week. And if he was offered weeks, Collingwood would kick up a fuss and threaten to stop playing Friday night games or something, and Vlad would cave. Simple as that - we are the AFL's bitches right now.

 

[Gods_Son23]

We don't get to analyse this incidents as closely as the MRP. but watching the game it looked okay to me. very surprised with 4 WEEKS! Just because he went to hospital makes it no worse, it should be all about where he made contact with Armfield. Agree with Eagle87 also. The inconsistencies are are laughable. I mentioned it in another post, but how a certain Carlton player got off last week in comparison to other incidents, I don't know.

 

[bodazoka]

You make a fair point in that last sentence. There is no doubt an ever increasing number of logically stupid people in here.

That said, it's humorous that you are one ofthem and lack the necessary self-awareness to see that.

The legal advice, such as it was, presented to the club suggested solid grounds for appeal and a reasonable chance of some success basedon 2 grounds. The club (either Nisbett, Barnaba or both) decided we are better to focus on the game ahead rather than have any distractions. That's soft. It would have never happened under Gooding or any previous President. Never.

The 1 game Hams may now get is Geelong ... at Geelong. I mean do our chances change substantially with himin the side????

He shouldn't have been suspended based on the laws of the game and on basic logic. Teams may now be encouragedto send any player subject of a borderline high hit to hospital in full knowledge that that's the difference between an opponent getting off or getting a month - potentially huge in a finals campaign. Of course, in reality we all know that if that was GAblett, a week before finAls, he gets off.

We needed to appeal because it was a terrible and inconsistent decision and because we are the ****ing West Coast Eagles.

The sooner soft **** market focused dicks like Barnaba are gone, the better.

Much respect for that post.

Hams showed pride in the jumper, why is the board un willing to fight for him. Its the equivalent of a player on field shirking a contest. WEAK

 

[TurleyBurley]

We needed to appeal because it was a terrible and inconsistent decision and because we are the ****ing West Coast Eagles.

You make a good point about Barnaba being a soft, market-focused goon, but immediately before that you've preceded that with an entirely meaningless sentence.

We are the West Coast Eagles. And? What does it mean?

I realise this isn't the point at hand, but every now and then people around here spout this prideful yet redundant dross that is the sort of thing that is usually doled out by... soft marketing people.

Illogical sloganeering does not make anything - including your argument bettter.

It's a shame. It's a good point your making. [/derail]

 

[Ochre]

our club has changed for teh worse so much in the past years

the off field shit is now more importnat than the on field stuff

also we've changed from our unique royal blue and gold to navy white and yellow (inb4 ochre)

we dont have much tradition but we should at least hold onto what we have

 

[Eagle87]

You make a good point about Barnaba being a soft, market-focused goon, but immediately before that you've preceded that with an entirely meaningless sentence.

We are the West Coast Eagles. And? What does it mean?

I realise this isn't the point at hand, but every now and then people around here spout this prideful yet redundant dross that is the sort of thing that is usually doled out by... soft marketing people.

Illogical sloganeering does not make anything - including your argument bettter.

It's a shame. It's a good point your making. [/derail]

Not big on footy history?

Google the famous comment by Stephen Kernahan. Remember the attitude it reflected. That's the attitude of arrogance that we need to get back. The "new breed" is just a bunch of soft **** new age bollocks. We need winners and people who know they are the best.

In light of our opponents and our kow towing response, I thought the sticks reference was reasonable. Apologies if it was over your head.

 

[Crimson King]

Not big on footy history?

Google the famous comment by Stephen Kernahan. Remember the attitude it reflected. That's the attitude of arrogance that we need to get back. The "new breed" is just a bunch of soft **** new age bollocks. We need winners and people who know they are the best.

Agreed.

 

[TurleyBurley]

Not big on footy history?

Google the famous comment by Stephen Kernahan. Remember the attitude it reflected. That's the attitude of arrogance that we need to get back. The "new breed" is just a bunch of soft **** new age bollocks. We need winners and people who know they are the best.

In light of our opponents and our kow towing response, I thought the sticks reference was reasonable. Apologies if it was over your head.

And do you really think that, in the wake of all the shennanigans with the AFL, that attitude is going to begin to work?

We would look like the most cretinous, hubristic, self-important clowns if we were saying those sorts of words whilst heading for our first spoon.

We need people with vision and the ability to realise it. Not pointless arrogance. I'm not asking for poxy new age garbage. I'm looking for intelligence and dignity.

 

[Eagle87]

And do you really think that, in the wake of all the shennanigans with the AFL, that attitude is going to begin to work?

We would look like the most cretinous, hubristic, self-important clowns if we were saying those sorts of words whilst heading for our first spoon.

We need people with vision and the ability to realise it. Not pointless arrogance. I'm not asking for poxy new age garbage. I'm looking for intelligence and dignity.

Good God, are you writing Gillards speeches? Full of meaningless rhetoric and finding new ways to fence sit?

