The Clayton Oliver Statistical Analysis Thread

[STPer18]

Tribunal cleared Schofield, basically admitting that Oliver is a diver. Unprecedented humiliation for the diver ensues.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Schofield not guilty so Oliver is an unprecedented diver. AFL confirmed diver.

 

[W.C. Fry]

First guy to get off a report because his weak opposition took a dive?
Unprecedented.

 

[astro1212]

A lot of very silly posts in this thread, results speak for itself

So what are your thoughts on the tribunal results? Are the Melbourne supporter posts now considered silly since the Schofield was found guilty?

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

Our long national nightmare is over.

Moving forward:
-Will, keep the elbows down.
-Clayton, stay off the ol' Tweeter machine for a while.

 

[TW Sherrin]

how many weeks for Oliver?

 

[LeverPuller]

So what are your thoughts on the tribunal results? Are the Melbourne supporter posts now considered silly since the Schofield was found guilty?

I'm intrigued as to why. Was it found reckless instead of intentional or was it found no impact instead of low impact? Wait for the article.

 

[astro1212]

Wait for the twitter post you mean?

 

[LeverPuller]

Wait for the twitter post you mean?

Pfft.

Seriously though, would be interesting to hear why the jury found not guilty.

 

[STPer18]

Pfft.

Seriously though, would be interesting to hear why the jury found not guilty.

I think they all just laughed and said they had better things to do. Trying to get a bloke suspended for 2 weeks because a player took a dive, it's embarrassing for everyone involved in the sport. MRP should have given the diver a fine and avoided this mess.

 

[javaguice]

Is there anyone who has a face as red as this kid. Ugly tree, every branch.

 

[Forward Press]

Pfft.

Seriously though, would be interesting to hear why the jury found not guilty.

Insufficient force, as pretty much every non Melbourne fan in this thread has been harping on about. Oliver had contact to his chin and milked it for all it's worth. Luckily, it didn't result in a player getting suspended - this time.

 

[LeverPuller]

I think they all just laughed and said they had better things to do. Trying to get a bloke suspended for 2 weeks because a player took a dive, it's embarrassing for everyone involved in the sport. MRP should have given the diver a fine and avoided this mess.

Honestly, best case would have been MRP found no impact. That would have resolved it perfectly. Recognised that Schofield did something wrong and shouldn't really do it, while acknowledging that there wasn't really any damage done.

 

[Retzlaff]

Is there anyone who has a face as red as this kid. Ugly tree, every branch.

And yet it's beyond doubt he'll have a supermodel on his arm come Brownlow night

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Is there anyone who has a face as red as this kid. Ugly tree, every branch.

At lest his face will match his hair

 

[nameless]

I'm intrigued as to why. Was it found reckless instead of intentional or was it found no impact instead of low impact? Wait for the article.

West Coast didn't go with downgrading intentional to careless. As Schofield DID intend to push Oliver.

They went with insufficient force, and won.

David Grace QC:
"Negligible force has been used in relation to the high contact".
Schofield's advocate is admitting the act was intentional and high contact, but isn't a reportable offence due to the low degree of force.

 

[STPer18]

Honestly, best case would have been MRP found no impact. That would have resolved it perfectly. Recognised that Schofield did something wrong and shouldn't really do it, while acknowledging that there wasn't really any damage done.

Need to stamp diving out of the game, the Diver should have received a fine and warning from the MRP. Hawkins missed a big game in Perth because Crouch took a dive, a few weeks later Schofield almost missed a big game against the Dogs because Oliver took a dive. Both scenarios the 'victim' was the one who initiated the contact, and pathetically dropped when they received the same treatment. It's filthy.

 

[ziad]

Honestly, best case would have been MRP found no impact. That would have resolved it perfectly. Recognised that Schofield did something wrong and shouldn't really do it, while acknowledging that there wasn't really any damage done.

The case put was that it was a deliberate push with minimal force and he took a dive.

Judges got it spot on.

 

[WCE_phil]

And yet it's beyond doubt he'll have a supermodel on his arm come Brownlow night

You do understand a lot of the women who go to the brownlow are paid to be there.

 

[Aramis]

He surely has to go for diving/staging now?

Aren't there laws in the rule book to prevent this very scenario occurring?

 

[TW Sherrin]

surely someone has a gif of Oliver diving off the 10m tower?

 

[Boohemian]

And yet it's beyond doubt he'll have a supermodel on his arm come Brownlow night

Yeah, I don't think so. Strawberry blonde and pasty white skin are traits supermodels find hard to look past. Once you add humiliation on a national stage it's nigh on impossible.

 

[Jibroni]

He will learn from this and be better for it. Umpires report should be questioned more than anything. Glad this mess is over

 

[ziad]

I'm intrigued as to why. Was it found reckless instead of intentional or was it found no impact instead of low impact? Wait for the article.

it was found diving ( an individual for of tanking)

 

[javaguice]

Its a shame that such a promising young footballer has now ruined his image and shown what a weak flogladite he is. Chin up Clayton, you handsome son of a bisnitch.