Footy Classified & Harve's
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Footy Classified & Harve's
No news as yet as to whether St.Robert will be cited - but have just rung Ch 9 - FC are in studio - can't have direct contact but will pass message on- my message? After 21 years as a gentleman, true role model , dual Brownlow Medallist - only reported once ( & cleared I believe) HAS SUDDENLY become a nutcracker - & Aker is so "honest & above board!?"
Please inundate Ch 9 & Footy Classified so they have to address this character slur on our club's champion of champion's!!!
Please inundate Ch 9 & Footy Classified so they have to address this character slur on our club's champion of champion's!!!
Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
Why channel 9.jill wrote:Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed 20 Feb 2008 8:26pm
- Location: Morwell Gippsland Australia
- Contact:
cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......plugger66 wrote:Why channel 9.jill wrote:Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
forgot what time is it on
Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.ralphysaints35 wrote:cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......plugger66 wrote:Why channel 9.jill wrote:Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
forgot what time is it on
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed 20 Feb 2008 8:26pm
- Location: Morwell Gippsland Australia
- Contact:
no but , footy classifieds can review what akker said etcplugger66 wrote:Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.ralphysaints35 wrote:cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......plugger66 wrote:Why channel 9.jill wrote:Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
forgot what time is it on
Who cares its over and Aker looks like a dill and Harvs as nothing answer.ralphysaints35 wrote:no but , footy classifieds can review what akker said etcplugger66 wrote:Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.ralphysaints35 wrote:cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......plugger66 wrote:Why channel 9.jill wrote:Ok Harve's in the clear - but still inundate Ch 9 - was Akers claim just to ensure he didn't go for kicking? You bet! When will the AFL get the message it's the inconsistencies that make the tribunal a farce eg. Goodes, Hall & ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN - BAKES!
BUT PLEASE STILL INUNDATE Ch 9 REGARDLESS - WE MUST STAND BY HARVE'S!!!
forgot what time is it on
So it's ok for Aker to slur Harve's & it was also ok for Aker to throw the boot out?
Bakes went for "kicking" - a big slur in spite of footage showing Alessio deliberately standing on foot - Bakes guilty for "retalliating", Aker no case to answer!!!!!
Inundate Ch 9 & MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT!!
HARVEY IS A CLUB LEGEND - HOW DARE WE JUST SIT BACK & LET HIM COP THIS PATHETIC SLUR
Bakes went for "kicking" - a big slur in spite of footage showing Alessio deliberately standing on foot - Bakes guilty for "retalliating", Aker no case to answer!!!!!
Inundate Ch 9 & MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT!!
HARVEY IS A CLUB LEGEND - HOW DARE WE JUST SIT BACK & LET HIM COP THIS PATHETIC SLUR
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
- Saintschampions08
- Club Player
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2008 11:04am
The same problem the tribunals / MRVP have always had.saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
Theirs too many people who officiate it, means theirs too many opinions, means that when the same thing happens in two different cases, your going to have a chance to get a different opinion for each.
Difference is that its is quite a few years down the track. Baker got done for three weeks, and was reduced to one on appeal after the hue and cry.saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
This is the reason the MRP was introduced to try and take out the chook lotto of the tribunal.
This has partially unless of course you punch a bloke in the nuts if you are a WCE player or elbow a player in the face if you play for Sydney, but if you get run into from behind, there is no video, a Freo trainer is proven to have lied about the contact to get the hearing in the first place, but it still goes ahead, and you are a Saints player - you get 7 flipping weeks.
Understand now Mick???
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
Bakes was a kick and Acker was a push with his boot. Bakes probably should not have got suspended and Acker certainly should not have been reported.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Are my eyes deceiving me?plugger66 wrote:saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
Bakes was a kick and Acker was a push with his boot. Bakes probably should not have got suspended and Acker certainly should not have been reported.
Veiled criticism of something AFL?
Not the AFL but the tribunal. They are separate even if people dont believe otherwise we would have been having a go at Loewe and I wouldnt do that.Mr Magic wrote:Are my eyes deceiving me?plugger66 wrote:saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
Bakes was a kick and Acker was a push with his boot. Bakes probably should not have got suspended and Acker certainly should not have been reported.
Veiled criticism of something AFL?
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Aw come on Plugger - you were almost there - criticising something about the AFL.plugger66 wrote:Not the AFL but the tribunal. They are separate even if people dont believe otherwise we would have been having a go at Loewe and I wouldnt do that.Mr Magic wrote:Are my eyes deceiving me?plugger66 wrote:saint66au wrote:So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
All jokes aside, Aka's reaction is almost understandable. If I was grabbed down there in that scenario, accidental or otherwise, I would have done the same thing I reckon. Its a reflex action. So, the MRP have obviously thought "ahh well its accidental, Aka's forgiven cos it must have hurt like fury"
But...what about the Baker/Allessio incident? . Alessio IIRC was found to have accidentally trodden on Bakes ankle, yet Bakes got 2 weeks for kicking.
Can someone, seriously, tell me the difference? ....as I said without the usual "the AFL hate us and love Bulldogs" dribble??
Bakes was a kick and Acker was a push with his boot. Bakes probably should not have got suspended and Acker certainly should not have been reported.
Veiled criticism of something AFL?
IIRC
the MRP is appointed by the AFL
answerable to the AFL
applying sentences/judgements according to AFL rules.
it's members' salaries are paid by the AFL
when a member of the MRP resigns from teh panel he does so to Anderson.
You know how the saying goes?
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck .........
I cannot fathom how you can suggest the MRP is not a function of the AFL, and therefore part of the AFL.
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
and the BIggest Loser
Dermie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to quote Spud- 'how many teams did you try and play for when told no longer wanted"
go back out of the country dermie you make more sense there,
you just demean your self by continuing this attack.
Dermie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to quote Spud- 'how many teams did you try and play for when told no longer wanted"
go back out of the country dermie you make more sense there,
you just demean your self by continuing this attack.
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4080
- Joined: Wed 20 Feb 2008 8:26pm
- Location: Morwell Gippsland Australia
- Contact:
it was bulls***, dermie U SUCKED, harvey had one bad game + HE STILL HAD 16 posies, i hope he does retire this year, BUT he is a gun still, he is still goodsaintbrat wrote:and the BIggest Loser
Dermie !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
to quote Spud- 'how many teams did you try and play for when told no longer wanted"
go back out of the country dermie you make more sense there,
you just demean your self by continuing this attack.