N Riewoldt can accept 1 game rough conduct

plugger66 · Post: # 1110915Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:06pm

BigMart wrote:Plugger, what are you actually arguing....

Surely you dont believe it was worth 3 weeks.....which is what he got...not one.....

The koschitzke decision and this decision and especially the baker decision were all incorrect, and poor....in baker's case..it was a decision without integrity

And to say its a good system....seriously...its no different.
It is still completely subjective
How is the distinction between high impact and medium impact arrived at??
Some morons judgement

The guy had a broken cheekbone. Surely once they worked out there was a charge it had to be high impact. I have no idea if it is worth 3 weeks. the points say it is. I said he was very unlucky because he hit him in the head and hurt him. I doubt he wanted to do that. Baker decision was stupid and got press about that. Kosi one was right and as such got really no press. My guess is this will not either. Not sure I said it was a good system but I think it is better than the other one but as time goes by like most things they reckon the past was better. I remember some real shockers in the other system. Unlike it seems you i would think if there was a better system then the AFL would use it.

asiu · Post: # 1110918Post **asiu** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:08pm

Come out publicly scathing on the decision and open fire on a shambolic system.....and pay the fine
... ....in baker's case..it was a decision without integrity

alllllrightie whiteee ... i'm with him.

go hard or

satchmo · Post: # 1110919Post **satchmo** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:08pm

plugger66 wrote: That isnt the rule though. He is unlucky because he broke his cheekbone. He could have done other things so if he injures the person he is in trouble. Lets face it if it was the other way around we would say only one week is a joke.

He could have done other things alright. Playing tennis or golf would probably be a better option.

It looked to me that in the end he just stood his ground, and was more intent on following the ball than anything else. What a bastard, hang him high.

BigMart · Post: # 1110920Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:09pm

So we base impact on injury severity

Yeah, thats logical

plugger66 · Post: # 1110923Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:12pm

BigMart wrote:So we base impact on injury severity

Yeah, thats logical

Yes I would think so. If you get punched in the head and it hits the temple and you die the other person may get charged with manslaughter. If you get punched in the head and it misses the temple you may just punch the other guy in the head and not get charged at all. of course severity should be taken into account.

satchmo · Post: # 1110925Post **satchmo** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:13pm

BigMart wrote:So we base impact on injury severity

Yeah, thats logical

Surely the impact is as much a result of the victims inertia?

It looked to me like Roo stopped before impact, and if that is correct, then perhaps the crow should have been reported?

jays · Post: # 1110927Post **jays** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:14pm

what crap

BigMart · Post: # 1110928Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:14pm

Kosi decision right....ffs

It was embarassing for our game, and scoffed at by the media....who are too confused to comment...

That and kosi is not chris judd

plugger66 · Post: # 1110930Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:15pm

BigMart wrote:Kosi decision right....ffs

It was embarassing for our game, and scoffed at by the media....who are too confused to comment...

That and kosi is not chris judd

Not true but if you say so.

degruch · Post: # 1110931Post **degruch** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:16pm

plugger66 wrote:The club will not say a thing and neither will the media because it will not be rated as a really bad decision.

It'll be rated up there with Buddy's Bump. It's a bad decision.

plugger66 · Post: # 1110935Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:18pm

degruch wrote:
plugger66 wrote:The club will not say a thing and neither will the media because it will not be rated as a really bad decision.
It'll be rated up there with Buddy's Bump. It's a bad decision.

We will see. Doesnt really worry me though as it isnt going to change. We just need to win without him. And if it is a really bad decision surely the club will challenge.

prwilkinson · Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:19pm

Makes you wonder doesn't it. I miss the bump. Was just about the best part of the sport.

BigMart · Post: # 1110937Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:19pm

So if

Someone belts Or shitfronts

David aritage in exactly the same way as they do xavier ellis

The fact armo is able to withstand the act....determines what the penalty is.

Tomorrow i should tell students that the length of suspension i hand out will be determined, not by their intent but rather the outcome....

They can whack someone, and if the person can take it....they might get away with it...

CURLY · Post: # 1110943Post **CURLY** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:22pm

plugger66 wrote:
BigMart wrote:So we base impact on injury severity

Yeah, thats logical
Yes I would think so. If you get punched in the head and it hits the temple and you die the other person may get charged with manslaughter. If you get punched in the head and it misses the temple you may just punch the other guy in the head and not get charged at all. of course severity should be taken into account.

