Are they being serious?

[Saintschampions08]

West should have got 3 games, a cowardly act.

You don't get 3 game suspensions for being a coward or 'dog'.

You get suspended for breaking the rules, seriously.

He didn't break the rules to a severe enough extent, end of story.

[plugger66]

The AFL cannot be serious even though the match review panel have nothing to do with them. Fancy only suspending 2 players from Geelong. Up to 5 should have been suspended and lets face it if that happened that would definately help us beat Essendon this week.

Didnt Burkey work on the match reveiw panel last year. He must have been in on it to.

[rodgerfox]

He was performing a shepherd, so it wasn't malicious.

You can only shepard the ball within 5 metres of the ball. The ball was between 10-15 metres away so it can be a shepard.

Clarke was chasing the ball, so it was in play.

Learn the definition of in play

West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.

You should learn the rules and stop blaming the victim. West is a gutless coward and anyone who defends him is a clueless twit.

I think you should learn the rules.

5.6 Each quarter runs for 25 minutes of playing time when the ball is in play.
The ball is deemed to be out of play in the following situations:

(a) A goal is scored. Time is stopped from when the goal umpire finishes
waving his flags to when the ball is bounced.

(b) A behind is scored. Time is stopped from when the goal umpire finishes
waving his flags to when the ball is kicked in.

(c) Whenever the field umpire signals to the time-keeper that time is to
be stopped by raising his arm and blowing his whistle.


7.3 A free kick is given against any player who:

(f) Shepherds an opponent when the ball is more than 5 meters away.

I agree, a free kick should be given...but it was in play.

Now I understand why you're stance on this seemed so ridiculous.

The question is not whether the ball in is in play, it's whether the incident was in the play.

Being more than 10m away, it wasn't in play.


On a side note, I stated this another thread but I think it was deleted. Why was X jogging so half arsed? Either chase the ball carrier with intent, or sprint to fill a hole up the ground.

Half arsed jogging pretending to chase.

[maverick]

The AFL cannot be serious even though the match review panel have nothing to do with them. Fancy only suspending 2 players from Geelong. Up to 5 should have been suspended and lets face it if that happened that would definately help us beat Essendon this week.

Didnt Burkey work on the match reveiw panel last year. He must have been in on it to.

I don't know why you post on here sometimes, are you that sad you have to have a crack at everyone having a whinge?

SO you think it was a legal shepherd then is that correct?

Given Baker got 7 weeks, I think these questions are fair, irrespective whether Burkey is or was on the MRP.

Facts are, the MRP are inconsistent.

[rodgerfox]

The AFL cannot be serious even though the match review panel have nothing to do with them. Fancy only suspending 2 players from Geelong. Up to 5 should have been suspended and lets face it if that happened that would definately help us beat Essendon this week.

Didnt Burkey work on the match reveiw panel last year. He must have been in on it to.

Plugger66, the AFL makes rules as they go. That's a fact.

They plead innocent when it suits them, then change results when it suits them.

They control the MRP, there is absolutely no two ways about it.

The AFL is a farce.

When crowds are up, they claim credit. When they get squillions for TV rights, they take the credit. So when an unbelievably farcical decision is made by a body employed by them - they need to take responsibility for it.

[Iceman234]

I saw it as a fair bump and a bump I want to see our blokes do more often - in fact just do it once.

At the time I thought it unfair, but in hindsight with both eyes open I see it as quite fair.

The other two incidents also are dealt with appropriately.

We just don't deliver the bumps that had oppo's up in arms anymore.

[fonz_#15]

you know what, it does nto relate to just this incident (in fact it has very little to do with it) but i don;t enjoy football 1 quater as much as i used to.

it has gone to s*** with crap rule changes and interpretations.

[plugger66]

The AFL cannot be serious even though the match review panel have nothing to do with them. Fancy only suspending 2 players from Geelong. Up to 5 should have been suspended and lets face it if that happened that would definately help us beat Essendon this week.

Didnt Burkey work on the match reveiw panel last year. He must have been in on it to.

