Buchanan - r u all sitting down? One lousy week!

johnpeterbudgefanclub · Mon 27 Aug 2007 3:47pm

Not happy.

woooosaints · Mon 27 Aug 2007 3:48pm

he has a clean record

Sainterman · Post: # 444188Post **Sainterman** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 3:50pm

Plays for Sydney...nuff said! Maybe this means Rocca will get off..!

Mr Magic · Post: # 444189Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 3:50pm

Obviously there was video evidence of the hit. You only get 4 weeks when there is no video, testimony or actual evidenceof any wrongdoing!

Dan Warna · Post: # 444194Post **Dan Warna** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:00pm

cough cough phuck you AFL cough cough.

johnpeterbudgefanclub · Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:13pm

Absolute joke. The hit was high, intentional and he left the ground.

Nough said.....

Mr X from the West · Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:22pm

You're f****** kidding.

cowboy18 · Post: # 444206Post **cowboy18** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:26pm

A whole week?

Poor bugger.

Dan Warna · Post: # 444225Post **Dan Warna** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:45pm

I believe its called the st kilda rule.

heaven forbid by some fluke sydney end up 5th and we end up 8th, or collignwood end up 5th and we end up 8th

blocking is a free kick not a 4 week suspension.

as for head hits, whelan on ball.

it was balls fault he went for the footy.

of course if ball raised his arm to protect himself (what else can you do when you are going for the ball) it would have been a 3 week penalty against ball wouldn't it?

PHARKCING SHULLBIT

saintsrus · Post: # 444265Post **saintsrus** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 5:34pm

Where the proof of this?, Sen just said Rocca is the only case decided

edit just confirmed one week

where did the op get his info

SB10 · Post: # 444283Post **SB10** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 6:04pm

Bakes would have got life for the Buchanan hit!

hAyES · Post: # 444289Post **hAyES** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 6:11pm

What a ****in joke!

Dal_Santos_Gal · Mon 27 Aug 2007 7:08pm

woooosaints wrote:he has a clean record

Bakes got 4 weeks... the extra 3 was because he had a bad record

Take the bad record away Baker still got 4 weeks for that incident.

Its a joke that Buchanan gets one week, ah just in time to come back for the finals.

The AFL did that very well.. suspended him, show that's no allowed but have him back for week 1 of the finals.

The AFL's love child wins again. DISGRACEFUL

cwrcyn · Post: # 444402Post **cwrcyn** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:07pm

Tribunal

ZERO CREDIBILITY

Interesting to hear that Tony Shaw was forced to apologise to the AFL after the Baker case when he said the the AFL influenced tribunal decisions. This was after big chief Dementia demanded an apology, of course, as what Demetia wants, Dementia gets.

I would strongly suggest that Mr Shaw retracts his apology and ask that Mr Dementia apologise to all of us.

With its shonky tribunal, farcical drug policy, and it's meddling in club affairs, the AFL is showing far greater resemblance to a corrupt government of a third world country, rather than a professional sporting body.

But, alas, should we be surprised? It must feel so warm and fuzzy knowing that big chiefy-poo will look after one of your boys when he's done something naughty. Blessed are the birds that live North and West of the border.

FullMonty · Post: # 444406Post **FullMonty** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:11pm

How do you feel now Bakes?
You would have got hanged for that mate!
What a joke!
Corrupt tribunal system at it's best again.

plugger66 · Post: # 444407Post **plugger66** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:11pm

I have one question if the tribunal is corrupt does that make Loewe and Burke corrupt.

brown-coat · Post: # 444408Post **brown-coat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:13pm

woooosaints wrote:he has a clean record

Martin Bryant's Lawyers argument.

FullMonty · Post: # 444417Post **FullMonty** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:24pm

Don't think they are corrupt.

Have to ask;
How much say do they have?
Would they want to be seen to be favouring StKilda?
Should never be sitting in on a players case from the teams they played for IMO.

Mr Magic · Post: # 444419Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:24pm

plugger66 wrote:I have one question if the tribunal is corrupt does that make Loewe and Burke corrupt.

Only if they are knowingly passing judgements that they know are incorrect.

Remember, in each case they are only 1 member of a group and we don't know what the voting is in each case?

plugger66 · Post: # 444422Post **plugger66** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:26pm

Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:I have one question if the tribunal is corrupt does that make Loewe and Burke corrupt.
Only if they are knowingly passing judgements that they know are incorrect.

Remember, in each case they are only 1 member of a group and we don't know what the voting is in each case?

Burkies group doesnt vote. They get together and decise the penalty so he was involved tonight re Rocca and Buchanan.

Mr Magic · Post: # 444429Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:31pm

plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:I have one question if the tribunal is corrupt does that make Loewe and Burke corrupt.
Only if they are knowingly passing judgements that they know are incorrect.

Remember, in each case they are only 1 member of a group and we don't know what the voting is in each case?
Burkies group doesnt vote. They get together and decise the penalty so he was involved tonight re Rocca and Buchanan.

And if there were 3 on the MRP and they voted 2 to 1 to give him that penalty?

Or 5 on the panel and they voted 3 to 2 or 4 to 1?

The point I am trying to make is that neither are making decisions in isolation and we have absolutely no idea as to how they deliverate.

Even when Burkey talks about MRP decisions on Bartlett's show he is careful to say:-

The MRP felt.......
The Panel saw it as ....

He never uses the term WE in describibg how penalties were arrived at.

plugger66 · Post: # 444438Post **plugger66** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:34pm

Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:I have one question if the tribunal is corrupt does that make Loewe and Burke corrupt.
Only if they are knowingly passing judgements that they know are incorrect.

Remember, in each case they are only 1 member of a group and we don't know what the voting is in each case?
Burkies group doesnt vote. They get together and decise the penalty so he was involved tonight re Rocca and Buchanan.
And if there were 3 on the MRP and they voted 2 to 1 to give him that penalty?

Or 5 on the panel and they voted 3 to 2 or 4 to 1?

The point I am trying to make is that neither are making decisions in isolation and we have absolutely no idea as to how they deliverate.

Even when Burkey talks about MRP decisions on Bartlett's show he is careful to say:-

The MRP felt.......
The Panel saw it as ....

He never uses the term WE in describibg how penalties were arrived at.

So the other 2 members are corrupt. Sounds sensible 2 corrupt members and one who isnt and that happens to be the ex saints player.

johnpeterbudgefanclub · Tue 28 Aug 2007 12:00am

Think Andrew McKay had a fair say in this verdict.

Thanks for your support guys but this verdict is a disgrace. Really sorry about Bakes' verdict. I am gutted.....

my les foote · Tue 28 Aug 2007 12:10am

Why were Baker's weeks determined by the Appeals / Tirbunal and Buchanan's by the MRP.

As I understand it, Baker's raw points were 425 and Buchanan's were 325.

If the same group were assessing the two incidents there is no way that Baker could come out with higher points than Buchanan. Even if you accept the Freo trainer's version of events, Baker's actions warranted a lot less than Buchanan's.

Mr Magic · Post: # 444562Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 28 Aug 2007 8:41am

my les foote wrote:Why were Baker's weeks determined by the Appeals / Tirbunal and Buchanan's by the MRP.

As I understand it, Baker's raw points were 425 and Buchanan's were 325.

If the same group were assessing the two incidents there is no way that Baker could come out with higher points than Buchanan. Even if you accept the Freo trainer's version of events, Baker's actions warranted a lot less than Buchanan's.

The MRP viewed Buchannan's hit as 'body contact, whereas the Tribunal viewed Baker's block as 'head contact'.

Therefore the difference in points.