Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
All because his 5 year clean record INCLUDES 2007 which was his rookie year.
Is that making up the rules on the run or legit?
Seems dodgy. A convenient way to reduce down his penalty to
Stop Eddie bitching.
Is that making up the rules on the run or legit?
Seems dodgy. A convenient way to reduce down his penalty to
Stop Eddie bitching.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Glad his 1st game v saints. Will be hesitant & definitely
a good boy. Better to beat them with the "coward" back
in the team.
a good boy. Better to beat them with the "coward" back
in the team.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Foolish system.
Goddard gets 2, and Wellingham gets 3. Make some sense out of that!
Goddard gets 2, and Wellingham gets 3. Make some sense out of that!
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Johnny Member wrote:Foolish system.
Goddard gets 2, and Wellingham gets 3. Make some sense out of that!
As opposed to other system when one week the guy in charge was in a good mood and let people off and the next week he was in a bad mood and gave a similar incident weeks.
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Welling ham 3 for a dog act which resulted in serious injury and missing the rest of the game and another 4
Goddard 2 for slinging someone high and they kicked a goal 10 minutes later
Seems fair....
Goddard 2 for slinging someone high and they kicked a goal 10 minutes later
Seems fair....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4667
- Joined: Tue 22 Jan 2008 5:41pm
- Has thanked: 424 times
- Been thanked: 515 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Was it Wellingham Lyon rejected when Luke Ball was leaving for Collingwood? Or was it Goldsack? Just can't remember which one it was.
Gee if it was Wellingham, Lyon's stubbon attitude caused us to miss out on a very valuable player...... Wellingham has been playing consistently well of recent times.
Gee if it was Wellingham, Lyon's stubbon attitude caused us to miss out on a very valuable player...... Wellingham has been playing consistently well of recent times.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
How is it any different now? It simply comes down to the evaluation on intent, force and where the player made contact. It is still subjective and still seems to rely on what mood the MRP is in. They must have been in a good mood this week!plugger66 wrote:Johnny Member wrote:Foolish system.
Goddard gets 2, and Wellingham gets 3. Make some sense out of that!
As opposed to other system when one week the guy in charge was in a good mood and let people off and the next week he was in a bad mood and gave a similar incident weeks.
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Sainterman wrote:How is it any different now? It simply comes down to the evaluation on intent, force and where the player made contact. It is still subjective and still seems to rely on what mood the MRP is in. They must have been in a good mood this week!plugger66 wrote:Johnny Member wrote:Foolish system.
Goddard gets 2, and Wellingham gets 3. Make some sense out of that!
As opposed to other system when one week the guy in charge was in a good mood and let people off and the next week he was in a bad mood and gave a similar incident weeks.
At least you know how they came to a decision even if you disagree with it.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
The problem is it makes it so very rigid. Classification of intent from reckless to deliberate or of force from low to medium or high just makes so much difference to the end result. And they seem to get this wrong too often.
Seeing Goddard get 2 and Wellingham get 3 just highlights how wrong the system still is.
Yes, it is an improvement on the grounds that we can see what logic has been applied to the verdict, but no, not an improvement in the outcomes that we are getting. And, in the end, it is the outcome that matters.
It still needs to be tweaked to work better than it currently does. Don't you agree?
Seeing Goddard get 2 and Wellingham get 3 just highlights how wrong the system still is.
Yes, it is an improvement on the grounds that we can see what logic has been applied to the verdict, but no, not an improvement in the outcomes that we are getting. And, in the end, it is the outcome that matters.
It still needs to be tweaked to work better than it currently does. Don't you agree?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Should have been 5 to 4.
Lucky as.
Lucky as.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Sainterman wrote:The problem is it makes it so very rigid. Classification of intent from reckless to deliberate or of force from low to medium or high just makes so much difference to the end result. And they seem to get this wrong too often.
Seeing Goddard get 2 and Wellingham get 3 just highlights how wrong the system still is.
Yes, it is an improvement on the grounds that we can see what logic has been applied to the verdict, but no, not an improvement in the outcomes that we are getting. And, in the end, it is the outcome that matters.
It still needs to be tweaked to work better than it currently does. Don't you agree?
It is tweaked all the time and I suppose it will be again next year. The thing is BJ got 3 and Wellingham got 5 so at least that is a 2 week difference. They then have the good record and the guilty plea. I certainly agree with the good record part but the guilty plea part is still a mystery to me. Neither BJ or Wellingham could have pleaded not guilty. They were to obvious.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
He would have been lucky to get 10! I think they might've de-registered him for that!jays wrote:What junk if it Baker would of got 10
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
loris wrote:Was it Wellingham Lyon rejected when Luke Ball was leaving for Collingwood? Or was it Goldsack? Just can't remember which one it was.
Gee if it was Wellingham, Lyon's stubbon attitude caused us to miss out on a very valuable player...... Wellingham has been playing consistently well of recent times.
neither- they were trying to get North to take the player whichever- so Saints got a pick high enough to get Everitt from Dogs.
so Saints were never actually offered either..
BJ has a longer ' Good' record but only got reduction of 1 week-
they stated with BJ- 'No good or bad record'- how can they have neither???
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
surprise surprise he's accepted it quicly- no thinking about it for 12 hours..
I also disliked the way he got out into the media and pleaded his case over the weekend......
I also disliked the way he got out into the media and pleaded his case over the weekend......
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
saintbrat wrote:loris wrote:Was it Wellingham Lyon rejected when Luke Ball was leaving for Collingwood? Or was it Goldsack? Just can't remember which one it was.