I don't know why you post on here sometimes, are you that sad you have to have a crack at everyone having a whinge?

SO you think it was a legal shepherd then is that correct?

Given Baker got 7 weeks, I think these questions are fair, irrespective whether Burkey is or was on the MRP.

Facts are, the MRP are inconsistent.

I do agree they are inconsistant but I cannot stand people saying the saints are getting picked on. There is no logic to that. I dont understand why I am sad because I am not whinging. That escapes me. Bakes got 4 by the way and said he hit him. Was very badly advised. IMO I thought it was an illegal shephard and as I said in an earlier post I thought he would get 2 weeks reduced to one by pleading guilty. I was wrong on that one and I think the MRP have erred but whinging will not help us beat Essendon next week or give us the points against the Cats last week.

[jill]

Have replied in another thread BUT -
Kosi - eyes only on ball , taken out -Cowardly - Saints pay- no charge!
Ball - eyes only on ball, yes in play but Whelan going for man not ball - cowardly - Saints pay - no charge!
X - eyes only on the ball - taken out - no charge!!
In view of some recent past charges & guilty verdicts against Saints no wonder we get exasperated by the inconsistencies of the tribunal.
I have no problem with a genuine clear hip and shoulder/shirt front when it's in the moments of play - not 15-20 m off ball & Not when there's NO CONTEST!!!

[plugger66]

Have replied in another thread BUT -
Kosi - eyes only on ball , taken out -Cowardly - Saints pay- no charge!
Ball - eyes only on ball, yes in play but Whelan going for man not ball - cowardly - Saints pay - no charge!
X - eyes only on the ball - taken out - no charge!!
In view of some recent past charges & guilty verdicts against Saints no wonder we get exasperated by the inconsistencies of the tribunal.
I have no problem with a genuine clear hip and shoulder/shirt front when it's in the moments of play - not 15-20 m off ball & Not when there's NO CONTEST!!!

Well if you have no problem with a genuine hip and shoulder you should have had no problem with Whelans hit on Ball because that as fair as you can get.

[bigcarl]

well i just think if the afl's mrp is not going to protect us then we ought to start dishing a few out ourselves.

within this interpretation of the rules, of course

[plugger66]

well i just think if the afl's mrp is not going to protect us then we ought to start dishing a few out ourselves.

within this interpretation of the rules, of course

Thats the thing I dont understand. How is rubbing out a guy protecting the Saints. It has already happened. X doesnt play all the game if West gets 2 weeks. And a suspension to West doesnt help us beat the Dons next week.

And I agree if we can clean up a player legally lets do it. We need some aggression in the side.

[maverick]

The AFL cannot be serious even though the match review panel have nothing to do with them. Fancy only suspending 2 players from Geelong. Up to 5 should have been suspended and lets face it if that happened that would definately help us beat Essendon this week.

Didnt Burkey work on the match reveiw panel last year. He must have been in on it to.

I don't know why you post on here sometimes, are you that sad you have to have a crack at everyone having a whinge?

SO you think it was a legal shepherd then is that correct?

Given Baker got 7 weeks, I think these questions are fair, irrespective whether Burkey is or was on the MRP.

Facts are, the MRP are inconsistent.

I do agree they are inconsistant but I cannot stand people saying the saints are getting picked on. There is no logic to that. I dont understand why I am sad because I am not whinging. That escapes me. Bakes got 4 by the way and said he hit him. Was very badly advised. IMO I thought it was an illegal shephard and as I said in an earlier post I thought he would get 2 weeks reduced to one by pleading guilty. I was wrong on that one and I think the MRP have erred but whinging will not help us beat Essendon next week or give us the points against the Cats last week.

I didn't see your other post, so fair enough on this incident.
I know Baker got 4 upped to 7, but why did he go up in the first place, that's part of the inconsistency.

Its not sad because you're not whinging, I just think its unneccessary to sarcastically have a crack that's all. I agree the whinging can get a little tiresome, its just some peoples way of coping. Let me have their sook, in some way we all do!

