Fevola to Face Tribunal

lewey101 · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:13 pm **Posts:** 24

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&s ... eid=198640

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:20 pm

its utter bullshit

CK95 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:21 pm

Quote:

The charge against Fevola will be heard on Wednesday night following the hearing already set down for Sydney's Darren Jolly.

The incident was assessed by the AFL Match Review Panel as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points), in play (one point) and body contact (one point).

This is a total of five activation points, which relates to a Level One offence, drawing 125 points and a one-game suspension. He has no applicable good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand with no suspension and 93.75 points towards his future record.

So does this mean he can play???

Confused.

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

CK95 wrote:

Quote:

The charge against Fevola will be heard on Wednesday night following the hearing already set down for Sydney's Darren Jolly.

The incident was assessed by the AFL Match Review Panel as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points), in play (one point) and body contact (one point).

This is a total of five activation points, which relates to a Level One offence, drawing 125 points and a one-game suspension. He has no applicable good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand with no suspension and 93.75 points towards his future record.

So does this mean he can play???

Confused.

I think the last paragraph refers to Hird.

marciblue · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:26 pm

Misconduct charges usually dont incur the points calculation.
I am f@cking pissed off about this. If he cops anything I will be livid!!!!

stretford blue · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:26 pm

We will just have to find someone else to kick his one goal per match for the next few weeks.......Why it took them so long to come up with this response is anyone's guess :roll:

Kouta · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:29 pm

I noticed in that links article at the bottom of the paragraph, Mark Johnson has been cleared after that forearm which knocked Shaw out of the game. Wonders never cease with the AFL's inconsistencies!
McManus - no case to answer and less attention than Stevens' and Fev's report.
Johnson - decks Shaw who's opponent then won Essendon* the game. :roll:

slow_mo · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:33 pm

I'm confused as to what happens now. If he sits before the tribunal and they suspend him based only on the footage then I think it's wrong, to me the footage alone is totally inconclusive.

Surely they must take into consideration the fact that both players were wrestling, and they must also ask Grover for his version of events. Otherwise I think it will be a totally unfair trial.

nikki · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:35 pm

that was quite possibly the worst article i have ever read!
it jumped around everywhere - from hird to fev to hird to fev
i am assuming that the stuff about activation points was about james hird
because it is a misconduct charge fev has to go straight to the tribunral like scotland

lewey101 · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:13 pm **Posts:** 24

Well the positive is the fact that it is identical to the charge of what scotland recieved. Therefor in theory he should get no more than 2 weeks.

The fact that he was unsighted and in a HEADLOCK means that in theory he should have a greater chance of being cleared or maybe getting only 1 week.

However, we know that theory counts for SHIT when it involves the AFL and anything to do with Carlton. Therefor he is likely to get 6 weeks.

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10479

marciblue wrote:

Misconduct charges usually dont incur the points calculation.
I am f@cking pissed off about this. If he cops anything I will be livid!!!!

Me too Marci....but how does McManus get away with it. :shock:

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

nikki wrote:

that was quite possibly the worst article i have ever read!
it jumped around everywhere - from hird to fev to hird to fev
i am assuming that the stuff about activation points was about james hird
because it is a misconduct charge fev has to go straight to the tribunral like scotland

yeah...I can't understand it....it reads like he has to front the tribunal but if he pleads guilty he gets a reprimand......FU*KING MEDIA

Jez1966 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:42 pm **Posts:** 2833

Reading that article, Fev had 5 points and level 1 whereas Hird had 7 points and a level 3.

Very confusing

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

Jez1966 wrote:

Reading that article, Fev had 5 points and level 1 whereas Hird had 7 points and a level 3.

Very confusing

The article is poorly written, the level of charges are associated with the incorrect players.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:54 pm

It's clear it's not Fev as well because it says body contact rather than high contact

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:55 pm

nikki wrote:

that was quite possibly the worst article i have ever read!
it jumped around everywhere - from hird to fev to hird to fev
i am assuming that the stuff about activation points was about james hird
because it is a misconduct charge fev has to go straight to the tribunral like scotland

Agree, i still dont know whats going on

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10479

ThePrez wrote:

nikki wrote:

that was quite possibly the worst article i have ever read!
it jumped around everywhere - from hird to fev to hird to fev
i am assuming that the stuff about activation points was about james hird
because it is a misconduct charge fev has to go straight to the tribunral like scotland

Agree, i still dont know whats going on

Scotty I would have thought that was most of the time with your though. :lol:

Sorry couldn't resist.

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:01 pm

not far wrong

really, thouhg, for fev to get off, all they need to do is get one of the tribunal members in a head lock, upside down, and unable to see where they are and see how they respond to it.

i really find it hard to believe that fev is coping it here and not Grover :shock:

camel · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:04 pm

ThePrez wrote:

not far wrong

really, thouhg, for fev to get off, all they need to do is get one of the tribunal members in a head lock, upside down, and unable to see where they are and see how they respond to it...

That should work! :lol:

Wolfister · **Posted:** Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:08 pm

ThePrez wrote:

i really find it hard to believe that fev is coping it here and not Grover :shock:

Maybe cos Grover's finger didn't go into Fev's eye?

Fev knew he'd done wrong as soon as he felt Grover's eye, as his hand jerked away so quickly... a very dumb thing to do, and he knows it.

And yes - that is the worst written article ever... it's so unclear, I think they may have got Grover from Sesame Street to write it...

Fevola to Face Tribunal

Who is online