Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Got a week as well. the difference was his was classed as in play. Schneiders would have been out of play so must be intentional. And lets face it, it was. I thought he would get off for not being the contact required to be reported.
MRP wrote:Adam Schneider, St Kilda, has been charged with a Level Two striking offence (125 demerit points, one-match sanction) for striking Mark Baguley, Essendon, during the second quarter of the Round Five match between St Kilda and Essendon played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday April 19, 2014.
In summary, due to his previous poor record, his one-match sanction must remain at one match, even with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Essendon Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two Offence, drawing 125 demerit points and one-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points carried over within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 218.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 164.06 demerit points and a one-match sanction.
Given what has been let go this season with force below that required to constitute a striking charge it is another disgraceful assessment by the MRP. No doubt Schneider was silly but there is no way in hell that should attract a report. It makes the Gehrig hit on Cloke years ago look like a knockout punch.
But, no doubt, our forum fool will leap to the defence of the AFL spouting about how hard done by we are as supporters and generally telling us all how to think!
And now he risks an extra week by fighting the spurious charge. Well played, MRP...Well played.
Forum fool. yep you are good LLS. Did you so to school to learn such cutting remarks. There are some people on here who just dont like being questioned at all and then get personal. Discuss the subject without getting personal if you can.
Got a week as well. the difference was his was classed as in play. Schneiders would have been out of play so must be intentional. And lets face it, it was. I thought he would get off for not being the contact required to be reported.
Cheers... Just going off the vision, I reckon it had 10 times the force of schneiders.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
plugger66 wrote:Forum fool. yep you are good LLS. Did you so to school to learn such cutting remarks. There are some people on here who just dont like being questioned at all and then get personal. Discuss the subject without getting personal if you can.
Who said I was referring to you?
I can't be held responsible if you take that upon yourself to be outraged by a comment that clearly did not refer to you.
Anyway...I call you the forum Nanna not the forum fool.
plugger66 wrote:Forum fool. yep you are good LLS. Did you so to school to learn such cutting remarks. There are some people on here who just dont like being questioned at all and then get personal. Discuss the subject without getting personal if you can.
Who said I was referring to you?
I can't be held responsible if you take that upon yourself to be outraged by a comment that clearly did not refer to you.
Anyway...I call you the forum Nanna not the forum fool.
So who was it you were referring too? It was clearly me. I thought you would have the guts to admit it was me but no you havent. Well I can guess what you were like at school then. And if you bothered to read what I wrote early in the thread I think I said the same as you.
got off last time with the carry over points cops a week for being a dill.
Comes back for a week and does that
Dill of a thing to do
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
plugger66 wrote:So who was it you were referring too? It was clearly me. I thought you would have the guts to admit it was me but no you havent. Well I can guess what you were like at school then. And if you bothered to read what I wrote early in the thread I think I said the same as you.
I am clearly not answerable to you.
And I did read what you stated earlier so you know I am not referring to you! It is however, one of the very few times you've not agreed with the MRP.
BTW, Freud, please tell me what I was like at school.
It is one of my very favourite things in the world to be told what I was like as a child by people that do not know me...It ranks right up there with Astrology! I wait with bated breath.
got off last time with the carry over points cops a week for being a dill.
Comes back for a week and does that
Dill of a thing to do
I've read the MRP booklet and I can't find a charge for stupidity or lack of courage. Can you please point me to the page that references that charge?
The force of his hit was clearly below the force to constitute a striking charge...
Judd won a Brownlow a few years back for splitting the cheek of Pavlich with an elbow strike that was below the sufficient force to constitute a striking charge.
As someone stated earlier...They don't miss us...EVER.
plugger66 wrote:So who was it you were referring too? It was clearly me. I thought you would have the guts to admit it was me but no you havent. Well I can guess what you were like at school then. And if you bothered to read what I wrote early in the thread I think I said the same as you.
I am clearly not answerable to you.
And I did read what you stated earlier so you know I am not referring to you! It is however, one of the very few times you've not agreed with the MRP.
BTW, Freud, please tell me what I was like at school.
It is one of my very favourite things in the world to be told what I was like as a child by people that do not know me...It ranks right up there with Astrology! I wait with bated breath.
You really arent showing a lot of courage. Who else have you ever decribed similar to that? I can only think of one and its me. How about a name then. That will close the case and I will say sorry otherwise i know it was me. Im 100% sure.
