Page 3 of 10
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:08 pm
by Jazz_84
honestly the tribunal has been letting people off for much worse all year long..... why is it just our guns that get nailed???
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:42 pm
by ealesy
Makes you wonder.
I mean Andrew Welsh makes head high contact, something the AFL made a big song and dance about stamping out, cops one week which is downgraded reprimand.
Leo Barry smacks Cameron Ling in the head while he had it over the ball and doesn't even get f****** sited.
Lloyd reacts to a bullshit cheap shot from Carrol and gets offered a week, while Carrol does not even get looked at.
Bloody joke.
Thought this system was meant to stamp out the inconsistencies involved with the old system. Bring back the old system I say, hell of a lot more consistent than this bullshite match review panel crap.
Well done Anderson and Demetriou, you stole a system that works well in the NRL and royally f***** it up you stupid knob jockeys.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:49 pm
by Jazz_84
"The panel looked at contact between Hawthorn's Campbell Brown and Collingwood's Dane Swan from the fourth quarter of Sunday's game but due to the video evidence was inconclusive"
that was thrown out..... i heard there isn't any video footage of lloydy's incident either?? has to be thrown out in that case, just has to be, if its not then i suspect serious conspiracy
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:19 pm
by jimmyc1985
Footage of the Lloyd incident below. Make up your own minds:
http://video2.foxsports.com.au/video.ph ... 52&id=3429
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:26 pm
by dingus
Surely they jest?
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:31 pm
by Madden
They have footage. He'll get the week. I think we have no chance of getting him off.
It was assessed as low contact (lowest standard) body contact (lowest standard) and intentional. We can't get him off on that - it was clearly intentional.
Only chance we can get him off is if we can convince the Melb bloke to testify that he took a dive. Only chance.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:34 pm
by dom_105
They will try and get it downgraded to reckless.
That will get him under the 100 points.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:34 pm
by jimmyc1985
Staggy wrote:They have footage. He'll get the week. I think we have no chance of getting him off.
It was assessed as low contact (lowest standard) body contact (lowest standard) and intentional. We can't get him off on that - it was clearly intentional.
Only chance we can get him off is if we can convince the Melb bloke to testify that he took a dive. Only chance.
Tasmanian Dams case could also be argued.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:41 pm
by dom_105
Don't forget Mabo
"It's the constitution. It's Mabo. It's just...the vibe."
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:44 pm
by Madden
jimmyc1985 wrote:Staggy wrote:They have footage. He'll get the week. I think we have no chance of getting him off.
It was assessed as low contact (lowest standard) body contact (lowest standard) and intentional. We can't get him off on that - it was clearly intentional.
Only chance we can get him off is if we can convince the Melb bloke to testify that he took a dive. Only chance.
Tasmanian Dams case could also be argued.
Pfffft. As if.
Donoghue vs Stevenson, all the way....
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:46 pm
by Madden
dom_105 wrote:They will try and get it downgraded to reckless.
That will get him under the 100 points.
That's true, they will try, but the reality is that he charged straight at the bloke. Not in the course of play, just randomly. Its intentional.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:50 pm
by Jazz_84
does this take forever for anyone else???
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:51 pm
by citizenerased
provocation? or does that only work for dessie?
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:55 pm
by Jazz_84
well what about carroll, why isn't he up for a week?? thats what i dont get, he did all the same things, intentional yes, low contact yes, and body contact YES
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:57 pm
by danstar84
Why wasn't Fevola up for a week v collingwood?
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:58 pm
by canberrabomber
Staggy wrote:dom_105 wrote:They will try and get it downgraded to reckless.
That will get him under the 100 points.
That's true, they will try, but the reality is that he charged straight at the bloke. Not in the course of play, just randomly. Its intentional.
I don't think it is simply a case of deliberately running into a player, this occurs quite often in varying degrees- he has to intentionally "charge".
Didak admitted that he deliberately ran into the back of Haselby but he was completely exonerated.
Oh and I'm quoting R v Crabbe.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:00 pm
by uptick
Jazz_84 wrote:
does this take forever for anyone else???
Didn't work for me, hopefully on Bomber TV though. Do the MRP members have high security dwellings, if you get my drift. fair dinkum basketball here we come.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:06 pm
by dom_105
Was Lloyd reported by an Umpire, or the MRP? I have heard conflicting statements.
If it was the umpire who reported him, I was always under the impression that an umpire had to tell the player that he was reporting him before the start of the next quarter. I know from my limited knowledge of local football, plenty of cases have been thrown out as the result of umpires informing the player after the start of the next quarter that they were indeed reported.
Just something to think about.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:07 pm
by robbie67
It's a conspiracy.
The People V Larry Flynt.
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:17 pm
by paddyl90
Typical review panel come up with a load of ****** shit.
Just watch him get a week.
Bunch of fu**en c**ts they make me so angry.