Gee if it was Wellingham, Lyon's stubbon attitude caused us to miss out on a very valuable player...... Wellingham has been playing consistently well of recent times.
neither- they were trying to get North to take the player whichever- so Saints got a pick high enough to get Everitt from Dogs.
so Saints were never actually offered either..
BJ has a longer ' Good' record but only got reduction of 1 week-
they stated with BJ- 'No good or bad record'- how can they have neither???
You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
did he actually play in his rookie year? If not thenI suggest this is stupid as here is no way he could have a suspension during that first year, thus te 5 year good behaviour is a farce. Just does not sit right, they always say the injury effects the outcome yet this does not sem the case this time, asked sipson f he wants a reduction in his 6 weeks on the sidelines.... hmmmm
Add to that hocking's judge to hitbody when it was obviously caused a hit to the head shows that the MRP is a joke right now.
Add to that hocking's judge to hitbody when it was obviously caused a hit to the head shows that the MRP is a joke right now.
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Universally seen as a disgusting act, and a pathetic ruling by the tribunal
Goddard should have got 1 for stupidity for a careless and intentional act that was harmless
Welling ham 4 for a careless and intentional act that was dangerous
Goddard should have got 1 for stupidity for a careless and intentional act that was harmless
Welling ham 4 for a careless and intentional act that was dangerous
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the wellingham collision was in the act of spoiling, in play
goddard was off the ball
goddard was off the ball
Seeya
*************
*************
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Which incident is more dangerous and could result in serious injury.....
That's the sort of incident that need to be stamped out.... Where people ignore the ball to make contact high in a forceful manner....
It could seriously injur someone.....
That's the sort of incident that need to be stamped out.... Where people ignore the ball to make contact high in a forceful manner....
It could seriously injur someone.....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4324
- Joined: Fri 17 Nov 2006 1:05am
- Has thanked: 56 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Once again a confusing result .
We all know that wellingham didn't mean to break the guy's jaw , but he did and only gets three weeks ! So players will just keep doing it !
Like all those sling tackles , Kosi got weeks cos the guy was slighty concussed , but far worse have been done since and because the player is un-injured , the player gets off or a one week ban .
In saturday nights game there was 3 tackles that were slings , 2 by ess , 1 by us , luckily the tackled player had an arm free so there was no chance of concussion ! .
But the sling occurred and I feel it just a matter of time before someone is seriously injured !
WHY ?
Because the mrp lets players Off !
The Afl crap on about duty of care , This is subjective as some players are tough like lenny , after he went to the bench you could see him tell the doctor he's alright , whilst cheap shot artiste's like harvey of NM would have been carried off sooking like a little girl .
This doesn't stop players from doing risky tackles or bumps !
Its russian roulette for the players .
Yet if every bump and sling were penalised , obviously more weeks if someone is injured , players would stop doing them !
We all know that wellingham didn't mean to break the guy's jaw , but he did and only gets three weeks ! So players will just keep doing it !
Like all those sling tackles , Kosi got weeks cos the guy was slighty concussed , but far worse have been done since and because the player is un-injured , the player gets off or a one week ban .
In saturday nights game there was 3 tackles that were slings , 2 by ess , 1 by us , luckily the tackled player had an arm free so there was no chance of concussion ! .
But the sling occurred and I feel it just a matter of time before someone is seriously injured !
WHY ?
Because the mrp lets players Off !
The Afl crap on about duty of care , This is subjective as some players are tough like lenny , after he went to the bench you could see him tell the doctor he's alright , whilst cheap shot artiste's like harvey of NM would have been carried off sooking like a little girl .
This doesn't stop players from doing risky tackles or bumps !
Its russian roulette for the players .
Yet if every bump and sling were penalised , obviously more weeks if someone is injured , players would stop doing them !
In red white and black from 73
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10426
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Mickey mouse organization, Mickey mouse decision. Once again the AFL are shown up as the most amateurish sports org in the professional world. Rugby league is run better in regards to the running of the actual sport, rather than the sideshow around it.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
The good record / bad record rule is the biggest load of shiteplugger66 wrote:You can defiantly have neither. Your good record is 5 years. Your bad record is 3 years. Or maybe the AFL made up a special rule for us. You seem to think it only happens to us.
Two players can hit someone in exactly the same way causing the exact same injuries but because one has been suspended previously and one has not means one cops it worse
In this case you can break a guys jaw with a crude dangerous front on charge and only cop one week more than a guy who happy slaps someone across the neck who fakes being hurt ..... all because the first guy has a good record????
If you do the crime you should do the time .... period
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
desertsaint wrote:Mickey mouse organization, Mickey mouse decision. Once again the AFL are shown up as the most amateurish sports org in the professional world. Rugby league is run better in regards to the running of the actual sport, rather than the sideshow around it.
All the new rules have done is increase the subjectivity of the decision - was it high, was it in play, was it low, md, high impact, what happened to the victim, who does he play for, is he a marquee player, what does Eddie reckon, etc.
Was the worst act I've seen in footy for a few years, and should've got six weeks minmum - cowardly dog act.
Well he did get 5 weeks. And you realise we have pretty much the same system as the NRL. Can you give us rundown of how the NRL is run as you know it is run better than the AFL. I will go out on a very short limb and say it is the best run professional sport in Australia. Ring Patrick Smith tomorrow. An AFL apologist he is not and suggest it is the worst run sport in Australia. My guess is he would say it is the best run. By the way he hates the MRP so you will on common ground there.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Wellingham only 3. Can play vs Saints
Yet Simpson had his jaw broken and Wright was obviously faking being hurtsunsaint wrote:what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the wellingham collision was in the act of spoiling, in play
goddard was off the ball
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!