MRP and Mooney got off

saintbrat · Post: # 548334Post **saintbrat** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 5:48pm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

FIVE players have been offered one-match bans while Swans forward Barry Hall will face the tribunal after the match review panel reviewed the weekendÃ‚Â¿s games Magpie Nick Maxwell, Catsâ€™ pair Ryan Gamble and Cameron Mooney, Demon Brad Miller plus Freoâ€™s Steven Dodd all face missing their teamâ€™s next game.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

saintsRrising · Mon 14 Apr 2008 5:52pm

Why????...why not just wait for someone who has something to post...posts it.

If we all put up....Post Here for news on various issues the Board will be clogged...and useless.

Otiman · Post: # 548351Post **Otiman** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:05pm

So we don't have 3-4 people posting up threads on it when the information actually is released.

saintsRrising · Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:24pm

Otiman wrote:So we don't have 3-4 people posting up threads on it when the information actually is released.

Later threads should just be closed.

saintbrat · Post: # 548383Post **saintbrat** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:38pm

Hall straight to Tribunal
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Mooney 1 week no reduction- tripping Montagne
Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

West no case to answer ( on X)

Saintschampions08 · Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:45pm

saintbrat wrote:Hall straight to Tribunal
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Mooney 1 week no reduction- tripping Montagne
Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

West no case to answer ( on X)

Very fair results i think. Surprised Mooney didn't get a reprimand...but fair.

plugger66 · Post: # 548391Post **plugger66** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:46pm

Saintschampions08 wrote:
saintbrat wrote:Hall straight to Tribunal
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Mooney 1 week no reduction- tripping Montagne
Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

West no case to answer ( on X)
Very fair results i think. Surprised Mooney didn't get a reprimand...but fair.

Sounds about right to me as well.

Mr Magic · Post: # 548395Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:50pm

saintbrat wrote: Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

Baker got 2 weeks for 'attempted jumper punch' on Stafford and now they give Gamble 1 week for a full on 'sniper punch' on Dal after the ball had left teh area.

West no case to answer ( on X)

Well I give up trying to fathom the MRP and this.
They deemed it in play and therefore acceptable!

If as some would suggest there is no conspiracy against/for some teams and/or players then these decisions would seem to confirm that the MRP, at least, are a totally incompetent panel.

OneEyedSainter77 · Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:52pm

meh.

I don't even care anymore. Football is just a formailty now.

Meh

Eastern · Post: # 548401Post **Eastern** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:55pm

Mr Magic wrote:
saintbrat wrote: Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

Baker got 2 weeks for 'attempted jumper punch' on Stafford and now they give Gamble 1 week for a full on 'sniper punch' on Dal after the ball had left teh area.

West no case to answer ( on X)
Well I give up trying to fathom the MRP and this.
They deemed it in play and therefore acceptable!

If as some would suggest there is no conspiracy against/for some teams and/or players then these decisions would seem to confirm that the MRP, at least, are a totally incompetent panel.

Let's learn from this. It was deemed legal. It reduced the impact of a very good player to zero. This then created a massive advantage to Geelong as we were 1 down on our rotations. I would have loved to have seen one of our big bodied players do the same to Ablett or Bartel or Chapman or .........

Geezus we miss Hamill !!

plugger66 · Post: # 548402Post **plugger66** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:56pm

Mr Magic wrote:
saintbrat wrote: Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

Baker got 2 weeks for 'attempted jumper punch' on Stafford and now they give Gamble 1 week for a full on 'sniper punch' on Dal after the ball had left teh area.

West no case to answer ( on X)
Well I give up trying to fathom the MRP and this.
They deemed it in play and therefore acceptable!

If as some would suggest there is no conspiracy against/for some teams and/or players then these decisions would seem to confirm that the MRP, at least, are a totally incompetent panel.

Yes looks as if the AFL want the cats to win to flags in a row. I thought they only hepled the interstate clubs or the pies.

Mr Magic · Post: # 548406Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:00pm

plugger66 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
saintbrat wrote: Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

Baker got 2 weeks for 'attempted jumper punch' on Stafford and now they give Gamble 1 week for a full on 'sniper punch' on Dal after the ball had left teh area.

West no case to answer ( on X)
Well I give up trying to fathom the MRP and this.
They deemed it in play and therefore acceptable!

If as some would suggest there is no conspiracy against/for some teams and/or players then these decisions would seem to confirm that the MRP, at least, are a totally incompetent panel.
Yes looks as if the AFL want the cats to win to flags in a row. I thought they only hepled the interstate clubs or the pies.

