How many weeks. Zac?

[saintspremiers]

Low impact, High contact, negligent. then add the carry over points.

So that's 5 activations points = 125 demerit points - is that correct??

With carry over points plus maybe 10 or 20% loading it would equate to most likely a one week suspension. Reprimand with no carry over points.

The big issue was it even hard enough contact to consitute a reportable offence?

I doubt it.

The umps were there, and not even a 50 metre penalty was laid.

[Dan Warna]

its a little harsh, but you can't argue it isn't fair...

[Bernard Shakey]

Two weeks with Zac's record and a dumb act with seven minutes to go in a game we've won.

A dumb act?

Or a slight error of judgement in a desperate attempt to spoil a mark?

I'm glad that you can be so certain of your assessment.

And are you suggesting that the players should back off from all contests once the game is "won"?

A dumb act.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

As it happened I thought it was a legitimate spoiling attempt and as such it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't get sighted. On the other hand, it also wouldn't surprise me if he gets two weeks for being unco and having a bad record.
Like Roo's one last week, it's probably line ball and could very easily go either way. Toss-of-a-coin job.
Wouldn't be the worst thing ever if he gets a week and that we play Tommy in his place against Freo.

[saintspremiers]

As it happened I thought it was a legitimate spoiling attempt and as such it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't get sighted. On the other hand, it also wouldn't surprise me if he gets two weeks for being unco and having a bad record.
Like Roo's one last week, it's probably line ball and could very easily go either way. Toss-of-a-coin job.
Wouldn't be the worst thing ever if he gets a week and that we play Tommy in his place against Freo.

Hello Zac basher.

WTF?

You'd be happy with Zac out for Tommy?

If Zac is such a dud why wasn't he replaced with Tommy earlier.

NFI.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

As it happened I thought it was a legitimate spoiling attempt and as such it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't get sighted. On the other hand, it also wouldn't surprise me if he gets two weeks for being unco and having a bad record.
Like Roo's one last week, it's probably line ball and could very easily go either way. Toss-of-a-coin job.
Wouldn't be the worst thing ever if he gets a week and that we play Tommy in his place against Freo.

Hello Zac basher.

WTF?

You'd be happy with Zac out for Tommy?

If Zac is such a dud why wasn't he replaced with Tommy earlier.

NFI.

I have NFI?
If you read what I'm saying as me "bashing Zac", or suggesting that he's a "dud" then you're the one with NFI.
I also thought it wasn't the worst thing that Roo got to have a week off last week (which turns out to be even better, now that it's been revealed that he has a crook knee), so did you also read that as me being a "Roo basher" and thinking he's a "dud"?
Please get back to me when you have a clue. Maybe get someone with some intelligence, or who thinks even slightly outside the box to explain these posts to you, before you respond to them.
I just think it wouldn't be the worst thing for us to see how Tommy goes at senior level (especially now, as I'd rather he come in in a game like this against Freo, than perhaps be required for a final, having never played at the level before). If Zac is the better man for the job I have no doubt that he'll be straight back in once his suspension is served, fresh and keen.
If you have a problem with that, please tell someone who cares in the slightest.

[Rosco]

i heard he's got a 30% loading plus 50 carry over points. haven't seen the incident but if he goes it won't be less than 2 weeks

[perfectionist]

i heard he's got a 30% loading plus 50 carry over points.

Correct. He was outrageously suspended for two games in 2009 and one in the Adelaide game this year. We went to the Tribunal on both occasions and lost. So, three games in three years means 30% extra and there are 50 carry over points from the Adelaide suspension.

The other issue is whether they would consider it a strike or rough play. There is the ludicrous situation that punching someone in the face is less serious than bumping them to the ground where they hit their face on the turf.

If he goes for rough play the lowest level (negligent, low impact, high contact) is 125 points plus 30% gives 162.5 points then plus 50 carry over = 212.5 points and two weeks. With an early plea this would reduce to about 160 points and one week.

