Did Armo challenge his ban?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Did Armo challenge his ban?
Can someone update us when it is announced?
"Don't give up, never give up" - Robert Harvey.
- stkildathunda
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Mon 10 Aug 2009 11:03am
- Location: Inside The Circle Of Zen
- Contact:
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2378
- Joined: Tue 10 Jul 2007 11:14am
- Location: Bentleigh East
- Has thanked: 272 times
- Been thanked: 628 times
Very unlucky for Armo. He's played every game this year and put in a solid season. Surely he'll come back in for the first final and not make it three years in a row of missing the finals.
Last year he was dropped after getting 21 touches in Round 22, and the year before he was dropped after getting 19 touches in Round 21.
Last year he was dropped after getting 21 touches in Round 22, and the year before he was dropped after getting 19 touches in Round 21.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Pretty much guarantee he'll be straight back in. After all, the cupboard's pretty bare.Beno88 wrote:Very unlucky for Armo. He's played every game this year and put in a solid season. Surely he'll come back in for the first final and not make it three years in a row of missing the finals.
Last year he was dropped after getting 21 touches in Round 22, and the year before he was dropped after getting 19 touches in Round 21.
Certainly helped his cause by putting in a good game last Saturday so I'm sure Ross will welcome him back with open arms.
- stkildathunda
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2176
- Joined: Mon 10 Aug 2009 11:03am
- Location: Inside The Circle Of Zen
- Contact:
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
They walk amongst us...
unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
They walk amongst us...
Enright got exactly the same as Armo.HSVKing wrote:The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?plugger66 wrote:Enright got exactly the same as Armo.HSVKing wrote:The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
They walk amongst us...
Trengove the second time.HSVKing wrote:Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?plugger66 wrote:Enright got exactly the same as Armo.HSVKing wrote:The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
Nah, was in the same game (St K v Geel)plugger66 wrote:Trengove the second time.HSVKing wrote:Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?plugger66 wrote:Enright got exactly the same as Armo.HSVKing wrote:The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
There was also Kosi who copped 2 weeks.
This rule is just a joke in all honesty. It was originally enforced so players weren't slung by the arm/jumper.
They walk amongst us...
- MCG-Unit
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 4:04pm
- Location: Land of the Giants
- Has thanked: 562 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Was it Joel Corey's sling tackle on Jack Steven - for which he copped a Reprimand - compared with Kosi's 2 weeksHSVKing wrote:Nah, was in the same game (St K v Geel)plugger66 wrote:Trengove the second time.HSVKing wrote:Who am I thinking of who didn't even get looked at? There were 2 (Enright got a reprimand) and someone else?plugger66 wrote:Enright got exactly the same as Armo.HSVKing wrote:The factual point would be looking at other tackles exactly the same where a player hasn't been injured.Rosco wrote:unless you can argue a factual point i don't think it's worth trying - you just get stitched up by losing the 25% discount. at least that's the way it's seemed this year.HSVKing wrote:True, but could also be the difference between playing and not.saintspremiers wrote:Correct 80 Vs 20.stkildathunda wrote:Yea but then you run risk of having more carry over points i thinkHSVKing wrote:Not sure why they didn't give it a go. I'm right in assuming it was 1 week either way?
is there an easy way to find if anyone has successfully challenged a ban this year?
The player was groggy, but played out the game and had no after effects. Every other player has got off this charge due to that this year (see Enright vs St Kilda).
There was also Kosi who copped 2 weeks.
This rule is just a joke in all honesty. It was originally enforced so players weren't slung by the arm/jumper.
No Contract, No contact
I will try
Not too sure what to say that is positive about a player getting a week though..
How about this
How great were the club officials to make the strategically brilliant decision they did, given there 'unlucky' history at the tribunial.....as usual smart decision all round...
As usual, in great hands.
Not too sure what to say that is positive about a player getting a week though..
How about this
How great were the club officials to make the strategically brilliant decision they did, given there 'unlucky' history at the tribunial.....as usual smart decision all round...
As usual, in great hands.
- DWOODROW
- Club Player
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Tue 10 Feb 2009 4:36pm
- Location: TOWNSVILLE
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Probably advised not to challenge. Had some points from previous misdemeanors. I thought it was soft to get a week for but hey I think everytime I got suspended, I thought there was nothing in it also.
Rules are there for a reason.
Do I think the game is getting a little soft??? yes but is the game a good spectacle. Yes!!
Keep players safe and playing longer.
Come back in Dave and go just as hard mate. Big game against Syd a ney
Rules are there for a reason.
Do I think the game is getting a little soft??? yes but is the game a good spectacle. Yes!!
Keep players safe and playing longer.
Come back in Dave and go just as hard mate. Big game against Syd a ney
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Given he got negligent and low impact he had nothing to downgrade to. Clearly high contact also. Was the only decision, not a hard one!DWOODROW wrote:Probably advised not to challenge. Had some points from previous misdemeanors. I thought it was soft to get a week for but hey I think everytime I got suspended, I thought there was nothing in it also.
Rules are there for a reason.
Do I think the game is getting a little soft??? yes but is the game a good spectacle. Yes!!
Keep players safe and playing longer.
Come back in Dave and go just as hard mate. Big game against Syd a ney