Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
“Collingwood forward Jack Anthony was also cleared after a clumsy bump collected Port Adelaide's Daniel Stewart in the head. The panel said Stewart dropped a mark, contributing to the high contact.â€
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
plugger66 wrote:Yes it is inconsistant but unless someone comes up with a better system we are stuck with it. Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.
i've got a fairer system.
get someone in there with integrity and fair-mindedness and a commitment to precedent and consistency. particular attention should be paid to the actual damage done.
Oh, and another thing, whats with Merrett (think it was Merrett), sliding into Roo's hamstrings with his knees after a good mark. I have little doubt thats commonplace, but it seemed Rog was aiming for the hammy's with his slides.
Wouldn't that be comparable to Bakes tapping an injured hand??? Anyone else notice this?
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
St Ick wrote:Oh, and another thing, whats with Merrett (think it was Merrett), sliding into Roo's hamstrings with his knees after a good mark. I have little doubt thats commonplace, but it seemed Rog was aiming for the hammy's with his slides.
Wouldn't that be comparable to Bakes tapping an injured hand??? Anyone else notice this?
yep, it's been commented on. wrong hamstring but a dog act all the same. completely overlooked by the mrp though.
WinnersOnly wrote:Gilberts in MRP result is another joke ! How ordinary are the AFL all he did was tackle Black with a perfect rugby technique. They want to attract league and rugby supporters to the code and then the MRP hand out out penalties like a bunch of girls...
Commented on by Healy, Hird and Sheahan "On the Couch" mention of the rugby technique and his rugby background. Hird commented he was penalised harder by the MRP than he would have been if playing Rugby. It was not a spear tackle but a good hard tackle who did not hurt the player but easily could have. Hird said what is supposed to do after he tackles a player that is what players are taught to tackle hard. This is one that should be appealed because that decision is a farce.
WinnersOnly wrote:Gilberts in MRP result is another joke ! How ordinary are the AFL all he did was tackle Black with a perfect rugby technique. They want to attract league and rugby supporters to the code and then the MRP hand out out penalties like a bunch of girls...
Commented on by Healy, Hird and Sheahan "On the Couch" mention of the rugby technique and his rugby background. Hird commented he was penalised harder by the MRP than he would have been if playing Rugby. It was not a spear tackle but a good hard tackle who did not hurt the player but easily could have. Hird said what is supposed to do after he tackles a player that is what players are taught to tackle hard. This is one that should be appealed because that decision is a farce.
All in all, it was a reasonably tame match with a bit of niggle, the fact that it turned into a page long MRP report full of (mainly) St Kilda and Brisbane players, when other more physical games this year have barely rated a mention, is more of an inditement on the MRP than anything else IMO.
See I look at Johnson being niggled and understand why he whacked Baker.
Then I look at Cloke and think 'random act of violence'.
Firstly, seeing as I thought SJ was lucky to get four instead of 6 or 7, I reckon Cloke should be laughably happy with just 2...
It's a nonsense, the MRP.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
plugger66 wrote: Do actually think the AFL want inconsistances.
Anyone with half a clue wouldn't be so stupid to ask such a question.
Of course they want it. You can't manipulate the competition by being consistent.
The fixture, the draft, the salary cap, umpiring, MRP, tribunal . . . you name it, the AFL manipulate it to suit their 'maximising revenue' agenda. Sporting integrity isn't permitted to stand in the way of the main game.
FFS they openly admit to it. Why in god's name would you ever argue otherwise?
Nor did I, but when the words rough, reckless and the like are used in the context of citing and the head is apparently sacrosanct and with a record like Buddy's by rights he should have been in real strife.
Baker was.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Nor did I, but when the words rough, reckless and the like are used in the context of citing and the head is apparently sacrosanct and with a record like Buddy's by rights he should have been in real strife.
Baker was.
Shame Bakes doesn't take regular strides down the wing to shoot at goal, like a 'good attacking' footballer, otherwise his indiscressions would probably be regularly overlooked for the good of TV ratings too.
