Footy Classified & Harve's

jill · Post: # 543953Post **jill** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:27pm

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!!!

Ralphy · Post: # 543956Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:29pm

and will they pass this message on

i myself HATE aker, think he is a coward and to say this about such alegend IS pathetic,

jill · Post: # 543960Post **jill** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:36pm

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!!!

plugger66 · Post: # 543964Post **plugger66** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:39pm

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!!!

Why channel 9.

Ralphy · Post: # 543966Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:42pm

plugger66 wrote:
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!!!
Why channel 9.

cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......

forgot what time is it on

plugger66 · Post: # 543967Post **plugger66** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:44pm

ralphysaints35 wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
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!!!
Why channel 9.
cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......

forgot what time is it on

Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.

Ralphy · Post: # 543969Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:46pm

plugger66 wrote:
ralphysaints35 wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
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!!!
Why channel 9.
cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......

forgot what time is it on
Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.

no but , footy classifieds can review what akker said etc

plugger66 · Post: # 543971Post **plugger66** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:48pm

ralphysaints35 wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
ralphysaints35 wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
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!!!
Why channel 9.
cause footy classifieds is on channel nine CLEARLY......

forgot what time is it on
Do they run the tribunal or the match reveiw panel.
no but , footy classifieds can review what akker said etc

Who cares its over and Aker looks like a dill and Harvs as nothing answer.

Ralphy · Post: # 543972Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:48pm

i still hope they bring it up which im sure they will.

jill · Post: # 543980Post **jill** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 7:58pm

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

saintsrus · Post: # 544003Post **saintsrus** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 8:30pm

I think your overreacting here, everything i heard in the last 48 hours everyone was on Bangers side and who would take Acer seriously anyway.

Ralphy · Post: # 544005Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 8:31pm

saintsrus wrote:I think your overreacting here, everything i heard in the last 48 hours everyone was on Bangers side and who would take Acer seriously anyway.

the afl isnt he a protected species?

what time does it start tonight ?

GreatNo9s · Post: # 544017Post **GreatNo9s** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 8:44pm

AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...

saint66au · Post: # 544025Post **saint66au** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 8:55pm

GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...

So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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??

Saintschampions08 · Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:23pm

saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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 same problem the tribunals / MRVP have always had.

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.

joffaboy · Post: # 544044Post **joffaboy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:25pm

saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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??

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.

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???

plugger66 · Post: # 544046Post **plugger66** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:26pm

saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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 · Post: # 544051Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:35pm

plugger66 wrote:
saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

Veiled criticism of something AFL?

plugger66 · Post: # 544056Post **plugger66** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:39pm

Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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.
Are my eyes deceiving me?

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.

Eastern · Post: # 544067Post **Eastern** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:50pm

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???

INCONSISTENCY CAUSED BY INCOMPETENCE !!

There, you have been told

!!

satchmo · Post: # 544071Post **satchmo** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 9:55pm

Eastern wrote:
INCONSISTENCY CAUSED BY INCOMPETENCE !!

Just to re-iterate that.....

Mr Magic · Post: # 544088Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 10:20pm

plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
saint66au wrote:
GreatNo9s wrote:AFL has ruled accidental contact - no further action...
So then.can someone tell me, without the usual "its Bakes the AFL hates him" stuff, why Aker hasnt been cited for kicking???

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.
Are my eyes deceiving me?

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.

Aw come on Plugger - you were almost there - criticising something about the 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.

jill · Post: # 544103Post **jill** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 10:48pm

BUT DID ANYONE PHONE CH.9 & AT LEAST REGISTER OUTRAGE AT THIS BLEMISH ON HARVE'S CHARACTER

saintbrat · Post: # 544104Post **saintbrat** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 10:48pm

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.

Ralphy · Post: # 544105Post **Ralphy** » Mon 07 Apr 2008 10:54pm

saintbrat 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.

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 good