Boyd targetting Harvey's hand

[Harvey To Hayes]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 6097271727

They showed footage On The Couch of Boyd taking cheap shots at Harvey's broken thumb - isn't this exactly the same thing that Bakes did to Johnson and later (from video footage) got reported and harangued by that Tilley dickead for being weak and "against the spirit of the game" before being suspended?

Is there a difference between the two incidents that I'm overlooking? Surely if they're both on the ground and deemed fit to play then there can be no distinctions on the severity of the injuries or anything?

[DWOODROW]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 6097271727

They showed footage On The Couch of Boyd taking cheap shots at Harvey's broken thumb - isn't this exactly the same thing that Bakes did to Johnson and later (from video footage) got reported and harangued by that Tilley dickead for being weak and "against the spirit of the game" before being suspended?

Is there a difference between the two incidents that I'm overlooking? Surely if they're both on the ground and deemed fit to play then there can be no distinctions on the severity of the injuries or anything?

There is difference, Boyd plays for Bulldogs and not ST Kilda.
Only ST Kilda players are weak apparently

[The OtherThommo]

I'll throw in another one. In the Lions Geelong game on Sunday, a heavily bandaged Mitch Clark came back late after getting injured in the Brown death wish incident.

As soon as he came back he got involved in pursuing the ball towards the boundary line. When the pill went over the line he was clearly distressed - he couldn't even jog back to his position (the lame bloke in the square position).

On his way back, with the ball nowhere around, Harry Taylor began to bump into him. It was clearly designed to discomfort Clark and exploit the injury.

If he is the only one to be held to account for 2 rules, or interpretations, Stephen Baker should take out copyright over 2 laws of the game, 1) don't stop running and let a bloke run into the back of you and 2) don't attempt to discomfort an opponent who may, or may not, be injured.

The bureaucrat who potted Baker for his failure to adhere to the spirit of the game should be similarly admonished for his role in a quasi judicial process that seeks to punish, or excuse, on the basis of who someone is, rather than what they have done. Judicial processes, quasi or not, can NEVER discriminate on any basis, if they are to maintain any credibility whatsoever.

We saw the system fail last week when Ottens only got one for decking a bloke from behind way off the ball. There is way too much discretion afforded these snouts in the trough at the MRP/tribunal quango.

[Solar]

Sorry, thought that was weeks, did I miss a change in the rules AGAIN

p66, you there... I need help!!!!!!

[Zac Attack]

Matthew Boyd is a rich man's Daniel Cross and that is not saying much.....

[DWOODROW]

I'll throw in another one. In the Lions Geelong game on Sunday, a heavily bandaged Mitch Clark came back late after getting injured in the Brown death wish incident.

As soon as he came back he got involved in pursuing the ball towards the boundary line. When the pill went over the line he was clearly distressed - he couldn't even jog back to his position (the lame bloke in the square position).

On his way back, with the ball nowhere around, Harry Taylor began to bump into him. It was clearly designed to discomfort Clark and exploit the injury.

If he is the only one to be held to account for 2 rules, or interpretations, Stephen Baker should take out copyright over 2 laws of the game, 1) don't stop running and let a bloke run into the back of you and 2) don't attempt to discomfort an opponent who may, or may not, be injured.

The bureaucrat who potted Baker for his failure to adhere to the spirit of the game should be similarly admonished for his role in a quasi judicial process that seeks to punish, or excuse, on the basis of who someone is, rather than what they have done. Judicial processes, quasi or not, can NEVER discriminate on any basis, if they are to maintain any credibility whatsoever.

We saw the system fail last week when Ottens only got one for decking a bloke from behind way off the ball. There is way too much discretion afforded these snouts in the trough at the MRP/tribunal quango.

Your missing the point Thommo. He has a good record though.

[super dooper]

Matthew Boyd is a rich man's Daniel Cross and that is not saying much.....

that averages 112 points per week in my supercoach team!! Boom!

[St Lenny]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 6097271727

They showed footage On The Couch of Boyd taking cheap shots at Harvey's broken thumb - isn't this exactly the same thing that Bakes did to Johnson and later (from video footage) got reported and harangued by that Tilley dickead for being weak and "against the spirit of the game" before being suspended?

Is there a difference between the two incidents that I'm overlooking? Surely if they're both on the ground and deemed fit to play then there can be no distinctions on the severity of the injuries or anything?

There is difference, Boyd plays for Bulldogs and not ST Kilda.
Only ST Kilda players are weak apparently

How right you are.

[ThePunter]

Remember St Kilda players have no heads and two stomachs.

[gringo]

The media have to make a big noise during coverage or the MR{P can't be expected to follow up on it.

[bigcarl]

did bakes actually get weeks for targetting johnson's injury?

[Liam_G]

did bakes actually get weeks for targetting johnson's injury?

Yes he did. 2 weeks for that, among the 4 reports from the match.

3 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Unreasonable & Unnecessary Contact with an Injured Player

[Thinline]

I may be getting on, but that footage was pretty grainy. Could you actually see contact? All I could see was a couple of blokes jostling.

If contact was clear, then it's outrageous the situation was taken so lightly...

[bigcarl]

did bakes actually get weeks for targetting johnson's injury?

Yes he did. 2 weeks for that, among the 4 reports from the match.

3 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Striking
2 weeks for Unreasonable & Unnecessary Contact with an Injured Player

thanks.

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/b ... 6097271727

They showed footage On The Couch of Boyd taking cheap shots at Harvey's broken thumb - isn't this exactly the same thing that Bakes did to Johnson and later (from video footage) got reported and harangued by that Tilley dickead for being weak and "against the spirit of the game" before being suspended?

Is there a difference between the two incidents that I'm overlooking? Surely if they're both on the ground and deemed fit to play then there can be no distinctions on the severity of the injuries or anything?

Where are the people like Gary "the sniper" Hocking making comments about Boyd now, like he did Baker? That was so ironic, the biggest snipper ever who runs past the past to take out Robert Harvey down at Geelong having a go at Baker! I had a chuckle at that last year!