Did Armo challenge his ban?

[markinUSA]

Can someone update us when it is announced?

[stkildathunda]

He didnt challenge, was announced couple hours ago.

[Beno88]

Very unlucky for Armo. He's played every game this year and put in a solid season. Surely he'll come back in for the first final and not make it three years in a row of missing the finals.

Last year he was dropped after getting 21 touches in Round 22, and the year before he was dropped after getting 19 touches in Round 21.

[Dr Spaceman]

Very unlucky for Armo. He's played every game this year and put in a solid season. Surely he'll come back in for the first final and not make it three years in a row of missing the finals.

Last year he was dropped after getting 21 touches in Round 22, and the year before he was dropped after getting 19 touches in Round 21.

Pretty much guarantee he'll be straight back in. After all, the cupboard's pretty bare.

Certainly helped his cause by putting in a good game last Saturday so I'm sure Ross will welcome him back with open arms.

[HSVKing]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

[stkildathunda]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

[saintspremiers]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

[HSVKing]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

[Rosco]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

[HSVKing]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

[plugger66]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

Enright got exactly the same as Armo.

[HSVKing]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

Enright got exactly the same as Armo.

Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?

[plugger66]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

Enright got exactly the same as Armo.

Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?

Trengove the second time.

[HSVKing]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

Enright got exactly the same as Armo.

Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?

Trengove the second time.

Nah, was in the same game (St K v Geel)

There was also Kosi who copped 2 weeks.

This rule is just a joke in all honesty. It was originally enforced so players weren't slung by the arm/jumper.

[MCG-Unit]

Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?

Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i think

Correct 80 Vs 20.

True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.

unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.

is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?

The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.

The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).

Enright got exactly the same as Armo.

Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?

Trengove the second time.

Nah, was in the same game (St K v Geel)

There was also Kosi who copped 2 weeks.

This rule is just a joke in all honesty. It was originally enforced so players weren't slung by the arm/jumper.

Was it Joel Corey's sling tackle on Jack Steven - for which he copped a Reprimand - compared with Kosi's 2 weeks

[ando051]

The problem being, the player Armo slung hit his head, there was a very similar tackle by Dustin Martin from Richmond that was looked at by the MRP but no punishment because the player did not hit his head, but the tackle was the same. Take a week that is the rule.

[jays]

would not challenge if i was him

[BigMart]

He would get six if our bozos challenged

[plugger66]

He would get six if our bozos challenged

Keep all the positive stuff coming.

[BigMart]

I will try

Not too sure what to say that is positive about a player getting a week though..

How about this

How great were the club officials to make the strategically brilliant decision they did, given there 'unlucky' history at the tribunial.....as usual smart decision all round...

As usual, in great hands.

[DWOODROW]

Probably advised not to challenge. Had some points from previous misdemeanors. I thought it was soft to get a week for but hey I think everytime I got suspended, I thought there was nothing in it also.
Rules are there for a reason.

Do I think the game is getting a little soft??? yes but is the game a good spectacle. Yes!!

Keep players safe and playing longer.

Come back in Dave and go just as hard mate. Big game against Syd a ney

[saintspremiers]

Probably advised not to challenge. Had some points from previous misdemeanors. I thought it was soft to get a week for but hey I think everytime I got suspended, I thought there was nothing in it also.
Rules are there for a reason.

Do I think the game is getting a little soft??? yes but is the game a good spectacle. Yes!!

Keep players safe and playing longer.

Come back in Dave and go just as hard mate. Big game against Syd a ney

Given he got negligent and low impact he had nothing to downgrade to. Clearly high contact also. Was the only decision, not a hard one!