Agree - all acts of thuggery need to be dealt with.

I think gardiner was slotted for that!

Anyone know when the MRP meet? And how to find out the outcomes of their review? More than interested to find out how they deal with the thuggery of Murphy (laying a beautiful forearm into Montagna's head) and Simpson (who tried to take BJ out of the game by pinning his arms and burying his head int...

Life may be a little drastic, harsh and very knee jerk.

Just watching the replay on FOX.... Simpson will be in trouble as he saw Goddard did not have the ball and continued to bury his head into the concrete. Murphy will be in trouble as he saw Joey had released the ball, took two steps to his right to line him up and proceeded to swing a forearm into hi...

Interesting to watch the treatment of Roo. Was it only me who thought Bower spent the entire evening chopping his arms?

IMO he should have received a dozen frees.

5. Dal Santo
4. Montagna
3. Hayes
2. Riewolt
1. Max

Would have thought a couple of Blues would be more than a touch worried. Q1 - Simpson pinning his arms and burying Goddard's head into the Docklands concrete, after he saw BJ had released the ball, should be 2 weeks reduced to 1 after pleading guilty. Q1 - Murphy smacking Montagna with a forearm to ...

I have no problem with Ryder getting off. But please Mr MRP and Mrs Tribunal – if that’s the direction you want to follow, great - but leave alone the next bloke who comes off the square to clean up a player standing within 5m of the ball. I thought picking blokes off – a la Ryder {again who I...

Goodes on numerious occasions and Hall on Maguire????? My point is - make a rule and stick to it no matter who it is or what took place. No discussions, no interpretations. Hit a bloke hard. I love it. Injure him, well, you pay a price. No discussions, no interpretations. {eyes open} King deserved a...

Re: Ryder. I for one do not want the physicality to be removed and enjoy watching the hardness of our game. My problem is that it seems that "duty of care" only applies to certain clubs. It seem to me that Ryder and Maxwell can (unintentionally) perform actions that result in injuries but ...

In any case it still astounds me how Ryder got off.

Another week - more ammunition at the farce that is Anderson's Tribunal 'system'. Need an explanation as to why King contact was deemed intentional = 3pts and Ryder was negligent = 1 pt. Both were intentional = ???? {spin the wheel please}. Both were accidential head clashes. King had a duty of care...

Unless there is another angle the contact looked almost side on - shoulder to shoulder. Good solid and fair bump and in play.

We should stand up - for once - and appeal.

Plugger, you seem to know all. If King was blocking for Gram's space, at what point is he able to make body contact? 5m?

If King goes due to the accidential contact is Raph also in trouble ? Head contact and the bloke is off and in hospital.

Does Raph owe a duty of care?

Why no hysteria?

I have a good idea for next Friday.

For the benefit of the safety of the Carlton players, lets not chase hard, tackle so hard or move the ball so quickly in case the weaker opposition hurt themselves or do any soft tissues.

Cripes. Bottom line - the Saints were harder, fitter, faster.

Just watched the incident off the taped Sunday Footy Show. It's an interesting one. Blake has the ball - running across the defensive side of the ground. From the vision he had what looked like two options. I think it was Dawson who eventually received the ball - but the other was Gram in the centre...

Agree 100% Joffa. If see one more player roll into a tackle and fall forward I'll spew. McGrath is in trouble under the bs 'duty of care principle'. #18 played it like a pro. Head over the ball moving like one of those clowns you drop ping-pong balls down. Bang, engage the contact, get the free. Cr4p.

In a bit of trouble. 2 reduced to 1.

I understand Eddie Maguire is good friends with Steve Vizard. Why no front page?

Re: Board squibbing.

Can anyone confirm my mail that it was never discussed at Board level. RL said no, so end-of-story.

Now he is on the Richmond list and subjected to 3 tests a week and one hair test every 3 months, (and a pre-season to test the hammies) lets see if he can make Round 1. And I hope he does - good luck to him.

Only when he runs out Round 1 will I question the ST.K decision and only then.

Surely all this histeria needs to be put on hold until he actually runs out Round 1.

Mid Dec to end Mar is approx 16 weeks, times 3 = 48 urine tests and one hair sample test. And a Pre-Season.

If he runs out Round 1 then we should be asking questions and having these discussions. IMO.

- sorry if this has already been answered ....


Now Cousins in on an AFL list - does the 3 x week drug testing start now?

When is the first hair sample required?