The Clayton Oliver Statistical Analysis Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrong.

It is fact that social media did have some weight in Fasolo's depression.

And are you seriously telling me because Martyn didn't reference Oliver's name, that he wasn't referring to that incident? Turn it up! Everyone has a right to defend their actions. Yes, even AFL players!! There should be more of it tbh. Regardless of what you or I or Damien Martyn thinks of the incident, Oliver has every right to reply.

And Martyn is an ex Australian cricketer. You're a flog if you honestly believe he didn't think his post wouldnt get coverage! Why else do these celebrities past or present have Twitter accounts? Because they want their opinions to be seen. It makes them still feel relevant. Martyn opened himself up for criticism just as much as Oliver did by over reacting.

No, I was not telling you that at all.

Do you know how twitter works? If you're not tagged in something, you don't get notified that it even exists. Which tells me he sought out such a comment in order to reply to it. Or one of his mates pointed it out and he ran in to reply all red faced the same way he did after he got rocked by a tickle and recovered from his sudden onset unconsciousness.

And I said that by replying it garnered more publicity. Do you agree or disagree that the tweet got more coverage because it was acknowledged and replied to by Oliver? He added fuel to the fire. He's entitled to respond, yes, but he didn't win himself any friends or respect the way he did it.

I think wanting a twitter account is a choice of anyone, celebrity or not. It's about being connected, not feeling relevant.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think they have a point. Im stunned a medical report was even made over such minimal contact. Ridiculous.

Actually they don't have a point as they are not doctors they wouldn't have a clue if oliver was hurt or not they are just guessing, and to question a doctors integrity is just wrong, do you think a doctor would risk his job and his medical license to help out a player with false reports, I don't think so
 
Actually they don't have a point as they are not doctors they wouldn't have a clue if oliver was hurt or not they are just guessing, and to question a doctors integrity is just wrong, do you think a doctor would risk his job and his medical license to help out a player with false reports, I don't think so
Im not questioning the doctors integrity. Im questioning Oliver's. He's trying to cover the fact he took a dive.

It would be like going to a doctors surgery to get a medical certificate for a day off work and totally crapping on about headaches or sore stomachs or whatever.
 
That's the problem here, in a nutshell. You're asserting that he dived, and going on from there to justify the response.

You don't know for certain that he dived. On the other hand, what we do know for certain is that (i) the guy who hit him has been suspended for a week for high contact, (ii) that there was medical report that was taken into consideration, and that (iii) Oliver hasn't been charged for diving.
He was hit, but he exaggerated the contact. Schofield was careless and should have received a fine (like Parker did, for an arguably worse hit that also happened this weekend).

In my ideal world, both players would have been fined.

Schofield for an elbow to the chin (despite it being very faint) and Oliver for the dive. Under the staging rule in the AFL, exaggerating contact can be defined as staging. And Oliver definitely did that.
 
Let's not forget that if Schofield didn't throw an elbow none of this would have happened.
 
Let's not forget that if Schofield didn't throw an elbow none of this would have happened.
Problem is, it happens hundreds of times a game, and do you see hundreds of melees per match?

Just happened to be at the siren in full camera view, which in my eyes exaggerates the result of a dive as most players are coming together to move into huddles. The flop incited the melee, not Schofield's elbow. IIRC this is in the definition of criteria for staging sanctions at the MRP.
 
Problem is, it happens hundreds of times a game, and do you see hundreds of melees per match?

Just happened to be at the siren in full camera view, which in my eyes exaggerates the result of a dive as most players are coming together to move into huddles. The flop incited the melee, not Schofield's elbow. IIRC this is in the definition of criteria for staging sanctions at the MRP.
Again, if Schofield didn't throw an elbow..
 
Baguely didn't go down like he was shot so therefore Parker is free to play this weekend, but because Oliver, like Crouch before him, took a dive, Schofield and Hawkins have copped suspensions for far lesser incidents. Seems fair enough. :drunk:
 
Im not questioning the doctors integrity. Im questioning Oliver's. He's trying to cover the fact he took a dive.

It would be like going to a doctors surgery to get a medical certificate for a day off work and totally crapping on about headaches or sore stomachs or whatever.

I've been knocked out by the skinniest of grazes that connected on exactly the right spot. It's astonishing. It's also the reason that the head is protected so rigouously in AFL and all other contact sports. If he is defending the fact he went down like a sack of spuds, it's probably because he did, because he copped one in the right/wrong spot.... just saying.
 
I've been knocked out by the skinniest of grazes that connected on exactly the right spot. It's astonishing. It's also the reason that the head is protected so rigouously in AFL and all other contact sports. If he is defending the fact he went down like a sack of spuds, it's probably because he did, because he copped one in the right/wrong spot.... just saying.
Did you get up fairly quickly and run after the person who 'knocked you out' as Oliver did?

Funny how he wasn't stumbling around like most people do after getting 'knocked out'.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baguely didn't go down like he was shot so therefore Parker is free to play this weekend, but because Oliver, like Crouch before him, took a dive, Schofield and Hawkins have copped suspensions for far lesser incidents. Seems fair enough. :drunk:
The Parker one was assessed by the MRP as a hit to the body.
Schofield's was a assessed as a hit to the head. 2 completely different instances.
Of course nobody is arguing there was more force in the Oliver one but the MRP said he took it in the head.
The rules the MRP operate within make it hard to be consistent and throw up shite decisions like this one all the time
 
a post match medical report of what? Oliver creating the story to his doctor to save face? It's not like any mark present or not could be considered by the doctor to determine extent of injury. If there was potential for concussion, why wasn't the test done at half time and he kept off for assessment and protection if it was that bad? This is disgraceful and I can't stand WC. I hope they appeal and have a good QC show the MRP up for the untrained faux-judicial clowns that they are.
 
a post match medical report of what? Oliver creating the story to his doctor to save face? It's not like any mark present or not could be considered by the doctor to determine extent of injury. If there was potential for concussion, why wasn't the test done at half time and he kept off for assessment and protection if it was that bad? This is disgraceful and I can't stand WC. I hope they appeal and have a good QC show the MRP up for the untrained faux-judicial clowns that they are.
Were you this outraged when Hogan received two weeks for his huge hit on Rowe which resulted in Rowe being concussed, playing the remainder of the game and playing the following week?
 
I notice a lot of people in the media, Carey and grant Thomas for example saying the Melbourne doctors have made up the report, if I was the MFC Doctor I wouldn't be impressed with someone calling out my integrity as a doctor and would be looking at my options on that 1, it's a dangerous road some people are traveling down

What did the medical report say?
 
The Parker one was assessed by the MRP as a hit to the body.
Schofield's was a assessed as a hit to the head. 2 completely different instances.
Of course nobody is arguing there was more force in the Oliver one but the MRP said he took it in the head.
The rules the MRP operate within make it hard to be consistent and throw up shite decisions like this one all the time

Assessed as something other than what the video shows. They were both to the head, but somehow 5 blokes on the MRP see them differently. It's a stunning level of inconsistency at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top