BJ in trouble?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
BJ in trouble?
Late in the 3rd seemed to go the knee to the head of a Port player wasnt forceful but didnt look pretty. Anyone think the MRP might have a look?
Thats Mr. Smartarse to you
-
StGoddard18
- Club Player
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sun 19 Jun 2011 10:22pm
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
- Contact:
-
mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7077
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
If BJ hit him with a bit more force then he'd be in real trouble. It's not a nice thing to see, but in the end the force couldn't possibly be deemed enough for a penalty.
As for Armo, he gets to spin the MRP wheel of fortune. Could be nothing, could be 6 weeks. Didn't look like he could really avoid the contact but he still made it.
As for Armo, he gets to spin the MRP wheel of fortune. Could be nothing, could be 6 weeks. Didn't look like he could really avoid the contact but he still made it.
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
-
GRAMophone
- Club Player
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Mon 02 Jul 2007 4:07pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
-
mr six o'clock
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4326
- Joined: Fri 17 Nov 2006 1:05am
- Has thanked: 56 times
- Been thanked: 245 times
-
Bardon Saint
- Club Player
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Thu 27 Aug 2009 4:04pm
- Location: Cairns
This is what I'm going with. Goddard did alter the direction of his thigh toward the head of the Port player but it was a slight graze and surely not hard enough to constitute 'low impact'.kosifantutti23 wrote:I don't think it was accidental but hopefully the force will be below that to constitute a report.
-
SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19105
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1603 times
- Been thanked: 2019 times
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9053
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
Possibly - Intentional conduct, low impact, high contact - a level three misconduct (kneeing) drawing 325 points. He doesn't appear to have carry over points. He has neither a good nor bad record. An early plea would reduce the sanction to 244 points, thus a 2 match suspension. That would appear to be the worst case scenario. He certainly lost it a few times during the game, in a most undisciplined effort. It is the vulnerable part of his game, but it does seem to be part of his make up, that ultra competitiveness. It's a double edged sword.
-
Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
- Contact:
Goddar's conduct can not possibly be assessed as intentional. He wasn't even looking at the player. Based on other incidents (e.g.Campbell Brown), I think the MRP use that criteria to asses your intent. At best, the conduct is reckless, but most likely negligent which drops the assessment down significantly to the point that, if this were to pass, then he would be left with no weeks and have some carry-over points.perfectionist wrote:Possibly - Intentional conduct, low impact, high contact - a level three misconduct (kneeing) drawing 325 points. He doesn't appear to have carry over points. He has neither a good nor bad record. An early plea would reduce the sanction to 244 points, thus a 2 match suspension. That would appear to be the worst case scenario. He certainly lost it a few times during the game, in a most undisciplined effort. It is the vulnerable part of his game, but it does seem to be part of his make up, that ultra competitiveness. It's a double edged sword.
Armo is another kettle of fish. The ball clearly changed direction and wrong-footed two players but the MRP have a pretty tough view on this. The movement of the ball and the fact that the Port player was OK will go in his favour...but I would not be surprised if he gets a week for it.
-
Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
- Contact:
Agree with all that but you are assuming the MRP are a logical entitiy!Buckets wrote:Dont think Armo could have avoided the contact. Port player fumbled and the then turned in. Had he actually picked up the ball Armo would have tackled him from the side/behind.Life Long Saint wrote:Armo will be in more trouble than BJ...
-
samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5878
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 615 times
- Been thanked: 460 times
- Contact:
Re: BJ in trouble?
Nothing in it at all.Buckets wrote:Late in the 3rd seemed to go the knee to the head of a Port player wasnt forceful but didnt look pretty. Anyone think the MRP might have a look?
Ridiculous decision.dragit wrote:Agree, I couldn't work out what the free and subsequent 50 were actually given for? If anything, I thought we would have got a free…SaintPav wrote:I though Pearce shoving BJ on the fence was very ordinary.
BJ did grab him high so technically the free kick was there but one would think the umpire would have had enough common sense to realise that he was shoved into the fence and needed to get the guy off him.
-
prwilkinson
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2010 12:17pm
- Has thanked: 67 times
- Been thanked: 132 times