The vision at the commencement of the "new breed" era involved ridding the club of people deemed "bad" and rebuilding around a group of "solid citizens". It involved getting rid of the old Eagles culture and implementing a new one in which "poxy new age garbage" became the measuring stick for leadership, an era in which we apologized for embarrassing the AFL, less than 12 months after providing the best GF in years, the highest ratings ever and the greatest rivalry in many many years .... so we had a vision based on "intelliigence and dignity" which completely forgot our roots. We were built on "us v them" and when we started doing better than "them" it evolved into a sort of arrogance. That's who we have always been - Carlton-West.

Did that lead to the demise of a few players and a flawed culture re "player behavior"? Maybe. But there was a fair bit of throwing the baby out with the bath water about 2007 to now.

I think you will find that Kernahan said these words when Carlton were struggling. Was he concerned about "looking bad to others" - of course not. Carlton didn't give a toss about others perceptions, neither do Collingwood - ever. We were like that. In a more controlled, corporate way, we just took care of our own business and didn't give a toss.

We certainly wouldn't have accepted the Hams decision without a whimper. I simply pointed out that we need to get our mojo back and part of that was an unfailing self-belief that we were the best club going about. Even in poorer (on field) times we would come back faster than others because we were better.

The Barnaba era has managed to eliminate that from the club. If that's the intelligence and dignity you were looking for then frankly **** off.

Also, if you are trying to go the smart, deep thinker route against my (according to you) mindless barracking, then step up with something slightly more intelligent than the empty dross in your last 2 posts.

Or, like those currently running our club, are you balls-lite?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

How has a discussion about whether a player deserved a suspension for a particular incident mutated into a detailed analysis of the corporate direction of the club since 2007? It is possible to divorce the two issues.

Even at our arrogant best, we didn't go around automatically appealing decisions because "**** it, we're West Coast. No-one suspends our players!"

There's a view held by many (though not a majority) earlier in the thread that Hams was likely to cop some sort of suspension. Isn't it possible that the club held the same view, and that's why they didn't challenge it? It doesn't have to be the case that every time we don't pick a fight with the AFL we're rolling over and dying.

 

[Fly_High]

I can't remember the last time West Coast appealed anything... was it a Daniel Kerr incident?? Anyway I'm sick of the Eagles getting shafted by the AFL

IMO Eagle 87 has a point

 

[Eagle87]

How has a discussion about whether a player deserved a suspension for a particular incident mutated into a detailed analysis of the corporate direction of the club since 2007? It is possible to divorce the two issues.

Even at our arrogant best, we didn't go around automatically appealing decisions because "**** it, we're West Coast. No-one suspends our players!"

There's a view held by many (though not a majority) earlier in the thread that Hams was likely to cop some sort of suspension. Isn't it possible that the club held the same view, and that's why they didn't challenge it? It doesn't have to be the case that every time we don't pick a fight with the AFL we're rolling over and dying.

I do take your point. That said, there were those in 2005 who reckoned Barry Hall wasn't guilty and they were clearly nuts in other words, some views need to be discounted and many suggesteing he should/would be suspended were simply going down the "highish contact, relatively unknown offender, ambulance footage, vertebra comments = several weeks" continuum that the MRP seem to ably deliver without any real reference to the laws of the game. I just reckon that cases need to be judged based on said laws.

I haven't ever argued that we should argue every suspension but, in this case, it's so out of whack and inconsistent that an appeal seemed reasonable. Couple that with the 4th week being neither here nor there and you had a stronger case to appeal. But the club said nothing. Not even a strongly worded "this is bollocks but....". Nothing.

This has Barnabas hands all over it. "Good corporate citizen", "Dont upset the boss" ... he is a prize suck .... and good luck to him ... he won't be there much longer.

I just reckon we have given up much of our real Eagle-ness on the alter of trying to play nice and curry favour. We have a young bloke who has given us a fair boost, has gone hard at a contest and done nothing wrong. Collingwood, Carlton or West Coast (pre-2008) would have stood up for said young bloke every time.

I mean you talk of us picking fights with the AFL, when did we last do that? When was the last time we told Vlad something he didn't like? Even our response to the revelation that some Melbourne clubs were getting AFL assistance with cheater flights was limp wristed. Freo went harder, with their own coach raising it as an issue.

I just reckon our lack of nuts is getting irritating and was shown again in this decision.

But feel free to stick with your "all is rosy, we were just being sensible & pragmatic and saved $10k ..." position. A Completely reasonable, rational and nice position.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

But feel free to stick with your "all is rosy, we were just being sensible & pragmatic and saved $10k ..." position. A Completely reasonable, rational and nice position.

I didn't say that. I don't agree with the position they've taken. I said earlier that I thought they should have at least tried to get the penalty reduced.

