Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

kosifantutti · Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:05pm

Pretty straightforward I would think. Chapman jumped into him and was therefore classified as reckless rather than negligent.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-09-16/ ... s-week-two

BTW. I reckon the ball went out of bounds because it deflects off Chapman.

Life Long Saint · Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:06pm

CURLY wrote:People do understand leaving the ground has no baring in the outcome? As it was Chappy was in full step he wasn't jumping. Richards actually picked a bloke off.

But it affects the point of impact.
If Chappy had not have jumped off the ground then contact would not have been shoulder to head.
Then there'd be no case to answer.

dragit · Post: # 1390227Post **dragit** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:09pm

CURLY wrote:People do understand leaving the ground has no baring in the outcome?

Yes it does, have you watched the video, Fraser says this very clearly.
"We believe that by jumping up into the air that makes it a reckless act"

markp · Post: # 1390228Post **markp** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:11pm

If he didn't leap off the ground he wouldn't have made high contact, so the outcome would be different.

And as someone said earlier the actual damage inflicted/medical report carries weight too.

saintsRrising · Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:14pm

IluvHarvey wrote:Chappy left the ground where Richards didn't.

Exactly.

I thought Chappies was the worse of the two.

CURLY · Post: # 1390232Post **CURLY** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:18pm

markp wrote:If he didn't leap off the ground he wouldn't have made high contact, so the outcome would be different.

And as someone said earlier the actual damage inflicted/medical report carries weight too.

No injury and the bloke got up and took his kick. The MRP has preached that jumping off the ground even though Chappy didnt has no bearing. What we are looking at is a bias system.

kosifantutti · Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:28pm

CURLY wrote: The MRP has preached that jumping off the ground even though Chappy didnt has no bearing.

No they haven't and yes he did.

Have you watched the video?

CURLY · Post: # 1390242Post **CURLY** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:32pm

kosifantutti wrote:
CURLY wrote: The MRP has preached that jumping off the ground even though Chappy didnt has no bearing.
No they haven't and yes he did.

Have you watched the video?

He was in mid step when he made contact. If he jumped into him he wouldn't have got up.

dragit · Post: # 1390250Post **dragit** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:42pm

CURLY wrote: He was in mid step when he made contact. If he jumped into him he wouldn't have got up.

Mid step?
Are you mental?
Both feet are well off the ground, it's shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

stevie · Post: # 1390251Post **stevie** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:44pm

Just saw vid of Richards. Sniper act. Very much like Kosi and Girasirloser tho not as nasty.

CURLY · Post: # 1390255Post **CURLY** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 4:47pm

dragit wrote:
CURLY wrote: He was in mid step when he made contact. If he jumped into him he wouldn't have got up.
Mid step?
Are you mental?
Both feet are well off the ground, it's shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

Take a photo of a bloke running see if he has both feet on the ground all the time.

dragit · Post: # 1390260Post **dragit** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 5:09pm

http://youtu.be/zzctPPkUPkk
mental

Devilhead · Post: # 1390265Post **Devilhead** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 5:19pm

CURLY wrote:

Take a photo of a bloke running see if he has both feet on the ground all the time.

Yeah because Chumpman really looks like he is in a running stride in those still pics

Sorry Curly but you are wrong with this one

Either way Chumpman deserves one week for that squeaky high pitched voice of his

saintspremiers · Mon 16 Sep 2013 8:51pm

Robbo and Whately agree with Curly!

CURLY · Post: # 1390369Post **CURLY** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 8:53pm

saintspremiers wrote:Robbo and Whately agree with Curly!

Anyone with any idea does.

dragit · Post: # 1390371Post **dragit** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 8:53pm

saintspremiers wrote:Robbo and Whately agree with Curly!

Just needs McVitamin's seal of approval to be complete.

st.byron · Post: # 1390377Post **st.byron** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 9:08pm

saint66au wrote:
CURLY wrote:
There is an agenda and thing's like this prove it. There is no way any logical person can look at Chappy and Richards incidents and suspend one and not the other. FFS if anything Richards was worse.
Only proves it in your head..you see what your agenda-filled obsession wants you to see

"Confirmation bias is the filtering of information to support an existing opinion....."

satchmo · Post: # 1390401Post **satchmo** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 9:47pm

st.byron wrote:
saint66au wrote:
CURLY wrote:
There is an agenda and thing's like this prove it. There is no way any logical person can look at Chappy and Richards incidents and suspend one and not the other. FFS if anything Richards was worse.
Only proves it in your head..you see what your agenda-filled obsession wants you to see

"Confirmation bias is the filtering of information to support an existing opinion....."

Yes, and possibly CURLY doing it too.

BakesFan · Post: # 1390433Post **BakesFan** » Mon 16 Sep 2013 10:13pm

Opposition Forum

Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.

Re: Chappy 1 week Richards cleared.