Snipers Brown and Davis off scot free

InkerSaint · Post: # 905439Post **InkerSaint** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 6:24pm

Yep, you guessed it. No mention of Collingwood's pea-hearted acts of malice in this week's MRP - the Saints are stooged by the AFL once again:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Apparently a free kick against was enough penalty for Leigh Brown. And not as much as a whisper about Didak's dive.

Disgusted... but not surprised.

SainterK · Post: # 905440Post **SainterK** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 6:25pm

Lenny didn't seem to cop anything though for contact with an umpire, I am relieved.

bigred · Post: # 905508Post **bigred** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:11pm

And not as much as a whisper about Didak's dive.

That one is annoying.

St Fidelius · Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:17pm

bigred wrote:
And not as much as a whisper about Didak's dive.
That one is annoying.

Yeah, that pr1ck started to dive before any contact was made....

What a farce that new rule is, the AFL was trying to be proactive about stager's and now they are p1ss weak to nab the first one.

Maybe it's because the umpire got sucked in and didn't want to correct a bad call by the umpire...

P1ss weak IMO

SainterK · Post: # 905519Post **SainterK** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:20pm

I read somewhere today that the MRP will only look at incidents that they deem no contact has been made at all, not exaggerated staging of impact that has in fact occured. Not sure if it's true...

Moods · Post: # 905522Post **Moods** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:25pm

I swear Didak was falling b4 Dawson even made contact. One of the most blatant dives I've ever seen, and I half expected the umpy to pay the free kick to Dawson.

AS for Leigh Brown, if Bakes gets 7 weeks for blocking off the ball, then Brown should have at least got a couple. Riewoldt was definitely stunned by the hit. It was 100m off the ball and there is no way in the world he could reasonably expect contact. Ironically if Brown had done that within say 20m of the ball (outside the lawful distance, but close enough to be obvious that Riewoldt was following the ball) then Brown probably would have got weeks.

Thompson4 · Post: # 905529Post **Thompson4** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:33pm

Good posts !

HardSaint · Post: # 905533Post **HardSaint** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:37pm

Yes and I hear they've also agreed to default to Tarkin Lockyer when unsure about whether or not its a goal to the opposing side.

This precedent was established Friday night and should work well into the future it's been decided

Thinline · Post: # 905541Post **Thinline** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:56pm

Moods wrote:
AS for Leigh Brown, if Bakes gets 7 weeks for blocking off the ball, then Brown should have at least got a couple. Riewoldt was definitely stunned by the hit. It was 100m off the ball and there is no way in the world he could reasonably expect contact. Ironically if Brown had done that within say 20m of the ball (outside the lawful distance, but close enough to be obvious that Riewoldt was following the ball) then Brown probably would have got weeks.

This one is a mistake IMO. I mean what's the diff between Brown's act and that of King last year (for which the latter got 4)? Where's Plugger66? He's usually pretty good with the whys and why nots of this sorta thing.

3rd generation saint · Mon 12 Apr 2010 8:58pm

Dont worry about Davis and Didak, come September, they suspend themselves.

plugger66 · Post: # 905568Post **plugger66** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 9:50pm

Thinline wrote:
Moods wrote:
AS for Leigh Brown, if Bakes gets 7 weeks for blocking off the ball, then Brown should have at least got a couple. Riewoldt was definitely stunned by the hit. It was 100m off the ball and there is no way in the world he could reasonably expect contact. Ironically if Brown had done that within say 20m of the ball (outside the lawful distance, but close enough to be obvious that Riewoldt was following the ball) then Brown probably would have got weeks.
This one is a mistake IMO. I mean what's the diff between Brown's act and that of King last year (for which the latter got 4)? Where's Plugger66? He's usually pretty good with the whys and why nots of this sorta thing.

Actually thought Brown would get 2 weeks reduced to one. As were arent playing them in that period i dont care though. And the fact Brown isnt a good players makes it worry me even less. Yes people will say what about our guys, well that has happened so what does it matter any more. it is about this year and us winning a flag finally.

degruch · Post: # 905615Post **degruch** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 10:51pm

Proof of bias once again...absolutely disgraceful.

Trent West bumps X into next week = 0 weeks
Stephen King does the same = 4 weeks
Leigh Brown does the same = 0

In. f******. Credible.

Thinline · Post: # 905617Post **Thinline** » Mon 12 Apr 2010 10:54pm

degruch wrote:Proof of bias once again...absolutely disgraceful.

Trent West bumps X into next week = 0 weeks
Stephen King does the same = 4 weeks
Leigh Brown does the same = 0

In. f******. Credible.

fraid so... sucks doesn't it...

Bernard Shakey · Mon 12 Apr 2010 10:55pm

degruch wrote:Proof of bias once again...absolutely disgraceful.

Trent West bumps X into next week = 0 weeks
Stephen King does the same = 4 weeks
Leigh Brown does the same = 0

In. f******. Credible.

Who is X?

Furphy · Post: # 905694Post **Furphy** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 12:45am

Also, did anyone notice the same player that gave Kosi a fractured skull has no case to answer after that reckless charge on a Hawks player that could have easily had a similar outcome to Kosi's? Ironically, Kosi still has one week to go on that minor bump in round one.

SaintDippa · Post: # 905707Post **SaintDippa** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 1:15am

MRP = Circus. Spin the wheel see where it lands...

The system is Bizarre. A joke.

Anderson or someone in AFL House - maybe drag Dimetriou away from counting his millions (Bizarre again!!) - NEED to investigate the lack of consistency and bizzarreness.

wallbanger · Post: # 905744Post **wallbanger** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 9:01am

As was mentioned the other day in another thread, the mind-boggling and blatant double-standards when it comes to St Kilda and the tribunal (as offenders or victims) continues.

What a joke.

TazzieSaintGirl83 · Tue 13 Apr 2010 11:29am

I was surprised to see Brown come off without even a mention. I thought he would have at least copped a week for his spineless act.

degruch · Post: # 905806Post **degruch** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 11:33am

Bernard Shakey wrote:
degruch wrote:Proof of bias once again...absolutely disgraceful.

Trent West bumps X into next week = 0 weeks
Stephen King does the same = 4 weeks
Leigh Brown does the same = 0

In. f******. Credible.
Who is X?

Just started barracking for St Kilda this week, have we?

degruch · Post: # 905807Post **degruch** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 11:34am

TazzieSaintGirl83 wrote:I was surprised to see Brown come off without even a mention. I thought he would have at least copped a week for his spineless act.

Obviously wasn't mentioned enough during the telecast...where's Ox and his trial by media when you need him?

matrix · Post: # 905824Post **matrix** » Tue 13 Apr 2010 12:08pm

http://www.wikihow.com/Dive-in-Soccer

TazzieSaintGirl83 · Tue 13 Apr 2010 12:16pm

degruch wrote:
TazzieSaintGirl83 wrote:I was surprised to see Brown come off without even a mention. I thought he would have at least copped a week for his spineless act.
Obviously wasn't mentioned enough during the telecast...where's Ox and his trial by media when you need him?

Yeah it rated very little mention or so it seemed (perhaps its just my saints biased ears

)

It does suck though when you see the turkeys of the game trying to take out the eagles