You don't get 3 game suspensions for being a coward or 'dog'.farquhar wrote:West should have got 3 games, a cowardly act.
You get suspended for breaking the rules, seriously.
He didn't break the rules to a severe enough extent, end of story.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Now I understand why you're stance on this seemed so ridiculous.Saintschampions08 wrote:I think you should learn the rules.joffaboy wrote: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.Saintschampions08 wrote:He was performing a shepherd, so it wasn't malicious.
Learn the definition of in playSaintschampions08 wrote:Clarke was chasing the ball, so it was in play.![]()
![]()
![]()
You should learn the rules and stop blaming the victim. West is a gutless coward and anyone who defends him is a clueless twit.Saintschampions08 wrote:West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.
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.
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?plugger66 wrote: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.plugger66 wrote: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 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.maverick wrote: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?plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
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.jill wrote: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!!!
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.bigcarl wrote: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
I didn't see your other post, so fair enough on this incident.plugger66 wrote: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.maverick wrote: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?plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
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.plugger66 wrote: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.jill wrote: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 the MFP said that he was hit high.plugger66 wrote: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.
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.joffaboy wrote:Well the MFP said that he was hit high.plugger66 wrote: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.
"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.
Except for the bit on the replay where X's head snaps back from the contact to it.plugger66 wrote: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.
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.plugger66 wrote: 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.
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 likeplugger66 wrote: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.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Saint Bev wrote:Find it hard to believe that if Bakes or Fraser had of done it they would have got off!!