And I said I could guess what you were like at school. I didnt say I know what you were like. I have you pictured as a person who say something to or about someone and then deny it was them you were talking about. I could be proven completely wrong if you come up with a name for the forum fool.
plugger66 wrote:You really arent showing a lot of courage. Who else have you ever decribed similar to that? I can only think of one and its me. How about a name then. That will close the case and I will say sorry otherwise i know it was me. Im 100% sure.
And I said I could guess what you were like at school. I didnt say I know what you were like. I have you pictured as a person who say something to or about someone and then deny it was them you were talking about. I could be proven completely wrong if you come up with a name for the forum fool.
Love how you pigeon-hole me...Wonderfully judgemental of you.
If I was to name the forum fool, I would then receive a warning from the forum Nazis. Because calling someone a fool by name is abusive behaviour (I've been told). So it's not worth the effort, really.
I have called you worse, directly in response to a post in another thread...Not sure how that fits with your classification of my childhood antics.
But you go on judging me, Nanna.
plugger66 wrote:You really arent showing a lot of courage. Who else have you ever decribed similar to that? I can only think of one and its me. How about a name then. That will close the case and I will say sorry otherwise i know it was me. Im 100% sure.
And I said I could guess what you were like at school. I didnt say I know what you were like. I have you pictured as a person who say something to or about someone and then deny it was them you were talking about. I could be proven completely wrong if you come up with a name for the forum fool.
Love how you pigeon-hole me...Wonderfully judgemental of you.
If I was to name the forum fool, I would then receive a warning from the forum Nazis. Because calling someone a fool by name is abusive behaviour (I've been told). So it's not worth the effort, really.
I have called you worse, directly in response to a post in another thread...Not sure how that fits with your classification of my childhood antics.
But you go on judging me, Nanna.
Using nanna now to get out of it. If you said a name on the next post without using forum fool Im sure there would be no warning. And yes I am judgemental after the last few posts because I cant think of anyone even slightly similar to what you described. You stick with what you are saying and I will stick with what I am thinking. Everyone is different. Some people use names if they dont rate them or their thinking.
Seriously do some of you even watch the results from the MRP and how they calculate points, for a start watch Gerard W on 360 he talks through how it all works. From the moment that happened it was always going to be one week.
Now it may be soft and it may be not right but it there in black and white and simply Schneider was a fool.
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
terry smith rules wrote:Seriously do some of you even watch the results from the MRP and how they calculate points, for a start watch Gerard W on 360 he talks through how it all works. From the moment that happened it was always going to be one week.
Now it may be soft and it may be not right but it there in black and white and simply Schneider was a fool.
Ok then. Please explain Glass. Points must have been calculated by a monkey. Not sure it's always as black and white as you think. Chris Judd can thank the same mokey for winning his second brownlow.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
terry smith rules wrote:Seriously do some of you even watch the results from the MRP and how they calculate points, for a start watch Gerard W on 360 he talks through how it all works. From the moment that happened it was always going to be one week.
Now it may be soft and it may be not right but it there in black and white and simply Schneider was a fool.
Ok then. Please explain Glass. Points must have been calculated by a monkey. Not sure it's always as black and white as you think. Chris Judd can thank the same mokey for winning his second brownlow.
The Glass one could be wrong, that is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is players know what is what and therefore he is stupid for the action. And I am not sure what the Judd brownlow has got to do with any of this (did you have money on the loser?)
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
terry smith rules wrote:Seriously do some of you even watch the results from the MRP and how they calculate points, for a start watch Gerard W on 360 he talks through how it all works. From the moment that happened it was always going to be one week.
Now it may be soft and it may be not right but it there in black and white and simply Schneider was a fool.
Ok then. Please explain Glass. Points must have been calculated by a monkey. Not sure it's always as black and white as you think. Chris Judd can thank the same mokey for winning his second brownlow.
The Glass one could be wrong, that is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is players know what is what and therefore he is stupid for the action. And I am not sure what the Judd brownlow has got to do with any of this (did you have money on the loser?)
Agree it was silly by Shneider. But it's chook lotto. Judd should never have won a second brownlow because he should have been suspended for splitting open Pavs head with his elbow. The monkey considered it insignificant force. Shneider must have hit harder obviously. Don't think so. Glass's impact was considered low yet Wingard ended up in hospital. Should have got 4 weeks.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
will be missed in a game where all will need to be really switched on...
consecutive 6 day breaks versus Bris coming in off 8 day break ........I think this will impact but hopefully we do enough to get the points in a real struggle.