[joffaboy]

Have replied in another thread BUT -
Kosi - eyes only on ball , taken out -Cowardly - Saints pay- no charge!
Ball - eyes only on ball, yes in play but Whelan going for man not ball - cowardly - Saints pay - no charge!
X - eyes only on the ball - taken out - no charge!!
In view of some recent past charges & guilty verdicts against Saints no wonder we get exasperated by the inconsistencies of the tribunal.
I have no problem with a genuine clear hip and shoulder/shirt front when it's in the moments of play - not 15-20 m off ball & Not when there's NO CONTEST!!!

Well if you have no problem with a genuine hip and shoulder you should have had no problem with Whelans hit on Ball because that as fair as you can get.

No problem with Whelans hit - the incident was in play, head contact accidental and Whelan was worse off as he was out for two or so weeks, and Ball played the followign week. Head contact incidental and accidental to the legal shepard.

I have a problem with high contact to a player more than 10 metres off the ball, by definition "not in play".

The MRP have admitted there was high contact "main contact was on the body" ipso facto the rest was not on the body but the head.

How can the MRp come up with such a ludricous "defence' of a player obviously not withing 5 metres of the ball.

Tell me if I am wrong that high contact causing a player being stretchered off the field that happened more than 5 metres from the ball is illegal and against the rules?

Isn't it a fact that the AFL is insructing the MFp to sweep this under the carpet because

UMPIRE NO 21 WAS 5 METRES FROM IT, AND PATTED wEST ON THE BACK AS IF TO SAY - NOTHING IN IT

It is obvious that the AFl is once again defending the umpires incompetence.

When was a high hit not at least a free kick?

The AFL is protecting the umpire from his incompetence.
If you saw the incident as I did (about 45 metres from where i was sitting) you would have seen the umpires action of him "congratulation" West, and then not stopping the game for a full 3 minutes while a stretcher was on the field allowing us to be a player down and Geelong kick a goal.

Conspiracy - No, I go for incompetence and cover up as usual, by the AFL for one of its idiot officials.

[plugger66]

If thats the case why suspend Mooney because an umpire missed that as well. I have the replay of the hit and I think he should of got 2 weeks but I must admit it looked all body to me.

[joffaboy]

If thats the case why suspend Mooney because an umpire missed that as well. I have the replay of the hit and I think he should of got 2 weeks but I must admit it looked all body to me.

Well the MFP said that he was hit high.

"Mainly on the body" So by definition some was not on the body but the head.

Did X faint when he was hit on the body? Was the whiplash so great it gave him concussion?

Did you see the incident and the aftermath? Umpire 21 gave the all clear to a high hit more than 10 metres off the ball, then went and consoled the thug who did it.

Are you happy with this? Are you happy the bloke was defended by the MRP? Why did umpire 21 not give a free kick for the high shot? Why did he console West with a tap on his back as if to say, dont worry, its only X clarke and his head 10 metres off the ball.

Fair Dinkum, some of you people will protect anyone and then reckon we are all paranoid.

Dont tell me blavk is white when i saw it with my own eyes.

Oh and BTW I was sitting with barks4eva and bigred when Kosi was hit by Giansircusa not more than 20 metres from us,and it was an accidental head clash. I believe the AFL got that and the Whelan one right so I dont think they are out to get the Saints.

As I said incompetence and cover us over conspirarcies anyday, and we know the AFL are compromised and will do anything to protect their sainted idiot moron umpires.

[plugger66]

If thats the case why suspend Mooney because an umpire missed that as well. I have the replay of the hit and I think he should of got 2 weeks but I must admit it looked all body to me.

Well the MFP said that he was hit high.

"Mainly on the body" So by definition some was not on the body but the head.

Did X faint when he was hit on the body? Was the whiplash so great it gave him concussion?

Did you see the incident and the aftermath? Umpire 21 gave the all clear to a high hit more than 10 metres off the ball, then went and consoled the thug who did it.