Yes but if your standing in the kitchen with a knife and someone runs into it and dies its an accident and no crime is committed.

plugger66 · Post: # 1110944Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:22pm

BigMart wrote:So if

Someone belts Or shitfronts

David aritage in exactly the same way as they do xavier ellis

The fact armo is able to withstand the act....determines what the penalty is.

Tomorrow i should tell students that the length of suspension i hand out will be determined, not by their intent but rather the outcome....

They can whack someone, and if the person can take it....they might get away with it...

And I will tell them that if you knock someone out but it hits them in the temple and they die they will get the same charge as if you knock someone out and they wake up 5 seconds later.

BigMart · Post: # 1110946Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:23pm

The club will only challenge if its

A really bad decision.......a bad decision is ok though??

I strenuously object your honour.....

I hope we dont challenge....he might get the gas chamber if we do..

Maybe get lovett's lawyer....he can get people off

degruch · Post: # 1110948Post **degruch** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:23pm

plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
plugger66 wrote:The club will not say a thing and neither will the media because it will not be rated as a really bad decision.
It'll be rated up there with Buddy's Bump. It's a bad decision.
We will see. Doesnt really worry me though as it isnt going to change. We just need to win without him. And if it is a really bad decision surely the club will challenge.

They're betting on us not challenging, I'm sure. He'll get 3 weeks as sure as a sun shines. As you say, doesn't change anything, but backs up Kevin Bartlett's notion that us common plods have no idea about the rules...buggered if I know how it was ever a report, as it didn't even rate a free. Or maybe KB was talking about the umpires???

plugger66 · Post: # 1110950Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:25pm

degruch wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
degruch wrote:
plugger66 wrote:The club will not say a thing and neither will the media because it will not be rated as a really bad decision.
It'll be rated up there with Buddy's Bump. It's a bad decision.
We will see. Doesnt really worry me though as it isnt going to change. We just need to win without him. And if it is a really bad decision surely the club will challenge.
They're betting on us not challenging, I'm sure. He'll get 3 weeks as sure as a sun shines. As you say, doesn't change anything, but backs up Kevin Bartlett's notion that us common plods have no idea about the rules...buggered if I know how it was ever a report, as it didn't even rate a free. Or maybe KB was talking about the umpires???

He can only get 2 if he challenges.

saintspremiers · Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:29pm

prwilkinson wrote:Makes you wonder doesn't it. I miss the bump. Was just about the best part of the sport.

Agree but players get paid too much now to miss games through avoidable injuries ie. getting hurt by being bumped.

Not my words but the AFL's logic.

BigMart · Post: # 1110953Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:29pm

Bartlett has lost the plot

If he had his way...contact would be outlawed.

He couldnt stand players who used physicality on him......loves the non contact side of footy

plugger66 · Post: # 1110955Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:31pm

BigMart wrote:Bartlett has lost the plot

If he had his way...contact would be outlawed.

He couldnt stand players who used physicality on him......loves the non contact side of footy

Is he the only one on the rules committee?

BigMart · Post: # 1110956Post **BigMart** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:32pm

Is he on the rules committee??

bergsone · Post: # 1110969Post **bergsone** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:43pm

Totally pissed off with this,

Is it because we are playing GC,Sunsine coast ,brisbane or however is the flavour of the month

bulls*** bulls*** bulls***

SOFTCOCK decision made by soft c**k people,and dont give me this and that points system,doesnt and never will make any sense.Did someone get rubbed out for 1 for STRIKING today

Do they realise his name is not KOSSY OR BAKER,am used to them getting rubbed out for f*** all
Dont try to defend this decision ,because it CANT be done

stevie · Post: # 1110981Post **stevie** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 9:58pm

Just been reading comments about this farce on the HUN site.

Every one, even Roo haters, say it is a disgrace and made our game a laughing stock.

Even a Filth fan supports him...

dragit · Post: # 1110993Post **dragit** » Mon 25 Jul 2011 10:21pm

Although I'll happily admit to bias in these cases, to me Riewoldt does look stationary at the time of contact, it does look to be purely an accidental collision.
Could he really have made a tackle instead?
Strange system
â€¢ Riewoldt 325 points
â€¢ Adcock 72 points
They both appear to be accidents, however the Adcock one looks to me to be a far more dangerous incident?
I think they will appeal this on the grounds that Symes actually ran into Riewoldt who really had no other option than to brace for contact.