Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- howlinwolf
- Club Player
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008 8:51pm
- Location: Sittin' On Top Of the World
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 29 times
Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer
Apparently no clear video of this incident so no case to answer for Bakes.
Can't recall the incident though.
Scarlett = one week. Seems lucky.
Mooney = one week. Glad he's been made accountable.
Osborne = one week. How does Kosi get 3 and he gets 1 ?
Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a premeditated strike.
Can't recall the incident though.
Scarlett = one week. Seems lucky.
Mooney = one week. Glad he's been made accountable.
Osborne = one week. How does Kosi get 3 and he gets 1 ?
Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a premeditated strike.
Last edited by howlinwolf on Tue 06 Apr 2010 3:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
Robert Harvey's last home game. 24 Aug 2008
StKilda 13.17 def Adelaide 6.11
StKilda 13.17 def Adelaide 6.11
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer
Thought about it twice I gather.howlinwolf wrote:
Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a remeditated strike.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer
GrumpyOne wrote:Thought about it twice I gather.howlinwolf wrote:
Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a remeditated strike.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Anyway, no video footage? Lucky Bakes didn't get 10 weeks.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.plugger66 wrote:Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.
You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.degruch wrote:Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.plugger66 wrote:Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.plugger66 wrote:You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.degruch wrote:Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.plugger66 wrote:Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.
And they 4 or 5 wins because of those sort of decisions. Didnt know they played so many close games the last few years.degruch wrote:GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.plugger66 wrote:You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.degruch wrote:Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.plugger66 wrote:Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
At least 4-5 by under 2 goals last season. I wonder how close Freo will get this weekend...I'm tipping them against the Cats, even though the umpires gidted them a victory against the Hawks (and nice to see some suspensions handed out too - only for how long?).plugger66 wrote:And they 4 or 5 wins because of those sort of decisions. Didnt know they played so many close games the last few years.degruch wrote:GAblett can be very damaging when he cannot be pinged for holding the ball and is allowed to forward pass to any Geelong played within a 720 degree radius. I'm sure a few football fans smiled at Stevie Johnson's disposal of the ball in front of goals last week and wondered how many times they'll see that before the Cats subside into the bottom 8 again.plugger66 wrote:You are right supporters would laugh. 4 or 5 wins a year because of umpiring is funny.degruch wrote:Have there been any other St Kilda suspensions over the last 5 years? They always seem to be 'controversial'. I guess we could add Kosi's jumper punch suspension for comparison against Judd's jumper punch non-suspension of the same era, any others left? Sure, every club endures odd suspensions/non-suspensions (ask a Port supporter about how fare Brennan's 1 week headbutt suspension was), but we seem to have the most odd, under the most bizarre circumstances, very frequently.plugger66 wrote:Just maybe as Saints supporters we remember ours. Go onto another football board and they will have ones that are strange as well. Do you honestly think we get these bad decisions because the AFL have it in for us. Now that is illogical but then again you think Geelong get 4 to 5 wins a year because of umpires. Is your neck ok?degruch wrote:We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Run your concept that Geelong play under the same rules as the rest of the comp past any number of non-Geelong (and probably a few Geelong supporters, truth be told) support and watch them fall over laughing.
So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Oooo, you're really on to something here, aren't you? Deflecting much? I don't think the press are into telling the truth as much as the imparial footy observer. Certainly, plenty of questions were asked by the press in each one of the cases I listed above...and Roo's shoulder incident...and Sirengate...and Whispers in the Sky...etc, etc.plugger66 wrote:So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.
- BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
Re: Bakes on Harvey = No case to answer
Osborne probably lucky - but as opposed to Kosi, Selwood was at least over the ball, where Kosi ran past to collect Malceski.howlinwolf wrote:Apparently no clear video of this incident so no case to answer for Bakes.
Can't recall the incident though.
Scarlett = one week. Seems lucky.
Mooney = one week. Glad he's been made accountable.
Osborne = one week. How does Kosi get 3 and he gets 1 ?
Shiels = one week. Seems lucky too for a premeditated strike.
For all the talk for 2 rounds (plus preseason) of "inconsistent", I've found the message pretty clear: if you've got any other option and go the bump, head high is going to collect weeks. Based on that, most of the suspensions from the round were pretty predictable.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30091
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 10:38pm
- Location: In a laundrette, San Francisco USA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 54 times
(5) you forgot about the moon landing conspiracy ...I think a Saints player was involved somewhere.degruch wrote:
We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
Not Craw, CRAW!
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Craw. You jest. I don't. Plugger has no comeback for any of these points, no-one at the time had a comeback for any of these points (apart from Whispers in the Sky, we were laughed at by plenty of opposition supporters for that one). The suspensions may be just, but why is it that they rarely seem to apply the second our backs are turned? Lets face it, St Kilda have plenty of fodder.The Craw wrote:(5) you forgot about the moon landing conspiracy ...I think a Saints player was involved somewhere.degruch wrote:
We do seem to be the 'watershed' team for tribunal decisions, I'm sure you'll agree.
(1) Kosi's cracked skull sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down (excuse the pun) on head high bumps (ignoring Maxwell during last years NAB Cup). The ruling lays dormant for 5 years until Kosi's recent high contact bump generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension - deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(2) West's behind play 'elimination' of Xavier Clarke sees no opposition suspension, yet the AFL promises to crack down on off the ball behind play bumps. The ruling lays dormant for 3 years until Steven King's offball block generates renewed interest in stamping it out of play with a hefty suspension. Again, possibly deserved, but oddly inconsistant.
(3) Baker suspended for a total of 8 weeks, despite no report, footage, witnesses and a statement from Jeff Farmer more-or-less confirming Baker's version of events, despite being found NOT GUILTY of the charge. The AFL seems to circumvent it's own rules in an attempt to remove the player in question from the game, rather than the play.
(4) Zac Dawson is suspended for 3 weeks for unduly rough play against an opponent, yet Jacob Surjan was not suspended for the exact same unduly rough play the following week. Once again, whilst the suspension may be deserved, the ruling was oddly inconsistant.
You explain your way out of these 4, I'll get started on some more.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
The AFL is having teething problems with the new match review panel members.plugger66 wrote:How did Bakes get off. He is a Saints player and we know they are after us.
Some of them still think they are allowed to make judgements based on the evidence.
They will be brought into line.
This will not happen again.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
Come clean Plugger we all know Caro is your mistress.plugger66 wrote:So everyone of those was won by the umpires. Well that certainly makes sense. The tribunal must not be in on the cheating that was obviously ordered by the AFL. What about the 2 previous years. How many close ones then that were won the by the umpire. This is a very serious topic. We probably need to take it to the papers. Fancy the AFL making sure the Cats win 4 or 5 a year by telling the umpires to cheat. i am just about to ring Caro. She will love this story.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA