MRP Results

plugger66 · Post: # 956258Post **plugger66** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:33pm

35...LEGEND wrote:closer to a strike than a tackle.

Don't see many tackles like that one.

Well it must be Franklin getting looked after again. Hang on he has been suspended 3 times in less than a year. Looked like a poor tackle to me.

35...LEGEND · Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:36pm

ha ha ha ............he was very lucky.

Poor attempt to knock your opponents head off IMO.

rodgerfox · Post: # 956263Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:40pm

plugger66 wrote:
Didnt look like a stike to me. It looked like a tackle around the neck.

You can get weeks for a reckless tackle too you know.

plugger66 · Post: # 956264Post **plugger66** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:42pm

rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Didnt look like a stike to me. It looked like a tackle around the neck.
You can get weeks for a reckless tackle too you know.

You can. You can also get a free against you and that is all. In this case that is all or are you one of these conspirancy people all of a sudden.

35...LEGEND · Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:43pm

I think the Bakes thing is still burning a bit......

Just think that with a record like Buddies , he was extremely lucky.

35...LEGEND · Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:45pm

plugger66 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Didnt look like a stike to me. It looked like a tackle around the neck.
You can get weeks for a reckless tackle too you know.
You can. You can also get a free against you and that is all. In this case that is all or are you one of these conspirancy people all of a sudden.

If only those useless Ump's had paid the free's early against bakes...................MUPPETS

plugger66 · Post: # 956268Post **plugger66** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:45pm

35...LEGEND wrote:I think the Bakes thing is still burning a bit......

Just think that with a record like Buddies , he was extremely lucky.

His record has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not guilty.

saint66au · Post: # 956269Post **saint66au** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:46pm

Face wrote:
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?

Just curious..can you name or quote any time when the AFL have "openly admitted" ( your words) to manipulating any of your list except the fixture and perhgaps the salary cap to maximise revenue

Umpiring? MRP? Tribunal?? Cant recall any statements from the AFL openly admititng to manipulating them in the name of maximising revenue

The AFL is far from perfect but far fetched stuff like this doesnt do the argument any good IMO

stinger · Post: # 956270Post **stinger** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:46pm

i wonder if uncle peter declared his conflict of interest when cloke was only given two weeks for a mongrel act off the ball.....

saintbrat · Post: # 956272Post **saintbrat** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:48pm

softest weekend by MRP- according to Humphrey-S

extremely lucky players from the weekend and " the saints must be shaking their heads"

that;s two weeks from three that HUmper has supported the saints.

rodgerfox · Post: # 956273Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:51pm

plugger66 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
You can get weeks for a reckless tackle too you know.
You can. You can also get a free against you and that is all. In this case that is all or are you one of these conspirancy people all of a sudden.

I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy in this instance - just plain old imcompetence.

As usual.

plugger66 · Post: # 956274Post **plugger66** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:54pm

rodgerfox wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
You can get weeks for a reckless tackle too you know.
You can. You can also get a free against you and that is all. In this case that is all or are you one of these conspirancy people all of a sudden.
I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy in this instance - just plain old imcompetence.

As usual.

You say incompetance I say correct so lets call the whole thing off.

35...LEGEND · Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:56pm

plugger66 wrote:
35...LEGEND wrote:I think the Bakes thing is still burning a bit......

Just think that with a record like Buddies , he was extremely lucky.
His record has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not guilty.

oops,record only applies to Baker cases...........apologies.

rodgerfox · Post: # 956276Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 7:56pm

plugger66 wrote:
You say incompetance I say correct so lets call the whole thing off.

Deal.

SainterK · Post: # 956295Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 8:28pm

rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Thinline wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:Why did Franklin get off?
Because he was unlucky in the past?

I honestly don't know.

Farcical.
I didn't actually have a problem with this one.
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you have a problem with it.

It's whether or not it was a reportable offence - which according to the laws of the game, it was.

Most of us wouldn't want to see players rubbed out for something like that though would we?

rodgerfox · Post: # 956297Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 8:33pm

SainterK wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Thinline wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:Why did Franklin get off?
Because he was unlucky in the past?

I honestly don't know.

Farcical.
I didn't actually have a problem with this one.
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you have a problem with it.

It's whether or not it was a reportable offence - which according to the laws of the game, it was.
Most of us wouldn't want to see players rubbed out for something like that though would we?

Again, what we want is just not relevant.

There are rules. Decisions shouldn't be made based on public opinion.

SainterK · Post: # 956301Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 8:36pm

rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Thinline wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:Why did Franklin get off?
Because he was unlucky in the past?

I honestly don't know.

Farcical.
I didn't actually have a problem with this one.
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you have a problem with it.

It's whether or not it was a reportable offence - which according to the laws of the game, it was.
Most of us wouldn't want to see players rubbed out for something like that though would we?
Again, what we want is just not relevant.

There are rules. Decisions shouldn't be made based on public opinion.

According to the letter of the law, Gilbert is lucky to playing this week then, if you want to argue that Franklins attempt at tackling was reckless?

rodgerfox · Post: # 956303Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 8:38pm

SainterK wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
SainterK wrote:
Thinline wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:Why did Franklin get off?
Because he was unlucky in the past?

I honestly don't know.

Farcical.
I didn't actually have a problem with this one.
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether or not you have a problem with it.

It's whether or not it was a reportable offence - which according to the laws of the game, it was.
Most of us wouldn't want to see players rubbed out for something like that though would we?
Again, what we want is just not relevant.

There are rules. Decisions shouldn't be made based on public opinion.
According to the letter of the law, Gilbert is lucky to playing this week then, if you want to argue that Franklins attempt at tackling was reckless?

That may be the case.

Although there was no contact above the shoulders with Gilbert, so I'm not sure what he would have gone for.

Not sure why that's relevant anyway?

SainterK · Post: # 956306Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 8:42pm

It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency

degruch · Post: # 956314Post **degruch** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:11pm

SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency

Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.

Sainterman · Post: # 956317Post **Sainterman** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:16pm

degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency
Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.

Be interesting to see how happy you might be if those carry over points make an impact in finals.

degruch · Post: # 956318Post **degruch** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:18pm

Sainterman wrote:
degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency
Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.
Be interesting to see how happy you might be if those carry over points make an impact in finals.

Exactly.

SainterK · Post: # 956327Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:41pm

degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency
Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.

Oh I should have been clearer, I meant Blakes tripping in comparison to Fletchers, and Gilberts tackle in relation to Mumfords.

degruch · Post: # 956333Post **degruch** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:47pm

SainterK wrote:
degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency
Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.
Oh I should have been clearer, I meant Blakes tripping in comparison to Fletchers, and Gilberts tackle in relation to Mumfords.

I getchya. Mind you, both of those incidents were raised in the press and discussed at length for their harshness...so in reality, Blake getting a reprimand is the norm. Non-St Kilda extreme suspensions...very unusual!

SainterK · Post: # 956334Post **SainterK** » Tue 13 Jul 2010 9:49pm

degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:
degruch wrote:
SainterK wrote:It's relevant, because if I was to be entirely honest, our club seemed to be lucky for once, and I'm happy to shut my eyes to the glaring inconsistency
Gilbert got pinged, Buddy didn't...not sure what there is to be happy about in that series of inconsistencies.
Oh I should have been clearer, I meant Blakes tripping in comparison to Fletchers, and Gilberts tackle in relation to Mumfords.

I getchya. Mind you, both of those incidents were raised in the press and discussed at length for their harshness...so in reality, Blake getting a reprimand is the norm. Non-St Kilda extreme suspensions...very unusual![/quote]

Exactly