[stkildathunda]

Dawson 1 week with early plea

[BonoRocks]

so what did campbell brown get, with his history should have the fridge thrown at him..

[plugger66]

so what did campbell brown get, with his history should have the fridge thrown at him..

What did Brown do?

[matrix]

Dawson 1 week with early plea

thats what he got thunda???

edit
tis ok
heard it

so he got two weeks initially?

[stkildathunda]

Dawson 1 week with early plea

thats what he got thunda???

edit
tis ok
heard it

so he got two weeks initially?

Yep got 2 weeks but can accept 1 week with early plea..

In regards to Brown they said was seen as legit attempt to spoil J Koschitzke.

[matrix]

hmm cant even remember the brown incident
must been on a drinks break

[plugger66]

Dawson 1 week with early plea

thats what he got thunda???

edit
tis ok
heard it

so he got two weeks initially?

Got one but poor record gave him 2 which can be reduced to one. Has to take the one and try and work on his brain.

[perfectionist]

For striking at the second lowest level (reckless, low impact and high contact), that's 125 points, same points scenario as my example for rough play at the lowest level above.

[BonoRocks]

so what did campbell brown get, with his history should have the fridge thrown at him..

What did Brown do?

cant remember who it was maybe kosi but went to spoil with his left arm, missed it and punched him fair in the back of the head with his right arm, no other intention than to punch him in the head, crude like zacs, but with history cant be good for him..

dont get me wrong, dont care if he is out or not, kinda like dont think we will miss zac either.

[Rosco]

If he goes for rough play the lowest level (negligent, low impact, high contact) is 125 points plus 30% gives 162.5 points then plus 50 carry over = 212.5 points and two weeks. With an early plea this would reduce to about 160 points and one week.

nice call. who plays in his stead?

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... highlight=

[carnasaints55]

the incidents were the same. it makes no sense to me that dawson would go but not brown. i dont mind that dawson went--it was stupid--but due to the similarities between the incidents, the MRP should have been consistent and rubbed them both out.

[maverick]

so what did campbell brown get, with his history should have the fridge thrown at him..

What did Brown do?

cant remember who it was maybe kosi but went to spoil with his left arm, missed it and punched him fair in the back of the head with his right arm, no other intention than to punch him in the head, crude like zacs, but with history cant be good for him..

dont get me wrong, dont care if he is out or not, kinda like dont think we will miss zac either.

I think it was Kosi as well.
It was higher impact than Zac's but a little more believable ie. Zac was dumber.

[Dr Spaceman]

the incidents were the same. it makes no sense to me that dawson would go but not brown. i dont mind that dawson went--it was stupid--but due to the similarities between the incidents, the MRP should have been consistent and rubbed them both out.

Yes that's the thing that's surprising.

Or perhaps not

[Rosco]

yeah, consistency would be surprising about now.

but how can you expect consistency from the MRP when we don't get it from the AFL (judd's third part deals ok, scully's not), umpires (just ask GT) and a lot of teams (crows, demons, etc).

[Mr Magic]

And Dawson cannot go to the Tribunal with a defense of
'Brown's hit was deemed by the MRP to be ok'
because under the 'star chamber' rules you cannot cite precedence.

IMO that's all they need to do to fix the inconsistancy - allow the citing of precedents.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

And Dawson cannot go to the Tribunal with a defense of
'Brown's hit was deemed by the MRP to be ok'
because under the 'star chamber' rules you cannot cite precedence.

IMO that's all they need to do to fix the inconsistancy - allow the citing of precedents.

Please don't be silly. That would make far too much sense.

[Junction Oval]

Precedents would certainly provide "consistency" Mr Magic - something the MRP cannot or cares not to do.

The fans, players, coaches can all live with "consistency" of decision making and the AFL has an obligation to deliver on this matter. For heavens sake, the Legal system runs on judgement precedents, so why can't the AFL