7 weeks...why so many added on?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
7 weeks...why so many added on?
Just wondered if anyone was able to provide a breakdown of the seven weeks Bakes has ridiculously copped. I am hearing that it was possibly a 2-3 week offence (if guilty - which i don't support) and that weeks were then added on for Bakes previous poor record.
Does that mean 4 weeks were added on??? This seems a huge number of weeks to be carried over from past offences...more than the suspension itself. I am used to there being an extra week for past record but an extra 4??
Can anyone provide me with some clarity on this point?
Does that mean 4 weeks were added on??? This seems a huge number of weeks to be carried over from past offences...more than the suspension itself. I am used to there being an extra week for past record but an extra 4??
Can anyone provide me with some clarity on this point?
- Saints Premiers 2008
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Thu 27 Oct 2005 11:21pm
- Location: Brisbane
Baker's previous poor record at the tribunal increased the severity of his penalty, without which he would have received a four match ban.
He received a 40 per cent loading for previous suspensions totalling four matches in the past two seasons, as well as 127.5 demerit points carried over.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html
He received a 40 per cent loading for previous suspensions totalling four matches in the past two seasons, as well as 127.5 demerit points carried over.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 62,00.html
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
- Saints Premiers 2008
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Thu 27 Oct 2005 11:21pm
- Location: Brisbane
- Saints Premiers 2008
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4335
- Joined: Thu 27 Oct 2005 11:21pm
- Location: Brisbane
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 171 times
- Been thanked: 375 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
The 40% loading is what concerns me.
I thought I read somewhere that the maximum loading a player can get for recent priors (ie. past 2 years) is 30%.
Can anyone clarify this?
It is an important point - anything we can prove where the tribunal has not used their own rules properly can be held against them.
EDIT: just checked the rule book, and it is a maxium now of 50% for any offences over the past 3 seasons!!! 1 week suspended carriers a 10% weighting!
very harsh!
here is a link to the tribunal rules for 2007:
http://prod.mm.afl.cfour.com.au/afl/doc ... let-07.pdf
I thought I read somewhere that the maximum loading a player can get for recent priors (ie. past 2 years) is 30%.
Can anyone clarify this?
It is an important point - anything we can prove where the tribunal has not used their own rules properly can be held against them.
EDIT: just checked the rule book, and it is a maxium now of 50% for any offences over the past 3 seasons!!! 1 week suspended carriers a 10% weighting!
very harsh!
here is a link to the tribunal rules for 2007:
http://prod.mm.afl.cfour.com.au/afl/doc ... let-07.pdf
Last edited by saintspremiers on Wed 22 Aug 2007 5:06pm, edited 2 times in total.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
It really does seem way over the top...40% is huge!saintspremiers wrote:The 40% loading is what concerns me.
I thought I read somewhere that the maximum loading a player can get for recent priors (ie. past 2 years) is 30%.
Can anyone clarify this?
It is an important point - anything we can prove where the tribunal has not used their own rules properly can be held against them.
- Tassie Saint
- Club Player
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sun 03 Oct 2004 5:58pm
- Location: In the wilds of Tassie - Where boys become men, and cousins become wives
not only that but because this bulls*** charge was sent straight to the tribunal, he loses the opportunity to get 25% discount (Ben Johnson still got this chance) for an early plea. This was meant to be so only the heinous horrific incidents would lose this chance, but in this particular case this was put up because no one knew what happened, not because it was particularly horrible
Caaaaaarn you Sainters!!