All I was saying was that I think it's a bit too much of a leap from "The club is not contesting Hams' three week suspension" to "The club will blindly obey any decision of the AFL no matter how badly it screws us over". For mine this is more likely to be a decision based on the particular circumstances rather than an overarching desire not to rock the boat.

 

[Eagle87]

I didn't say that. I don't agree with the position they've taken. I said earlier that I thought they should have at least tried to get the penalty reduced.

All I was saying was that I think it's a bit too much of a leap from "The club is not contesting Hams' three week suspension" to "The club will blindly obey any decision of the AFL no matter how badly it screws us over". For mine this is more likely to be a decision based on the particular circumstances rather than an overarching desire not to rock the boat.

Maybe.

I just reckon we have become passive and accepting and (as irritatingly parochial as it sometimes seemed) our reflex used to be "us v them".

I can't think of any reason not to appeal Hams suspension other than a severe change of attitude at the club (from years past). It was a palpably bad suspension.

 

[Obeanie1]

And do you really think that, in the wake of all the shennanigans with the AFL, that attitude is going to begin to work?

We would look like the most cretinous, hubristic, self-important clowns if we were saying those sorts of words whilst heading for our first spoon.

We need people with vision and the ability to realise it. Not pointless arrogance. I'm not asking for poxy new age garbage. I'm looking for intelligence and dignity.

There is a fine line between being confident, agressive and backing your team mate / club and arrogance.

Right now we are coming across as being spineless.

As for heading towards our first spoon, getting the best possible side out there against Freo, the Lions, Port and North is the best way to avoid that unwanted trophy wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mattman93]

I do take your point. That said, there were those in 2005 who reckoned Barry Hall wasn't guilty and they were clearly nuts in other words, some views need to be discounted and many suggesteing he should/would be suspended were simply going down the "highish contact, relatively unknown offender, ambulance footage, vertebra comments = several weeks" continuum that the MRP seem to ably deliver without any real reference to the laws of the game. I just reckon that cases need to be judged based on said laws.

I haven't ever argued that we should argue every suspension but, in this case, it's so out of whack and inconsistent that an appeal seemed reasonable. Couple that with the 4th week being neither here nor there and you had a stronger case to appeal. But the club said nothing. Not even a strongly worded "this is bollocks but....". Nothing.

This has Barnabas hands all over it. "Good corporate citizen", "Dont upset the boss" ... he is a prize suck .... and good luck to him ... he won't be there much longer.

I just reckon we have given up much of our real Eagle-ness on the alter of trying to play nice and curry favour. We have a young bloke who has given us a fair boost, has gone hard at a contest and done nothing wrong. Collingwood, Carlton or West Coast (pre-2008) would have stood up for said young bloke every time.

I mean you talk of us picking fights with the AFL, when did we last do that? When was the last time we told Vlad something he didn't like? Even our response to the revelation that some Melbourne clubs were getting AFL assistance with cheater flights was limp wristed. Freo went harder, with their own coach raising it as an issue.

I just reckon our lack of nuts is getting irritating and was shown again in this decision.

But feel free to stick with your "all is rosy, we were just being sensible & pragmatic and saved $10k ..." position. A Completely reasonable, rational and nice position.

Good post. We had plenty of grounds to contest this decision, there are so many things that we could have arugued against in regards to how the AFL assessed the incident. After all, as you say, high impact/contact and reckless is really just code for ambulance shot, mention of vertebrae and low profile player in a bottom eight side. We all know that if this was Gablett or Didak then the suspension never happens.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I agree with Eagle87's sentiments in their entirety.

I can't comment on the clubs inner workings because frankly I have no idea.

But to me as a supporter, post 2007, the club seems to have made some baffling decisions that have come across as well..... spineless.

Really from the top down we have looked this way, not just off field but on as well.

Where is our grit, our determination and as mentioned, that "us against them" attitude, flipping the bird at our east coast counterparts, which has been part of our culture since the beginning.

It has become such a sad state of affairs, that I was obscenely happy to read a news paper article with Cox proclaiming "enough is enough", in regards to derby losses, even though it was nothing more than an almost mandatory contrivance.

I as a supporter can handle us being shit, I don't particularly like or want to accept it, but as a WC supporter I have the belief we will bounce back.

What I cannot tolerate is our constant gutlessness, at times in games but most alarmingly when dealing with the AFL.

At least if we are going to be shit, show some spirit doing it.

 

[tesseract]

It's no coincidence that the Eagles became gutless, weak willed, cowardly dogs since the appointment of Barnaba. His ways have permeated throughout the club. It's of no surprise that the 'new breed' = pathetic rabble.

What's funny is that on a Saturday morning sports talk show on 6PR, around the time when Barnaba first got a mention that he was taking over from Gooding, it was mentioned that Barnaba had Rocket Scientist intelligence. It goes to show that all the brains in the world can't replace a set of nads, and that a high level of intelligence has no association with making good decisions.

 

[new breed]

Hope the " New Breed " players come good soon , because I'm tired of getting bagged !