TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Get your act together Fev

i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune

4thchicken wrote:

Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already.

But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws.
..
I think thats the difference.
It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt.

4thchicken wrote:

Synbad wrote:

4thchicken wrote:

We both know that the AFL is all about minimising the risk of injury - intent has no bearing on whether a player is cited - that is why there is negligent, reckless etc for contact. We SHOULD have pleaded guilty but argued to downgrade the ratings (ie medium impact to low, negligent etc) - wouldnt have saved him a week but would have reduced the carry over for next time. Had Fev made contact to the head (even with no intent) the player would definitely have been injured and Fev would be getting a lot more than 1 week.

As for MM - the apparent hit by carr - there was no vision of it. Had there been I've no doubt that the tribunal would have taken action.

4thchicken wrote:

Murph got dropped behind play and the AFL ignored it. Fev is a marked man by the tribunal.

Synbad wrote:

4thchicken wrote:

I agree that Fev's "tackle" on Kirk was in the clumsy category, and therefore being clumsy, he probably could have gone about things differently.

However, the reason he had to cop a week off was due in large part to his previous suspensions, of which at least one could be described as nothing but foolish. Had he not had the points carrying over he may have been able to reduce his offence to a reprimand only and then escaped suspension. But the fact was the points did carry over and any reduction in the charges laid against Fev would have still seen him miss one week, so there was just no point in taking the case to the tribunal, he was already looking at the best case scenario by accepting an early guilty plea.

This is where being disciplined over a career, not just a handful of games, or the odd season, really is important to team structure. Especially for us when we have little depth ready for senior selection.

Fev's going alright this year, but he needs to be on his game each and every moment he is on the field, as do all our players.

Fevola was on AW before the game and admitted himself that it wasa silly thing to do and he was on a hiding to nothing if he got reported and so the club took the week which was the correct decision and why the tribunal system is better.Imagine if Fevola wasnt playing against the tigers.

Murph got dropped behind play and the AFL ignored it. Fev is a marked man by the tribunal.

Fevola was on AW before the game and admitted himself that it wasa silly thing to do

But re the topic, I believe Frank is quite correct, and Fevola would certainly know it. He had the option to tackle effectively without risking a citation.

Author:	frank dardew [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Get your act together Fev
One of his biggest fans even when playing in the second when Brittain was going to axe him but these silly reports are killing his team He must be more disciplined this is the second year in a row he hasnt played in a winnable game against Hawthorn Last year after his suspension he took a number of weeks to get back into form after being red - hot before being reported To state the obvious he is so crucial to this team which desperately needs another win to restore its fragile confidence Also he has the opportunity in the next few years to become a Carlton Champion - not just a very good player but a champion in the Mckay Ratten class - different player but enough talent if he wants it enough to be a Carlton hero Dont miss the opportunity Fev

Author:	4thchicken [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:
i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune

Author:	Synbad [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:
4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already. But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws. .. I think thats the difference. It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt.

Author:	4thchicken [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Synbad wrote: 4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already. But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws. .. I think thats the difference. It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt. We both know that the AFL is all about minimising the risk of injury - intent has no bearing on whether a player is cited - that is why there is negligent, reckless etc for contact. We SHOULD have pleaded guilty but argued to downgrade the ratings (ie medium impact to low, negligent etc) - wouldnt have saved him a week but would have reduced the carry over for next time. Had Fev made contact to the head (even with no intent) the player would definitely have been injured and Fev would be getting a lot more than 1 week. As for MM - the apparent hit by carr - there was no vision of it. Had there been I've no doubt that the tribunal would have taken action.

Author:	Wojee [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:
4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Murph got dropped behind play and the AFL ignored it. Fev is a marked man by the tribunal.

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Get your act together Fev http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9650	Page 1 of 1

Author:	camel [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Synbad wrote: 4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already. But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws. .. I think thats the difference. It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt. I agree that Fev's "tackle" on Kirk was in the clumsy category, and therefore being clumsy, he probably could have gone about things differently. However, the reason he had to cop a week off was due in large part to his previous suspensions, of which at least one could be described as nothing but foolish. Had he not had the points carrying over he may have been able to reduce his offence to a reprimand only and then escaped suspension. But the fact was the points did carry over and any reduction in the charges laid against Fev would have still seen him miss one week, so there was just no point in taking the case to the tribunal, he was already looking at the best case scenario by accepting an early guilty plea. This is where being disciplined over a career, not just a handful of games, or the odd season, really is important to team structure. Especially for us when we have little depth ready for senior selection. Fev's going alright this year, but he needs to be on his game each and every moment he is on the field, as do all our players.

Author:	Synbad [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:
4thchicken wrote: Synbad wrote: 4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already. But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws. .. I think thats the difference. It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt. We both know that the AFL is all about minimising the risk of injury - intent has no bearing on whether a player is cited - that is why there is negligent, reckless etc for contact. We SHOULD have pleaded guilty but argued to downgrade the ratings (ie medium impact to low, negligent etc) - wouldnt have saved him a week but would have reduced the carry over for next time. Had Fev made contact to the head (even with no intent) the player would definitely have been injured and Fev would be getting a lot more than 1 week. As for MM - the apparent hit by carr - there was no vision of it. Had there been I've no doubt that the tribunal would have taken action. Footy is abit like that though isnt it??? Men play the game... and there are alot of calculated and unculated risks that are taken on the field in a split second. Its about instinct and Fevs one that enjoys putting his big frame in. Sometimes its good sometimes its bad .. but he didnt deseve a week for that because it was a token hit.

