That is an absolute disgrace.Boyler_Room wrote:If McVeigh had have been charged correctly in the first place, an early plea would have seen a simple reprimand since he would have had the 25% downgrading for taking the early plea. So we're penalised for their incompetence there.
McVeigh
McVeigh
I think this deserves its own thread and, if accurate, should be raised at club level:
This is actually inaccurate, McVeigh got the 25% downgrading also on the reduced charge because of his guilty plea.
What is a disgrace is that McVeigh was charged for some incident that was really no big deal and should have earned him (and Gary Ablett) a reprimand at worse. I dont know if McBurney is just an Essendon hater, corrupt or plain incompetent, but he should not be an AFL umpire.
As for Gary Ablett he is a real disgrace, I can find no words to describe his despicable and cowardly attitude, good acting though. Up for an oscar.
This @@@@#$ Ablett said during the weekend that McVeigh did hit him and would get suspended. Now after McVeigh pleads guilty he changes his story.. bad form.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html
Good on McVeigh to apologize for having let the club down. As a leader of the club he has to assume responsibility for this things - - we don't want the young players to think it is cool to get suspended for striking like Lloydy, Fletch and McVeigh.
What is a disgrace is that McVeigh was charged for some incident that was really no big deal and should have earned him (and Gary Ablett) a reprimand at worse. I dont know if McBurney is just an Essendon hater, corrupt or plain incompetent, but he should not be an AFL umpire.
As for Gary Ablett he is a real disgrace, I can find no words to describe his despicable and cowardly attitude, good acting though. Up for an oscar.
This @@@@#$ Ablett said during the weekend that McVeigh did hit him and would get suspended. Now after McVeigh pleads guilty he changes his story.. bad form.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html
Good on McVeigh to apologize for having let the club down. As a leader of the club he has to assume responsibility for this things - - we don't want the young players to think it is cool to get suspended for striking like Lloydy, Fletch and McVeigh.
Red and Black Forever
The c*** is just a F****** poof. Says he was 30 meteres away from the incident. Considering he was outside the 50m arc and the incident occured in the forward pocket, I would say he was a good 45m away. Not sure how the tribunal can justify going on the evidence of a maggot who saw an incident 45m away, when the same maggot cant even see obvious free kicks 5 meters in front of him.spikefan wrote:I dont know if McBurney is just an Essendon hater, corrupt or plain incompetent, but he should not be an AFL umpire.
I have said many a time, I would prefer Big Nose McLaren to umpire our games than that f***wit McAberny. F****** poo-jabber!
Ah, no guys. No corruption here.
McVeigh was charged with striking to the head (a perfectly reasonable charge given the nature of the incident / footage), and we CHOSE to plead that it was a strike to the chest instead.
What we should have done is argued that it was merely a push and not a strike. Ablett testified that he exaggerated the contact and felt 'slight contact to the chest'. We could have easily argued that it was a push, and if the tribunal agreed, then he walks. It was OUR incompetence, not the AFL's, that has resulted in McVeigh getting a week.
I hate the AFL as much as anyone but I am getting very sick of people crying "corruption" every time a decision goes against us.
McVeigh was charged with striking to the head (a perfectly reasonable charge given the nature of the incident / footage), and we CHOSE to plead that it was a strike to the chest instead.
What we should have done is argued that it was merely a push and not a strike. Ablett testified that he exaggerated the contact and felt 'slight contact to the chest'. We could have easily argued that it was a push, and if the tribunal agreed, then he walks. It was OUR incompetence, not the AFL's, that has resulted in McVeigh getting a week.
I hate the AFL as much as anyone but I am getting very sick of people crying "corruption" every time a decision goes against us.
Very mature. Exhibit A as to why Gringo's post on language was accurate.Rossoneri wrote: The c*** is just a F****** poof.
I have said many a time, I would prefer Big Nose McLaren to umpire our games than that f****** McAberny. F****** poo-jabber!
Looks like you found several wordsspikefan wrote:This is actually inaccurate, McVeigh got the 25% downgrading also on the reduced charge because of his guilty plea.
What is a disgrace is that McVeigh was charged for some incident that was really no big deal and should have earned him (and Gary Ablett) a reprimand at worse. I dont know if McBurney is just an Essendon hater, corrupt or plain incompetent, but he should not be an AFL umpire.
As for Gary Ablett he is a real disgrace, I can find no words to describe his despicable and cowardly attitude, good acting though. Up for an oscar.
This @@@@#$ Ablett said during the weekend that McVeigh did hit him and would get suspended. Now after McVeigh pleads guilty he changes his story.. bad form.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 88,00.html
Good on McVeigh to apologize for having let the club down. As a leader of the club he has to assume responsibility for this things - - we don't want the young players to think it is cool to get suspended for striking like Lloydy, Fletch and McVeigh.
Ablett did nothing that 95% of other players wouldn't do...he milked the situation for a free kick and got it.
McVeigh f***** up by escalating the push and shove. Temporary brain fade is what he was really guilty of and a week on the sidelines is his reward.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
The initial umpires report was incorrect. It was not a strike to the head (as we know), therefore, the charge should have been thrown out on a technicality.......as they've done with other such technically incorrect reports....Staggy wrote:Ah, no guys. No corruption here.
