will daisy get reported

markp · Post: # 1086075Post **markp** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 1:38pm

degruch wrote:
markp wrote:
degruch wrote:
Moccha wrote:
saintbrat wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... 1fngn.html

Nice of the papers to give daisy his alibi.
How do they make this s*** up

One factor in Thomas' favour is that he seemingly made contact with the Saint's mouth with the inside of his wrist rather than his fist, which could prompt the panel to deem it was not a strike.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... z1OSTPSNgR
That is AWESOME! Knowing the media's influence on the tribunal, Daisy probably won't need a lawyer for this one...or at the very least, call up Barry Hall's old legal defense.
"If the knuckles didn't hit, you must acquit"
I wouldn't put it past Eddie to send in Mohamed Ali as his leagl defense.

I was channeling Johnnie Cochran... but he's not doing much work these days, though neither is Ali, sadly.

Dr Spaceman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 2:00pm

If Collingwood try to mount a defence that Clint Jones king-hit Daisy Thomas first, it will surely fail.

Thatâ€™s the problem with being such a high profile club. There is simply too much photographic evidence available, dating back to his junior years, to prove that Daisyâ€™s head has always looked like that

SainterK · Post: # 1086183Post **SainterK** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 5:09pm

Got a week, must of been assessed low impact?

So Melbourne face Collingwood without Swan, Thomas and Beams.

Life Long Saint · Mon 06 Jun 2011 5:14pm

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

He drew 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction that can be reduced to 168.75 points and one game because of his good record.

Low impact??? That must be the Chris Judd conduct classification system. Didn't Jones require treatment after the incident?

stinger · Post: # 1086195Post **stinger** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 5:24pm

Life Long Saint wrote:http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

He drew 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction that can be reduced to 168.75 points and one game because of his good record.
Low impact??? That must be the Chris Judd conduct classification system. Didn't Jones require treatment after the incident?

yep...bleeding mouth...

SaintPav · Post: # 1086221Post **SaintPav** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 5:44pm

stinger wrote:
Life Long Saint wrote:http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

He drew 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction that can be reduced to 168.75 points and one game because of his good record.
Low impact??? That must be the Chris Judd conduct classification system. Didn't Jones require treatment after the incident?

yep...bleeding mouth...

Joke.

InkerSaint · Mon 06 Jun 2011 5:45pm

126.56 points if accepted, 168.75 points if challenged and not successful. You'd think they'll challenge and try to get off the charge.

saintbrat · Post: # 1086251Post **saintbrat** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 6:05pm

Life Long Saint wrote:http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

He drew 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction that can be reduced to 168.75 points and one game because of his good record.
Low impact??? That must be the Chris Judd conduct classification system. Didn't Jones require treatment after the incident?

Speaking of Judd- He didn't hit the umpire

Contact between Carlton's Chris Judd and an umpire from the third quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. The umpire had bounced the ball and was heading backwards when he deviated away on an angle, rather than move in a direct straight line. Player Judd held his position and it was the view of the panel that the change in path by the umpire had contributed to the contact. No further action was taken.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

saintspremiers · Mon 06 Jun 2011 6:33pm

InkerSaint wrote:126.56 points if accepted, 168.75 points if challenged and not successful. You'd think they'll challenge and try to get off the charge.

Yep they will.

And Daisy will get off because he plays for the Pies and is a brownlow favorite.

AND please the MRP and AFL are CORRUPT!

So this is Dimwit's chance to show he is fair. Ie he's on notice.

St. Luke · Post: # 1086300Post **St. Luke** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 6:49pm

I loved this bit of footage. Surely he can't get off...but then again...it is a goldenchild team of the AFL

Solar · Post: # 1086302Post **Solar** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 6:51pm

low impact????

HUH?

This is a disgrace....

The AFL can go bite itself..... how a player can belt a opposition player, who then leaves the field with blood and is forced onto the bench for periods of the rest of the game be suggested as LOW IMPACT

Seriously this is becoming a bigger joke by the day

stinger · Post: # 1086305Post **stinger** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 6:52pm

love it....

Con Gorozidis · Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:31pm

this is a complete joke. 1 week.

SEN (Nathan Thompson) just said he was the luckiest player in the AFL.

AFL is so corrupt. Oh Daisy is a "star of the game" and a favourite for kids. So we dont want him missing games.

Same as Judd last year after the Pavlich hit.

Just a joke.

plugger66 · Post: # 1086343Post **plugger66** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:35pm

Got 2 weeks. Certainly didnt deserve anymore but as the pies are struggling i cant believe he didnt get off. That side is so poor it needs all the help it can get. It makes sense. As much sense as the hilarious conspiracy theories. It is very funny.

saintspremiers · Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:37pm

Its low impact so at worst Daisy only gets a week.

Don't you guys know the golden rule that players with a 5 year clean record are treated differently to those who don't?

The 5 year clean record gives him a bonus 25% off anyway, so the MRP could gone medium impact which at worst wouldve meant 2 weeks with an early plea. Hardly a harsh penalty.

Did CJ get a free and a 50 metre penalty?

saintbrat · Post: # 1086348Post **saintbrat** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:39pm

St. Luke wrote:I loved this bit of footage. Surely he can't get off...but then again...it is a goldenchild team of the AFL

some people obviously have plenty of time- It is good though

posted yesterday I thought then realised it is possible uSA dated.

saintspremiers · Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:40pm

plugger66 wrote:Got 2 weeks. Certainly didnt deserve anymore but as the pies are struggling i cant believe he didnt get off. That side is so poor it needs all the help it can get. It makes sense. As much sense as the hilarious conspiracy theories. It is very funny.

I love you plugger.

You are wonderful, my hero!

plugger66 · Post: # 1086351Post **plugger66** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:40pm

saintspremiers wrote:Its low impact so at worst Daisy only gets a week.

Don't you guys know the golden rule that players with a 5 year clean record are treated differently to those who don't?

The 5 year clean record gives him a bonus 25% off anyway, so the MRP could gone medium impact which at worst wouldve meant 2 weeks with an early plea. Hardly a harsh penalty.

Did CJ get a free and a 50 metre penalty?

Why would he get a 50 metre penalty? He did get 2 weeks. What happens after that depends what has happened to the player previously.

The Fireman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:49pm

What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?

Dr Spaceman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:49pm

Solar wrote:low impact????

HUH?

This is a disgrace....

The AFL can go bite itself..... how a player can belt a opposition player, who then leaves the field with blood and is forced onto the bench for periods of the rest of the game be suggested as LOW IMPACT

Seriously this is becoming a bigger joke by the day

Solar, the guy's got rubbed out.

Let's not "kick him while he's down"!

satchmo · Post: # 1086367Post **satchmo** » Mon 06 Jun 2011 7:58pm

The Fireman wrote:What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?

According to fat ed's new guidelines that is homophobic and racist. You are sentenced to one month with the felafel munching rapists.

Dr Spaceman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 8:01pm

satchmo wrote:
The Fireman wrote:What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?
According to fat ed's new guidelines that is homophobic and racist. You are sentenced to one month with the felafel munching rapists.

So if Daisy came at Jones from behind, was he in fact going all brokeback?

lyonhearted · Mon 06 Jun 2011 8:58pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
satchmo wrote:
The Fireman wrote:What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?
According to fat ed's new guidelines that is homophobic and racist. You are sentenced to one month with the felafel munching rapists.
So if Daisy came at Jones from behind, was he in fact going all brokeback?

Wouldn't surprise me at all, let's face it, Daisy's not the most masculine 'bloke' in the AFL.

The Fireman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 8:58pm

satchmo wrote:
The Fireman wrote:What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?
According to fat ed's new guidelines that is homophobic and racist. You are sentenced to one month with the falafel munching rapists.

I hate falafel.

The Fireman · Mon 06 Jun 2011 8:59pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
satchmo wrote:
The Fireman wrote:What's the chances of Daisy ever hitting anyone who is looking at him ?
According to fat ed's new guidelines that is homophobic and racist. You are sentenced to one month with the felafel munching rapists.
So if Daisy came at Jones from behind, was he in fact going all brokeback?

Careful..Eddie will claim hypocrisy