Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:Second week in a row the AFL have stuffed up. Thomas not getting off last week and Selwood getting 3 next week. Cant wait till a player finally gets off and it will be the currupt AFL again.
They are only doing it to throw us all off the scent
Guerra never minded hitting high and late on numerous occasions, now tattles on Selwood.
Seems like tough guy Guerra can dish it out but cant take it
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Forget the punch in the head .FFS peake getting a fine for the umpire contact , My love of the game is waining when i see ridiculous things like that . Umpires who are becoming pouncy primadonnas with there exaggerated decisions , watch a game from 20 years ago , you barely notice the umps !!! If you watch peakes eyes he never takes it off the ball , the ump backs towards his foot like a mincing ballerina ( apologies to ballet lovers ! ) and poor peake cops a fine !!!
Sainternist wrote:3 weeks for boxing someone's ears to point of causing deafness. Quite lenient when put into context.
Remember, Steven Baker was given 10 weeks for accidently running into Jeff Farmer.
They both got 4 weeks and it was no accident.
How do you know re Baker?
If you saw it, what did you see?
I've always wanted to know myself...
No I never saw it. Wish i had of. He actually told me one night.
And what did he tell you?
I think his exact words was 7 weeks seems about right but he as still pissed off with what the club told him to say. He thought he would get off. I never asked what he actually did.
I didn't think there was any doubt Bakes did something, deliberately, it was just the audacity of the tribunal to give him 7 weeks with no evidence to charge him with!
As i said he was pissed off with our defence.
Believe it or not but I actually saw the incident , baker was tagging farmer , freo got a turnover and farmer followed by baker ran into a vacant forward area to create a target , freo inturn gave it back to us ,
so farmer turned around , put his head down ( you know like sprinters do when they start a race ) baker who was behind farmer , was now ahead of him , deliberately veered into farmer path to block him , farmer didn't see this as his head was down and consquently ploughed straight into bakes back . there was a head clash and it was lights out farmer ( remember baker also went off the ground with a cut to the back of his head ! ) bakes tried to block him thats all , players lay blocks every week , he was shafted by the afl and a poor defence ,
Afl incosistencies remember when x clarke was blocked by a cat player with a hip and shoulder, clarke wasn't looking either yet no report or investigation by the afl ( clarke was never the same player after that !!! )
Sainternist wrote:3 weeks for boxing someone's ears to point of causing deafness. Quite lenient when put into context.
Remember, Steven Baker was given 10 weeks for accidently running into Jeff Farmer.
They both got 4 weeks and it was no accident.
How do you know re Baker?
If you saw it, what did you see?
I've always wanted to know myself...
No I never saw it. Wish i had of. He actually told me one night.
And what did he tell you?
I think his exact words was 7 weeks seems about right but he as still pissed off with what the club told him to say. He thought he would get off. I never asked what he actually did.
I didn't think there was any doubt Bakes did something, deliberately, it was just the audacity of the tribunal to give him 7 weeks with no evidence to charge him with!
As i said he was pissed off with our defence.
Believe it or not but I actually saw the incident , baker was tagging farmer , freo got a turnover and farmer followed by baker ran into a vacant forward area to create a target , freo inturn gave it back to us ,
so farmer turned around , put his head down ( you know like sprinters do when they start a race ) baker who was behind farmer , was now ahead of him , deliberately veered into farmer path to block him , farmer didn't see this as his head was down and consquently ploughed straight into bakes back . there was a head clash and it was lights out farmer ( remember baker also went off the ground with a cut to the back of his head ! ) bakes tried to block him thats all , players lay blocks every week , he was shafted by the afl and a poor defence ,
Afl incosistencies remember when x clarke was blocked by a cat player with a hip and shoulder, clarke wasn't looking either yet no report or investigation by the afl ( clarke was never the same player after that !!! )
Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
Sainternist wrote:3 weeks for boxing someone's ears to point of causing deafness. Quite lenient when put into context.
Remember, Steven Baker was given 10 weeks for accidently running into Jeff Farmer.
They both got 4 weeks and it was no accident.
How do you know re Baker?
If you saw it, what did you see?
I've always wanted to know myself...
No I never saw it. Wish i had of. He actually told me one night.
And what did he tell you?
I think his exact words was 7 weeks seems about right but he as still pissed off with what the club told him to say. He thought he would get off. I never asked what he actually did.
I didn't think there was any doubt Bakes did something, deliberately, it was just the audacity of the tribunal to give him 7 weeks with no evidence to charge him with!
As i said he was pissed off with our defence.
Believe it or not but I actually saw the incident , baker was tagging farmer , freo got a turnover and farmer followed by baker ran into a vacant forward area to create a target , freo inturn gave it back to us ,
so farmer turned around , put his head down ( you know like sprinters do when they start a race ) baker who was behind farmer , was now ahead of him , deliberately veered into farmer path to block him , farmer didn't see this as his head was down and consquently ploughed straight into bakes back . there was a head clash and it was lights out farmer ( remember baker also went off the ground with a cut to the back of his head ! ) bakes tried to block him thats all , players lay blocks every week , he was shafted by the afl and a poor defence ,
Afl incosistencies remember when x clarke was blocked by a cat player with a hip and shoulder, clarke wasn't looking either yet no report or investigation by the afl ( clarke was never the same player after that !!! )
Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
yeah he did it deliberately in that he mean't to put him down but i wouldn't think he meant to knock him out!! and he didn't deserve 7 weeks
Last edited by mr six o'clock on Mon 13 Jun 2011 10:16pm, edited 1 time in total.
plugger66 wrote:Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
...and you have a crack at stinger for saying he's a 'lawyer'.
What does that actually mean?
I was just talking to Elvis the other day, and he informed me that you've never even met Bakes. Then I unfurled my cape and flew away...during the day, I am a lowly designers, but on this forum, I am SUPERGUY!!!
plugger66 wrote:Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
...and you have a crack at stinger for saying he's a 'lawyer'.
What does that actually mean?
I was just talking to Elvis the other day, and he informed me that you've never even met Bakes. Then I unfurled my cape and flew away...during the day, I am a lowly designers, but on this forum, I am SUPERGUY!!!
Read: You could dribble any old crap on a forum.
Well some people lie so I suppose you can choose to believe want you want. I know I was speaking to Steven Baker about it. It is your choice to believe or not. I havent spoken to Elvis in weeks.
plugger66 wrote:Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
...and you have a crack at stinger for saying he's a 'lawyer'.
What does that actually mean?
I was just talking to Elvis the other day, and he informed me that you've never even met Bakes. Then I unfurled my cape and flew away...during the day, I am a lowly designer, but on this forum, I am SUPERGUY!!!
Read: You could dribble any old crap on a forum.
Well some people lie so I suppose you can choose to believe want you want. I know I was speaking to Steven Baker about it. It is your choice to believe or not. I havent spoken to Elvis in weeks.
plugger66 wrote:Funny that the guy who did it said he deserved 7 weeks. The way you say it he should have got off. I will go with the guy who did it.
...and you have a crack at stinger for saying he's a 'lawyer'.
What does that actually mean?
Read: You could dribble any old crap on a forum.
Yes you could
You're a champion for the cause Mav. Do you think Selwood will get off when the Cats challenge? I believe their defence will revolve around the fact that none of the MRP we actually at the game, and only saw the incident on TV, therefore unfit to make a judgement.
plugger66 wrote:Second week in a row the AFL have stuffed up. Thomas not getting off last week and Selwood getting 3 next week. Cant wait till a player finally gets off and it will be the currupt AFL again.
3 weeks for snotting someone behind the play, causing serious injury?
should consider himself extremely lucky. i reckon it's worth about seven.
SainterK wrote:I think they will have no option but to give him 4...risky by the Cats.
Particularly risky given that the Cats have won all their games - and are therefore in a tall poppy postion - and that Selwood is not an especially popular player around the AFL traps due to the general perception that he spends a lot of his time playing for free kicks.
I don't expect him to get much sympathy.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift