Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
dragit wrote:There's already a 10 page thread about this.
So
So do we need another thread about an opposition player?
Those rolling eyes really suit you, cute.
Probably not, but who cares. And thank you, you are most kind. If I could find a blushing Smiley I would insert it here.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
saintspremiers wrote:Johnny - re Zeibel vs Judd - Zeibel was given 4 weeks down to 3 with an early plea - he lost at the tribunal with no downgrades in the criteria so quite rightly got 4 weeks.
Judd was bloody lucky not to have been charged by the MRP. The MRP HAVE to use his 30% loading, so it is not unreasonable to assume he could've got 5 weeks reduced to 4 with an early plea. Then had Judd taken it to the tribunal, and like Zeibel lost and not had any downgrades, he would've copped 5 weeks.
What annoys me is that a case that is sent directly to the tribunal can ignore the loadings and just make up a number of weeks suspension. Now THAT is seriously wrong and inconsistent.
And that is basically a return to the old system.
Not all plugger. All I am saying is that why can't cases sent directly to the tribunal use loadings?
Let's face it - it's very rare a case is sent directly to the tribunal. Normally it's because it's very high on the MRP points scale. Judd case was different.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
saintspremiers wrote:Johnny - re Zeibel vs Judd - Zeibel was given 4 weeks down to 3 with an early plea - he lost at the tribunal with no downgrades in the criteria so quite rightly got 4 weeks.
Judd was bloody lucky not to have been charged by the MRP. The MRP HAVE to use his 30% loading, so it is not unreasonable to assume he could've got 5 weeks reduced to 4 with an early plea. Then had Judd taken it to the tribunal, and like Zeibel lost and not had any downgrades, he would've copped 5 weeks.
What annoys me is that a case that is sent directly to the tribunal can ignore the loadings and just make up a number of weeks suspension. Now THAT is seriously wrong and inconsistent.
And that is basically a return to the old system.
Not all plugger. All I am saying is that why can't cases sent directly to the tribunal use loadings?
Let's face it - it's very rare a case is sent directly to the tribunal. Normally it's because it's very high on the MRP points scale. Judd case was different.
They can if the tribunal want them to. It is up to their discretion.
Devilhead wrote:So here is a case that was soooo serious in nature that it was referred directly to the tribunal BUT not serious enough to incur a loading penalty
I thought the whole idea of loading was to deter players from continually re-offending
Obviously Judd re-offending is ok
It was referred because it was rated as misconduct and that doesnt come under the points system.
Devilhead wrote:So here is a case that was soooo serious in nature that it was referred directly to the tribunal BUT not serious enough to incur a loading penalty
I thought the whole idea of loading was to deter players from continually re-offending
Obviously Judd re-offending is ok
It was referred because it was rated as misconduct and that doesnt come under the points system.
That's convenient!!
So I would assume then that given this charge does not come under the points system then Mr Judd should not incur any extra loading (added to his existing 30% loading) if he commits any further offences down the line.
Surely that's only fair given it does not come under the points system??
Devilhead wrote:So here is a case that was soooo serious in nature that it was referred directly to the tribunal BUT not serious enough to incur a loading penalty
I thought the whole idea of loading was to deter players from continually re-offending
Obviously Judd re-offending is ok
It was referred because it was rated as misconduct and that doesnt come under the points system.
That's convenient!!
So I would assume then that given this charge does not come under the points system then Mr Judd should not incur any extra loading (added to his existing 30% loading) if he commits any further offences down the line.
Surely that's only fair given it does not come under the points system??
I doubt that very much. hall got loading when he went. So what dont you like about the tribunal part of the system? It is totally independent and they decided not to use the loading.
plugger66 wrote:It is totally independent and they decided not to use the loading.
Why have loading then if it is not going to be used - surely if the offence is so serious then any adding any left over activation points to the original sentence should be mandatory??
plugger66 wrote:It is totally independent and they decided not to use the loading.
Why have loading then if it is not going to be used - surely if the offence is so serious then any adding any left over activation points to the original sentence should be mandatory??
Because the independant body decided 4 weeks was the right decision.
Dr Spaceman wrote:Maybe Ziebell called the Panel Chairman fat?
If Dunstall or Jarman were on the panel, ZIebell would've got off, and received a Brownlow vote (one of Gouger Judd's freebies perhaps) for telling the truth...
I can't believe this appalling 'system' acknowledges loading and good records for 5 week offences, but doesn't for 4 week offences!
It's so simple. Just use precedence. Simple.
The only reason the AFL won't use precedence, is because it removes the ability for them to make examples of certain players, and let other players get off when it suits them.
Johnny Member wrote:I can't believe this appalling 'system' acknowledges loading and good records for 5 week offences, but doesn't for 4 week offences!
It's so simple. Just use precedence. Simple.
The only reason the AFL won't use precedence, is because it removes the ability for them to make examples of certain players, and let other players get off when it suits them.
One was the MVP and the other was a case sent directly to the tribunal. They are completely different so has does precedence work. The AFL wanted Judd to get the loading but an independant panel said no. people whinge that it isnt independant now they whinge because the panel didnt do what the AFL wanted.
I mean, how could anyone of sane mind, give Ziebel the same penalty as Judd, and both of them a lesser penalty than Wellingham if they were basing their decisions in precedent?
Johnny Member wrote:I mean, how could anyone of sane mind, give Ziebel the same penalty as Judd, and both of them a lesser penalty than Wellingham if they were basing their decisions in precedent?
yeah, i don't really understand why they're so set against precedent. maybe because it assumes that it's possible to find the similarity between two situations, whereas in practice each situation is subtly different? no real idea though. it would seem to make it easier.
