Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
AFL_PKeane Patrick Keane
Nick Riewoldt cleared contact L Hansen. Impact below required to report and medical report said no treatment / injury to Hansen.
Scott McMahon cleared contact R Clarke. Action deemed a legitimate attempt to spoil the ball and not a striking action.
and this would almost be a first
Brent Guerra cleared contact L Davis. Impact below required to report and medical report said no treatment / injury to Davis.
So they work from the injury (or potential for injury), backwards??...
Seems like a fair system...
(not that I think he should've been suspended, but talk about blatant inconsistency...)
They always get medical reports. If you hit someone in the temple and he dies you could get charged with manslaughter. If you hit someone in the head and miss the temple you will probably get puched back and no charge at all. makes sense that injury is taken into account.
So they work from the injury (or potential for injury), backwards??...
Seems like a fair system...
(not that I think he should've been suspended, but talk about blatant inconsistency...)
While I agree that the injury should be some sort of consideration, it appears that it's now the only consideration.
Anderson has invested a system where a player can now get off for engaging in deliberately dangerous play where no-one gets hurt (mainly by luck ala Corey Enright) but get suspended for fair play where someone gets hurt by complete accident...
How he puts his pants on in the morning is a mystery to me, let alone run a competent and fair tribunal system.
So they work from the injury (or potential for injury), backwards??...
Seems like a fair system...
(not that I think he should've been suspended, but talk about blatant inconsistency...)
While I agree that the injury should be some sort of consideration, it appears that it's now the only consideration.
Anderson has invested a system where a player can now get off for engaging in deliberately dangerous play where no-one gets hurt (mainly by luck ala Corey Enright) but get suspended for fair play where someone gets hurt by complete accident...
How he puts his pants on in the morning is a mystery to me, let alone run a competent and fair tribunal system.
Well the other system was worse than this one IMO. I am unsure if you will ever have a perfect system. We say this is Andersons system but it is pretty much the same as the NRL so both leagues havent been able to come up with something better or are happy with it.
the trengove one is, as they commonly say in basketball, a "make up call". he shouldn't have gone for 3 (or 4?) weeks last time, and they didn't want to have to explain him going again.
imo, the rule is all wrong - that the level of injury influences the penalty. it should be based on potential to injure, which is pretty much identical (if not worse) than the tackle that kosi went for.
The Herald Sun was trying desperately to have him dragged over the coals today! As usual a waste of ink by their journos.
I just thought it'd be typical of them to rub out Roo. So glad I was proven wrong.
Just read the HS and saw nothing to suggest they wanted him rubbed out. i read something that they would have said for any champion player who did that.
The Herald Sun was trying desperately to have him dragged over the coals today! As usual a waste of ink by their journos.
I just thought it'd be typical of them to rub out Roo. So glad I was proven wrong.
Just read the HS and saw nothing to suggest they wanted him rubbed out. i read something that they would have said for any champion player who did that.
Except the photograph they ran with in my printed version of the HS was not of the incident.
IMHO it was a photograph that was meant to convey the impression that the 'kneeing' by Roo was to Hanson's front/ lower midriff.
No way was it the incident that the media highlighted.
In fact it was the incident where Roo was walking back to his position lokking at something in the pocket and Hanson stationed himself out of Roo's eyesight so that he would walk into him.
Given that there was actual footage of the incident I wonder why this particular totally unrelated photograph was chosen by the sub-editor at the HS?
I must say that when I looked at it at first I thought Roo was trying to 'knee' Hanson in the nuts.
The thing i loved about this so called incident was the media on it !!!
Roo would have to be one of the fairest players in the afl , each week he gets tunnelled , pumelled , pushed in the back and has his arms chopped
, yet 99 times out of 100 dosen't retaliate . Hansen was whingeing to the umps that Roo was kneeing him . No one in the media seemed to be saying , hey what was Hansen doing to Roo to get him upset !!
The contact looked so slight , that this should never have been mentioned again 5 minutes after it happened !!
Why don't the media carry on about the 1/2 dozen bulls*** decisions that north got from the umps !
