Well I trust the current footy administration and if they said it was a case they couldnt win then they made a good choice. Why risk 2 extra weeks to probably get one less. Not great punting odds.Teflon wrote:This post defies sense and logic.saint75 wrote:Not true. We have fought, the Baker case is a prime example. We had to let this go. Short term pain for long term gain.Teflon wrote:well SEN would know they were the first to hang him.Go Sainters Go wrote:SEN have just announced King is accepting 4 match penalty!!!
That aside....I do wonder when St Kilda will stand up.
Sure silly mistake from King but the intent to concuss the bloke has to be a mitigating factor no matter how far off the ball IF it could be argued the head high contact was a clash of heads.
Yes I know if King hadnt run at him it would never happen - but shepherds off the ball happen weekly in AFL.
Ironically the penalty or "AFL sanctioned risk" of an appeal was a hiding to nothing - they were daring us to appeal....not really after a true hearing....which Im not sure is the fairest judicial process you can have...
Once again the St Kilda test case is in action.
The AFL rules with an iron fist. It might make our supporters feel vindicated and better about the situation if they had fought it, but it would not have been worth the publicity or the long term pain to fight the decision. Be realistic, to come up against the AFL would have proved of NO BENEFIT and caused us greater pain in the long term. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity IMO.
Cause the AFL run the comp we have to bend over frontways on every decision?
Imagine IF Essendon/Ryder had taken that "logical" approach???
You seriously call that bungled mess of Bakers "saints standing up" - Id hate to to see us really try.
Its ok if you are comfortable as an apologist. Accepting of every piece of cr@p the AFL throw our way- Im not.
Im not stupid enough to believe we have an even handed administration in this competition that treats all teams the same - we dont.
For you to believe otherwise is naive at best and dumb otherwise.
OFFICIAL: King Offered 4 matches with early plea
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
sunsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
... you speak with great authority.plugger66 wrote:
Well I trust the current footy administration and if they said it was a case they couldnt win then they made a good choice. Why risk 2 extra weeks to probably get one less. Not great punting odds.
You are telling us that the decision not to appeal was the Boards'?
Seeya
*************
*************
I wouldnt have a clue. I would think it has nothing to do with the board myself. I'd be pretty sure it would be the footy department as it was only going to the tribunal if they didnt agree with decision. If it had gone to appeal then maybe the board would get involved but not for the tribunal IMO.sunsaint wrote:... you speak with great authority.plugger66 wrote:
Well I trust the current footy administration and if they said it was a case they couldnt win then they made a good choice. Why risk 2 extra weeks to probably get one less. Not great punting odds.
You are telling us that the decision not to appeal was the Boards'?