You may be on to something - maybe they consider the Cats an 'interstate Club' as they are not based in Melbourne?

Solar · Post: # 548409Post **Solar** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:02pm

Eastern wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
saintbrat wrote: Gamble 1 week Hit on Dal

Baker got 2 weeks for 'attempted jumper punch' on Stafford and now they give Gamble 1 week for a full on 'sniper punch' on Dal after the ball had left teh area.

West no case to answer ( on X)
Well I give up trying to fathom the MRP and this.
They deemed it in play and therefore acceptable!

If as some would suggest there is no conspiracy against/for some teams and/or players then these decisions would seem to confirm that the MRP, at least, are a totally incompetent panel.

Let's learn from this. It was deemed legal. It reduced the impact of a very good player to zero. This then created a massive advantage to Geelong as we were 1 down on our rotations. I would have loved to have seen one of our big bodied players do the same to Ablett or Bartel or Chapman or .........

Geezus we miss Hamill !![/quotereally good point, I notice that the cats attack on mass and are very physical. If we ever want to beat them we need to learn to do this again.

remboy · Post: # 548412Post **remboy** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:09pm

Isn't what West did to X much the same as what Baker did to Farmer? Blocking, shepherding - call it what you want. Nobody else gets even 1 week for it. Bakes effectively got seven weeks because of an absence of video evidence.

my les foote · Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:19pm

Gamble and Mooneyâ€™s teammate Trent West is in the clear for his hard bump on Xavier Clarke. The panel decided that the contact was not unnecessary in the circumstances as:
1. The bulk of the contact was to Clarke's body.
2. West did not use his elbow as part of the contact.
3. West did not leave the ground during his action.
4. West did not run a great distance to make contact.

Baker on Farmer
Point 1. Who knows where the bulk of the contact was. Farmer's injury could have come from hitting the ground or worst case he ran into Baker's back.
Point 2. Baker did not use his elbow
Point 3. Baker did not leave the ground
Point 4. Baker stopped and Farmer ran into him

West lined him up, off the ball and took him out. The injuries were unfortunate and probably not his intention but they did cause him to be carried off on a stretcher.

Baker stopped and let Farmer run into him

West no case to answer.
Baker 325 demerit points.

Mr Magic · Post: # 548422Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:23pm

So effectively the MRP have thrown the 'Harvey Rule' out?

Under the reasoning they have given for West/X, Hocking would not have had a case to answer.

saintspremiers · Mon 14 Apr 2008 8:51pm

re the X incident, yes we miss Hamill, but he's finished.

We also now miss Goo who we got rid of.....whilst nowhere near as good as Sammy, at least he has some hardness unlike most of the pansies in our current side.

Iceman234 · Post: # 548528Post **Iceman234** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 8:54pm

Very fair results by the MRP so far.

saintbrat · Post: # 549060Post **saintbrat** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 4:38pm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html\
FREMANTLE'S Steven Dodd and Cat Cameron Mooney will join Barry Hall at the tribunal this evening after deciding to challenge their charges. Hall will appear via video hook-up from Sydney, after the Swans' doctors advised him against flying following his wrist surgery yesterday.

Dodd and Mooney both face tripping charges, and both will be suspended for one match if found guilty

Dan Warna · Post: # 549071Post **Dan Warna** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 4:54pm

concur on baker, its inconsistent.

either both are off or both are guilty.

stupid stupid tribunal.

at the time I didn't see how intentionally propping and letting someone run into you was a crime in football.

but I guess geelong used the 1 free hit rule on xav

saintbrat · Post: # 549162Post **saintbrat** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:00pm

Dodd - free to play

Mooney after Hall.

Rooy_coin · Post: # 549182Post **Rooy_coin** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:37pm

i hope hall is out for 6-8 weeks

saintbrat · Post: # 549186Post **saintbrat** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:40pm

barry got -7 weeks and 90 points to carry over

ace · Post: # 549194Post **ace** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:44pm

It was only a left hook and I wasn't even looking.
Would you like to see my right upper cut before or after this hearing.

Grimfang · Post: # 549218Post **Grimfang** » Tue 15 Apr 2008 8:52pm

My wife took one look at the fixture when it was announced Hall was going to the tribunal. She said he'll get seven weeks. When I asked her why she thought it would be seven she said, "Because he'll be back in time to play against us."

I thought she was joking.......