Author:	4thchicken [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Wojee wrote: 4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Murph got dropped behind play and the AFL ignored it. Fev is a marked man by the tribunal. they didnt ignore it - there was no footage. All that the coverage showed was about 2 1/2 seconds of players jostling in the aftermath and commentators mentioning that murphy had been felled behind play. From memory the footage didnt even show murphy in the hands of trainers. I doubt you would get any player found guilty at a tribunal with that evidence

Author:	4thchicken [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:
camelboy wrote: Synbad wrote: 4thchicken wrote: i didnt think fevs suspension was unwarranted - the potential risk of injury was there and fairly high. Had that been barry hall colliding into marc murphy like that I imagine most of you would sing a different tune Dont worry Marc is in the big league and they have dished it out to him already. But Fev didnt hurt the bloke and if he tried to hurt the guy the guy would have still been hurt... hed be laying in hospital room with his skull held together with screws. .. I think thats the difference. It was clumsy.. but it had NO INTENT to hurt and it DIDNT hurt. I agree that Fev's "tackle" on Kirk was in the clumsy category, and therefore being clumsy, he probably could have gone about things differently. However, the reason he had to cop a week off was due in large part to his previous suspensions, of which at least one could be described as nothing but foolish. Had he not had the points carrying over he may have been able to reduce his offence to a reprimand only and then escaped suspension. But the fact was the points did carry over and any reduction in the charges laid against Fev would have still seen him miss one week, so there was just no point in taking the case to the tribunal, he was already looking at the best case scenario by accepting an early guilty plea. This is where being disciplined over a career, not just a handful of games, or the odd season, really is important to team structure. Especially for us when we have little depth ready for senior selection. Fev's going alright this year, but he needs to be on his game each and every moment he is on the field, as do all our players. nice to see that someone else actually understands why fev was suspended. I think we should have challenged though to reduce the carry over for next time - I dont think there is any financial cost to the club for such a challenge

Author:	Elwood Blues1 [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Agree with Frank on Fev....needs to get a bit smarter and will be a icon player in years to come..as for the games comments...clown isnt appropriate.....Frank conducts business in a gentleman like manner and should get the respect he deserves on this forum...you will get similar when you have the runs on the board like he has...

Author:	Abaddon [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Fevola shouldn't have been suspended are carlton are weak as piss for not taking it to the tribunal. this club isn't just good at losing football games, its losing respect and fans fast. carlton is heading the way of melbourne. a fallen super power and a dwindling supporterbase.

Author:	Orangewhip [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Frank, I agree with you...ish, BUT, having seen the game a second time...he hit the right bloke. It might have been untidy but the Blues lifted after he smashed Kirk. He wore his heart on his sleeve and we lifted as a team. He's just one of those players. He has that type of 'head'. The week off was unlucky balanced against a Medhurst but very fortunate balanced against a Picket. If it was a final you'd expect it...CRUNCH. That's not a decision to be reversed when the heat is on: that would be pulling punches. If you pull a punch in practice then you pull a pumch in battle, and get beaten.

Author:	verbs [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Given Whitnall has played over 180 games and kicked over 300 goals, I would consider that "runs on the board", and anyone who is critical of Whitnall in any way, even if they were to merely call him "fat" should be ashamed...very ashamed!!

Author:	keogh [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Fevola was on AW before the game and admitted himself that it wasa silly thing to do and he was on a hiding to nothing if he got reported and so the club took the week which was the correct decision and why the tribunal system is better.Imagine if Fevola wasnt playing against the tigers. Fevola also wacked Crouch late in the neck and you could see he was frustrated with the way the game was going.Its great to see the passion he has for the game this year.He seems to have matured this year after many posters including myself were calling for his head, but it was reckless and stupid given his track record.A Hawk supporter sitting next to me at the game said that with Fevola in the Blues would of won and I reckon he may have been right. Richmond may have won this week but the Lions are ordinary and with no Gaspar the Fev could be in for a biggy.I agree with Frank and think the act was careless and may have cost us a win.At the same time I think the Fev is looking a lot better and sometime this year all going well will have an absolute blinder.You cant do that if you are in a suit sitting in the stands.

Author:	bennyvtown [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:
keogh wrote: Fevola was on AW before the game and admitted himself that it wasa silly thing to do BUT WHAT DID ANDREW HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT? Oh, c'mon, that's STILL nowhere near the most childish thing said in this thread.. P.S. I was happy when Fev crunched Kirk, but unhappy when the Hawks crunched us due to us not having a reliable forward to kick to.. I'm not angry at Fev, more at the softness of the rules/CFC not contesting it..

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	AGRO [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:
keogh wrote: Fevola was on AW before the game and admitted himself that it wasa silly thing to do and he was on a hiding to nothing if he got reported and so the club took the week which was the correct decision and why the tribunal system is better.Imagine if Fevola wasnt playing against the tigers. The issue is that the Match Review Panel is very selective in what they put up if Fev's incident goes up and gets an automatic week and Croad on Russell doesnt get put up, its a disgrace.

Author:	Rod Waddell [ Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Wojee wrote: Murph got dropped behind play and the AFL ignored it. Fev is a marked man by the tribunal. Wojee i believe Adelaide is more high profile than us at the minute, therefore there should be no escaping the review panel for Carr this time. This guy should have his lights dimmed permanently in fact so should his brother.

Author:	Mrs Caz [ Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:
Headplant wrote: But re the topic, I believe Frank is quite correct, and Fevola would certainly know it. He had the option to tackle effectively without risking a citation. As Fev himself was heard to say on the radio prior to the game.