Are you happy with this? Are you happy the bloke was defended by the MRP? Why did umpire 21 not give a free kick for the high shot? Why did he console West with a tap on his back as if to say, dont worry, its only X clarke and his head 10 metres off the ball.

Fair Dinkum, some of you people will protect anyone and then reckon we are all paranoid.

Dont tell me blavk is white when i saw it with my own eyes.

Oh and BTW I was sitting with barks4eva and bigred when Kosi was hit by Giansircusa not more than 20 metres from us,and it was an accidental head clash. I believe the AFL got that and the Whelan one right so I dont think they are out to get the Saints.

As I said incompetence and cover us over conspirarcies anyday, and we know the AFL are compromised and will do anything to protect their sainted idiot moron umpires.

So you are saying the AFL told the MRP to find that there was nothing in it to protect an umpire. Again to me that defies logic.

I also said that I thought he should have been suspended and cannot remember telling you what you saw. I will stick by the fact that I thought it was body and he may have been concussed when he hit the ground but that really hasnt anything to do with the decision anyway.

[Mr Magic]

If thats the case why suspend Mooney because an umpire missed that as well. I have the replay of the hit and I think he should of got 2 weeks but I must admit it looked all body to me.

Except for the bit on the replay where X's head snaps back from the contact to it.

Have another look - you can see the point of West's shoulder hit X in the right side of his face.

X is clearly watching Hunt (?) running off to his (Hunt's) left and waiting for the Umpire to call play on.

In no way is he expecting to be 'cleaned up' because he is on the mark. Didn't teh AFL Rules Comittee make 'blocking' the man on th mark illegal?

No amtter how you try to rationalise West's action it is against the rules at leasat. If the 'hit' was delivered more than 5 meters away from the ball then it is reportable as well.

The 3 commentators on 'On the Couch' could not fathom how the MRP came up with their decision in this one.

BTW, according to them, Gamble was given 3, reduced to 2 because he has a clean record (it was his second game so he actually has no record!) and then reduced to 1 match suspension for an early guilty plea.
That's a great system at work. A deliberate forceful punch to the face receives in effect 1 week.

They also felt that Mooney was 'stiff' to get a week.

[plugger66]

I have said he should have been suspended.

[joffaboy]

So you are saying the AFL told the MRP to find that there was nothing in it to protect an umpire. Again to me that defies logic.

No more than Barry Halls punch on Goose was in play defying logic, no more than Whispers in the Sky cover up defied logic, no more than changing the result of a game defied logic, no more than a bloke punching a player, not once, but twice in the balls and getting off defying logic, no more than a getting four weeks for stopping and a bloke with "poor peripheral vision" running into him defies logic, no more than dozens of inconsistant, and frankly mind boggling decisions defying logic.

I also said that I thought he should have been suspended and cannot remember telling you what you saw. I will stick by the fact that I thought it was body and he may have been concussed when he hit the ground but that really hasnt anything to do with the decision anyway.

Yes you are correct, regardless of if it was the thugs actions shirtfronting an unsuspecting player more than 10 metres off the ball or him hiting his head when he went down, the fct is that it was an illegal strike outside the rules of the game, but the MRP chose to defend him with things like


'mainly on the body" - so by definition some on the head
"no elbow" - how bizarre, why not no longsword or no baseball bat
"he did not run far' - so it i OK to hit a bloke more than 10 metres off the ball as long as you dont run too far

You want to talk about defying logic - read the spirited defence by the MRP of West.

Yup you are correct, the AFL the MRP, and all of it defies logic.

[plugger66]

It only ever happens to the Saints.

[Eastern]

If I was a builder I'd start building a bridge about now !!

[Saint Bev]

Find it hard to believe that if Bakes or Fraser had of done it they would have got off!!

[joffaboy]

Find it hard to believe that if Bakes or Fraser had of done it they would have got off!!

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ratismeat]

Agree with the Mooney trip, one match is about right. Happy that West didn't get rubbed out, AFL is a national treasure and even though this was pretty borderline deep down we should all love the rough stuff. Bit pissed off that an jab to the face only gets a week though