32 replies to this topic

[Saint]

Haha Woody. Tank I say!

[Pickles]

i reckon the saints will probably challenge 2 or 3 of the charges and might get it down to 5 or 6 weeks... Which is still over the top but sends the message to other player without being a 9 week suspension.

[Pickles]

Saints challenging 2 of the 4 charges.

[Matt_852]

 Pickles, on 29 June 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

i reckon the saints will probably challenge 2 or 3 of the charges and might get it down to 5 or 6 weeks... Which is still over the top but sends the message to other player without being a 9 week suspension.

1/2 true so far...

[Matt_852]

 Matt_852, on 29 June 2010 - 01:17 PM, said:

1/2 true so far...

Just funny watching!

[Pickles]

9 weeks stands!

[Aries]

how rubbish is that? Especially with judd getting off scott free the week prior.

absolutely no consistency

[Deliriousmouse]

Absolutly Pathetic decisions of late

Baker at 4 incidences, reality it is the umpires fault, its his job to stamp out these niggles and do something about it, just to decieve a player on whats ok and not and then end his season is absolutly bullshit and if this is true and no free's or 50's came from this i hope the umpire never calls a game again.

Secondly, Johnson for the Elbow shows no consistancy since Pavlich copped an elbow a week earlier and he got nothing.

I hate Baker and the way he goes about it, but you just cant bow to public pressure like that and change the interpritations of niggling after a game then slap on a massive ban like that

[Matt_852]

 Deliriousmouse, on 29 June 2010 - 10:45 PM, said:

Absolutly Pathetic decisions of late

Baker at 4 incidences, reality it is the umpires fault, its his job to stamp out these niggles and do something about it, just to decieve a player on whats ok and not and then end his season is absolutly bullshit and if this is true and no free's or 50's came from this i hope the umpire never calls a game again.

Secondly, Johnson for the Elbow shows no consistancy since Pavlich copped an elbow a week earlier and he got nothing.

I hate Baker and the way he goes about it, but you just cant bow to public pressure like that and change the interpritations of niggling after a game then slap on a massive ban like that

I keep hearing he should have taken on all four charges asking them to be served at the same time as they were all in one game with one player... not sure how that would go... but I would think it was worth a go...

[woody]

People are saying Judd got off because he was provoked. They seem to miss the fact that Johnson was suspended for an identical incident.

[Matt_852]

 woody, on 30 June 2010 - 03:42 PM, said:

People are saying Judd got off because he was provoked. They seem to miss the fact that Johnson was suspended for an identical incident.

I thought it was insignificant force? Or intent?

There was no questioning what Johnson was trying to do... there may have been with Judd... I wouldnt say it was idenctical at all!

[woody]

 Matt_852, on 30 June 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

I thought it was insignificant force? Or intent?

There was no questioning what Johnson was trying to do... there may have been with Judd... I wouldnt say it was idenctical at all!

That was the tribunal reasoning (which is unfathomable)

You don't mistakenly throw an elbow back like that. I think it was Luke Darcy, wrote an opinion piece about useless bullcrap, but he said in there that provocation should be a legitimate defence in tribunal hearings and should be consider by the MRP, he went on to say that he believes provocation has been cited in the handling of some cases including the Judd case. So if that is true, on precedence they should have let Johnson off, the impact was as forceful as Judds.

[Matt_852]

 woody, on 30 June 2010 - 04:34 PM, said:

the impact was as forceful as Judds.

That has got to be a joke...

Judd dropped the elbow backwards... Johnson just about fellover during the 360 he did due to the force he put into his elbow... in no way were they the same force...

[Aries]

in carlton land maybe

How much more forceful do you need to be?

I still cant get over the fact that Judd used the excuse "pressure points" that time, im surprised it was let off so lightly by the media as well. Such a poor attempt at an excuse.

[Matt_852]

 Aries, on 01 July 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

in carlton land maybe

How much more forceful do you need to be?

I still cant get over the fact that Judd used the excuse "pressure points" that time, im surprised it was let off so lightly by the media as well. Such a poor attempt at an excuse.

Not saying Judds was not forceful... after all it did split Pav open... however it was a lot less forceful than Johnsons... as I said Johnson spun around and just about fell over due to the force he put into that elbow!