#35,#1 Jaidyn Stephenson

[Bucks5]

I look at it like this....

The sole purpose of the 10 week ban was to punish Stephenson as an individual. He did the wrong thing and has missed 10 AFL matches and probably did not get the match payments that go with it.

Some people want to turn it into a Collingwood (team) punishment as they want to make sure that our chances in the finals are also affected.

[stui magpie]

Is this his first game in the VFL? IIRC he played every game at AFL level last year, his first.

[Magpietothemax]

The HS is full of the same BS. The flog Jon Ralph is almost in tears because the Pies have gained a "massive" advantage by playing Stepho in one VFL game. Even Jeff FWit Kennett has chimed in on this theme, declaring in his sanctimonious and imbecilic tones that a penalty, once given, should be enforced. What planet do these morons inhabit? Clearly, Planet Anti-Collingwood (no doubt, a doomed planet, soon to be hit by an asteroid). The wording of the sanction against Stepho was: "banned from 10 AFL matches". After our game against Essendope on Friday night is finished, he will have served the penalty, word for word.
What is there to argue?
They are just incensed that Stepho will get the opportunity to get some match practice in before the finals, and they are fearful of Stepho and Elliott together in one forward line. So they should be.

[David]

I mean, it’s not the biggest issue in the world, but let’s not pretend we wouldn’t be crying foul if any other club had benefited from this. Some of the justifications being made here are pretty hard to take seriously.

[K]

I wouldn't be crying foul -- not over this happening to another club.

[Magpietothemax]

I mean, it’s not the biggest issue in the world, but let’s not pretend we wouldn’t be crying foul if any other club had benefited from this. Some of the justifications being made here are pretty hard to take seriously.

Don't agree David. The justifications are entirely valid. You live by the letter of the law, and you die by it.
The AFL wanted to make an example of Stepho.
Why would they now extend him the benefit of the doubt, if not for the fact that the arguments for him to play VFL are entirely unanswerable.
I , for one, would not be crying foul if it were another club. I would be thinkng to myself, 10 matches is 10 matches, he has done his time, especially when the severity of the time was a completely disproportionate and hypocritical penalty in the first place. I would hold this position regardless of the team involved. I can guarantee that (cynics will claim that I cannot prove this. Too bad for them)

[PyreneesPie]

Pie-supporting journo Gleeson:

AFL understand irony better than integrity

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl ... 52jni.html

"This is a nonsense, of course, created by a quirk of the fact that the AFL team was nominated to play Friday night as part of the floating final-round fixture.
...

That he is now free to play is not a criticism of Stephenson nor Collingwood. They reasonably asked the question and were given a response by the AFL.

It is the AFL’s reasoning that is questionable.

I felt 10 matches was too long for someone who self-reported and whom the AFL had no way of proving committed the offence without their admissions.

No AFL player who knows they will get off if they keep their mouth shut will come forward again knowing they stand now to get at least 10 matches and probably a lot more.

But having been banned for 10 games, it is a silliness that he now plays on Saturday.
...

We should be little surprised, really. In the scheme of an AFL system based on a fixture that is so flawed, so hopelessly compromised and unavoidably unjust, this integrity issue barely registers."

Wow, what a hard-hitting article. Excellent!!!!! Sticks it right up the AFL, which is wonderful to see. It's hilarious really that their attempt to milk the final round for all it's worth with this floating fixture business, back-fired completely on them and made their high brow "integrity" look like the sham it is. Just a shame it had to involve one of our players , as it gives ammunition to the hypocritical media personalities which is what Gerard Whately has strangely transformed into.

On AFL360 tonight, Dermott basically got into a shouting match with Robbo, defending Collingwood's right to play Stevo in the VFL. He also said, like Gleeson, that the AFL were heavy-handed with the penalty in the first place, given that the AFL is all about promoting footy betting to young people with disposable income. Way to go Dermie!!!

[PyreneesPie]

^ Forgot to mention - at the end of tonight's AFL 360, there was the usual end-of-the-week Doomsday scenario for the weekend.

Gerard Whately volunteered:
“Stephenson pings a hamstring”

Maybe he thought he was being funny, who knows, but in light of how he's been banging on about it all week, it seemed like a thinly veiled, sarcastic shot at an individual player. This goes totally against what Adam Treloar was trying to explain on that very same show a fortnight ago, about the power of all types of media to create mental suffering for players.

[David]

I mean, it’s not the biggest issue in the world, but let’s not pretend we wouldn’t be crying foul if any other club had benefited from this. Some of the justifications being made here are pretty hard to take seriously.

Don't agree David. The justifications are entirely valid. You live by the letter of the law, and you die by it.
The AFL wanted to make an example of Stepho.
Why would they now extend him the benefit of the doubt, if not for the fact that the arguments for him to play VFL are entirely unanswerable.
I , for one, would not be crying foul if it were another club. I would be thinkng to myself, 10 matches is 10 matches, he has done his time, especially when the severity of the time was a completely disproportionate and hypocritical penalty in the first place. I would hold this position regardless of the team involved. I can guarantee that (cynics will claim that I cannot prove this. Too bad for them)

But on the understanding that this logic has never previously been applied to suspensions? I'm pretty sure players are usually suspended for matches, not weeks, so I'm not sure I grasp why precisely this has been made a special case.

[K]

For MRP stuff like striking, it's typically that way, but outside of that it depends.

e.g. Justin Sherman was suspended for racial vilification, which stopped him playing for WB but let him play for Williamstown.

[think positive]

Well done Gleeson and Dermie,

Anyone who has any faith in the dopers loving Robbo is crazy! His team got away with murder!

The real thing is though Dermie isdead right, why would you come forward for anything? Ridiculous suspension to begin with

[PyreneesPie]

But on the understanding that this logic has never previously been applied to suspensions? I'm pretty sure players are usually suspended for matches, not weeks, so I'm not sure I grasp why precisely this has been made a special case.

Because the AFL stuffed up with the wording of Stevo's penalty and is now trying to cover up its mistake, by saying there's a difference to being suspended under the integrity umbrella compared to Tribunal matters. They've probably just made up that up that new "rule" in the last few days!!

Oddly, strangely and unbelievably, the AFL's mistakes are to the "benefit" of a Collingwood player, for a change.

The wording for Stevo's penalty was :
"Stephenson will still be allowed to train with Collingwood but won’t be able to play in their next 10 matches. He will not be able to play in Collingwood’s VFL team during this time."

[BazBoy]

It’s a feeding frenzy for the multitude of Collingwood haters (like Scum) and the media
And I for one love them saturating their pillow cases with tears

[think positive]

Ditto! But the will get us in the end as long as it’s not against the freekick ****. When we win we earn it tenfold

[BazBoy]