#10 St Francis on the Joy of Poverty


#4790

That it will be used against him & possibly against other EFC players. What I’m worried about is the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations & if one of the possible interpretations can be used to fark us over it usually is. My concern is that in the future he misses a game for a similar incident & Francis changes his game to prevent further sanctions. My concern is that next time he’s in the same situation he hesitates & rather than run through the player, as I believe he should, he stops. I want to see our players play with that attack on the man & the contest & I don’t want that taken out of Francis’ game by what i consider bullshyte & unfair interpretations.


#4791

He would have been jailed for life if it were in Swiss jurisdiction.


#4792

Not really.

They could have said nothing at all, rather than kind of saying nothing at all.

There’s also too many “ifs”.


#4793

He either should of been suspended or let off, the fine is a joke.


#4794

Communication from the club is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

I agree with the decision.
The message was weak.
That’s merely an observation, I have no real stake in the decision itself.
But it is symptomatic of poor communication from the club…I’ll say this year.

I hope that’s not so outlandish a statement as to bunch some people’s knickers.


#4795

I think the “purple patch” of good comms a couple of years ago was an aberration.

The club has never been very good at it IMO. Particularly when it comes to “Client Services” (Thanks Jackson, you knobend).

I once received a reply from a former Communications Director at the club to a query I lodged about the club charging an extra $10 for GA members to sit in the front two-thirds of level 4 at docklands. It still had the email trail from being forwarded through the admin staff pool that read (in part):

"Hey XXXXXX,

Is there a standard response for ■■■■ like this?

Cheers,

zzzzzz"

Inspiring.


#4796

Fine was a joke, of course.
But challenging would have just opened the door to consequences that weren’t necessary.

The tribunal could have decided that he deserved a suspension instead, who knows, its not as if there is any semblance of consistency in the system.

Jacob hopper challenged his umpire contact fine and they quadrupled the penalty!

No need to give the afl another opportunity to shaft us, pay the $2k and move on


#4797

That’s not how the system works. The fine would have only increased to $3,000 if the challenge was unsuccessful. The club would have also had to pay $10,000.

Given the evidence available to the general public i believe it was certainly worth fighting.

Also incorrect. He could have taken a fine of $2,500 but challenged and lost. As a result his fine was increased to $4,000.


#4798

Plus the ten, yeah?
Again, I don’t care, but the price for questioning the AFL was $11,500?

Edit: More than quadruple.


#4799

That’s on the assumption you lose. I’m still yet to hear or see compelling evidence as to why the decision would not have been over turned. If it was overturned Francis saves $2,000, doesn’t feel conflicted/confused next time he has a chance to bump and a horrible MRO ruling is corrected.


#4800

even better - 5c postage stamps


#4801

Weak as p!ss by the club.

Not really surprised though unfortunately.


#4802

Essendon vs AFL.
Oh, and the AFL are looking like dicks at the moment.
Where would you put your money?


#4803

Wasn’t even a free on the day.

AFL handed a fine down after the game (and had plenty of time to think about it).

No way it would have been overturned. If the AFL wanted to keep the bump as a regular feature of the game they wouldn’t have fined him in the first place (given no one, even Hawks fans, were complaining about it).


#4804

You’re very confusing, going by what you say have previously stated;

“As I pointed out I don’t believe Francis will now become the standard interpretation even for the remainder of this year”

That indicates you don’t believe the Francis bump on O’meara represents the ongoing interpretation, therefore there is no need for Aaron to even think about changing his game.


#4805

Or to be fined…


#4806

If priors matter then Buddy’s next suspension will put him out for life.


#4807

Yeah, the club should have taken the AFL to court over this. Surely we would win!


#4808

What happens - they pay, regardless.


#4809

Is it really this hard for you to grasp? Francis has been judged to have done the wrong thing & sanctioned even though its very clear his bump was fair. This means he can’t keep doing the same thing or its most likely that next time he will be suspended. Assuming there is no change in the actual tribunal process then why are you incapable of understanding his actions will almost certainly be interpreted the same again unless challenged to a different adjudication process.

Again in plain English - the interpretation for this case is NOT consistent with the standard & I don’t believe it will become the new standard hence why I believe he has been treated unfairly & should have challenged.