Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Leo.J wrote:Until we get 50000 members and an ex polly or a media mega star (I use that term loosely) as president we will always be on the recieving end of these decisions
Why are the WB or Melbourne or North. By the way do you think MG got a poor decision as well.
I think that a forearm to the head that doesn't do any damage is worth a week.
He got 2 so they screwed on that as well in your opinion. How come we get screwed on these decisions but Melbourne, North and WB dont seem to. Dont think they are big profile clubs.
I think its because we are the highest profile poor club. The AFL regularly make a stand on issues by burning us.
The won't do it to the non vic clubs, they don't do it to the rich vic clubs, and its not news worthy if they do it to the clubs you've mentioned.
They want to act tough on certain issues and get as much publicity as possible with as little trouble as possible. We are an easy target because we have no clout and yet we are news worthy.
Yep, try explaining that logic to Pt Adelaide and Hawthorn.
Why?
I beleive both teams copped a fair few suspensions this year.
Were they warranted or fair?
TBH, dunno and don't care. We move on. Take it as you wish, but I don't jump at shadows.
Port are an interstate club, Hawks have 50k members and are high profile. Argue all you like about the system, but to say we are deliberately targeted is a bit far fetched. But that's just one troll's opinion.
cheers.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
The Tribunal last Tuesday night showed that the MRP's view on bumps is, in their opinion, wrong.
Ryder was charged by the MRP because he bumped Dangerfield, whilst the ball was there, but accidentally got him in the head.
The MRP adjudicated that the head clash, even though accidental, warranted a 2 match ban.
Ryder's lawyer argued in front of the Tribunal that the hit was accidental - the Tribunal agreed and threw out the charge.
Given that result, is it really so far-fetched that King couldn't have argued that the head clash was accidental and therefore the charge of intentional should be downgraded?
IMO, if King was up next week rather than this week, given the Tribunal ruling, he could/would have challenged.
On another note, we now have a more up to date measuring stick for all future MRP decisions on similar incidents.
Instead of comparing everything to the Baker joke 4 weeks, we now have th King joke 5 weeks to compare all bumps to.
plugger66 wrote:
He actually got 5. Its all about points. Which one of the charges to get the points was wrong?
Intention.
You can't couple intentional with high impact and high contact unless he intended high impact and high contact.
Maybe he did intend to knock him unconscious by clashing heads but it would be very easy to argue that he was just trying to apply a hip and shoulder.
If it was that easy to argue why didnt they? Is our footy department useless?
Nothing to do with the competency of the football dept and more to do with the fact that no case had been up to the Tribunal since the AFL changed the rules to make 'accidental' bumps to the head 'deliberate'.
The Tribunal has now shown that rule is not worth the paper it's printed on.
plugger66 wrote:He actually got 5. Its all about points. Which one of the charges to get the points was wrong?
High impact down-graded to medium impact
Paddy Ryders bump was judged as medium impact, and he was running when he laid that bump, Kingy took 2 steps and bumped him.
Btw It is quite easy to be knocked out, the impact doesn't necessarily have to be high. The fact that King knocked him out - which I'm not even sure he did - doesn't have to mean that King caused the concussion with the bump. The concussion may have been caused by King's bump, but IMO would have been just as likely been caused by his head hitting the ground.
Last edited by Leo.J on Thu 11 Jun 2009 11:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
plugger66 wrote:
So lets get this right. Fox footy say it was wrong so they are right and just about every other media say the decision was right so they are wrong. He was clearly knocked out before he hit the ground as Channel 9 said on Sunday so King is responsible for his actions. Got 4 deserved 4. As for North and Dogs and what do they have to do with it maybe you should read the other guys post abd you will understand. If the tribunal are wrong I will say iy and Clarkes was clearly a terrible decision just as this is the right decision.
not the right decision in my professional opinion......and i'm not so sure he was ...as you stated...clearly knocked out before he hit the ground...i just watched fox's league teams.....parkin and taylor commented on how his head hits the ground....they clear;y believe the decision to be excessive if not wrong.......of course the penalty is excessive...its a f****** joke.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