McVeigh was charged with striking to the head (a perfectly reasonable charge given the nature of the incident / footage), and we CHOSE to plead that it was a strike to the chest instead.
What we should have done is argued that it was merely a push and not a strike. Ablett testified that he exaggerated the contact and felt 'slight contact to the chest'. We could have easily argued that it was a push, and if the tribunal agreed, then he walks. It was OUR incompetence, not the AFL's, that has resulted in McVeigh getting a week.
I hate the AFL as much as anyone but I am getting very sick of people crying "corruption" every time a decision goes against us.
Very mature. Exhibit A as to why Gringo's post on language was accurate.Rossoneri wrote: The c*** is just a F****** poof.
I have said many a time, I would prefer Big Nose McLaren to umpire our games than that f****** McAberny. F****** poo-jabber!
So who's incompetent?
We don't 'know' anything. The footage suggested that it could have been either, therefore being charged with a strike to the head was perfectly legitimate. Charges are upgraded / downgraded at the Tribunal every week - its not uncommon.BenDoolan wrote:The initial umpires report was incorrect. It was not a strike to the head (as we know), therefore, the charge should have been thrown out on a technicality.......as they've done with other such technically incorrect reports....Staggy wrote:Ah, no guys. No corruption here.
McVeigh was charged with striking to the head (a perfectly reasonable charge given the nature of the incident / footage), and we CHOSE to plead that it was a strike to the chest instead.
What we should have done is argued that it was merely a push and not a strike. Ablett testified that he exaggerated the contact and felt 'slight contact to the chest'. We could have easily argued that it was a push, and if the tribunal agreed, then he walks. It was OUR incompetence, not the AFL's, that has resulted in McVeigh getting a week.
I hate the AFL as much as anyone but I am getting very sick of people crying "corruption" every time a decision goes against us.
Very mature. Exhibit A as to why Gringo's post on language was accurate.Rossoneri wrote: The c*** is just a F****** poof.
I have said many a time, I would prefer Big Nose McLaren to umpire our games than that f****** McAberny. F****** poo-jabber!
So who's incompetent?
They can charge him with whatever the hell they want. They could have charged him with a trip, or a headbutt, or whatever. Doesn't make them incompetent, it might make them silly, but there's a difference.
Who was incompetent? EFC. Instead of saying "he didnt punch him in the head" they should have said "he didnt punch him at all, it was only a push". And if they do that, with the inconclusive footage and Ablett's testimony, he walks. No question.
Heard Bondy (the worlds foremost tribunal / MRP expert) on AW last night and he took that view as well - was stunned that Essendon didn't dispute (rather than water down) the charge.
Fair enough.Staggy wrote:
We don't 'know' anything. The footage suggested that it could have been either, therefore being charged with a strike to the head was perfectly legitimate. Charges are upgraded / downgraded at the Tribunal every week - its not uncommon.
They can charge him with whatever the hell they want. They could have charged him with a trip, or a headbutt, or whatever. Doesn't make them incompetent, it might make them silly, but there's a difference.
Who was incompetent? EFC. Instead of saying "he didnt punch him in the head" they should have said "he didnt punch him at all, it was only a push". And if they do that, with the inconclusive footage and Ablett's testimony, he walks. No question.
Heard Bondy (the worlds foremost tribunal / MRP expert) on AW last night and he took that view as well - was stunned that Essendon didn't dispute (rather than water down) the charge.
So who's responsible for representing our players at the tribunal?
Staggy
I don't see it like you at all. The most likely outcome in case the EFC disputes the charge is that McVeigh would get two weeks, which would be devastating; we need to beat Collingwood.
There was NO usable footage, therefore the McBurney testimony is the most relevant and McBurney continue to insist it was a strike. The club had no way to know which way Ablett testimony would go. Ablett spoke to the press of a "Strike" and "Suspension" and this is only after the guilty plea that he mentioned a "Push" which doe not make him look good IMHO.
My two cents is that both McVeigh and Ablett engaged into some amount of sparring and that McBurney should have let it go. He was probably swayed by Ablett excellent acting since he was so far away.
I don't see it like you at all. The most likely outcome in case the EFC disputes the charge is that McVeigh would get two weeks, which would be devastating; we need to beat Collingwood.
There was NO usable footage, therefore the McBurney testimony is the most relevant and McBurney continue to insist it was a strike. The club had no way to know which way Ablett testimony would go. Ablett spoke to the press of a "Strike" and "Suspension" and this is only after the guilty plea that he mentioned a "Push" which doe not make him look good IMHO.
My two cents is that both McVeigh and Ablett engaged into some amount of sparring and that McBurney should have let it go. He was probably swayed by Ablett excellent acting since he was so far away.
Red and Black Forever
-
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:37 pm
- jimmyc1985
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: Position A
Guilty your honour....I throw myself on the mercy of the court (but not the MRP )jimmyc1985 wrote:You've got a nerve, Staggy and Swoodley.
Permeating and poisoning this thread with your reasoned logic, stately objectivity and cogent rationale. Both of you ought to hang your heads and hope i never come across either of you in public.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012