collingwood/thomas to contest

[Solar]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

[plugger66]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

[Thinline]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

You don't think it's a little disingenuous to contest a situation where player A clearly smacks a bloke in the mouche?

I understand why they contest, but I also get Solar's point.

[Solar]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

Because they have a sense of whats right, similar to the stance Lyon, the club and Baker did last last year by not taking it further.

The guy belted a guy, if that was in a pub jones would have a right to have him charged with assualt. Fist to the jaw, drawing blood and perhap concussion. Yet some how this is LOW IMPACT.

Don't bother replying because I can already guess your pathetic AFL endorsed response

[plugger66]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

You don't think it's a little disingenuous to contest a situation where player A clearly smacks a bloke in the mouche?

I understand why they contest, but I also get Solar's point.

Why not contest for 30 extra points. I am sure we have done it before and id be sure every other club has as well. If we had a player in a similar position I reckon most people here would whinge if we didnt have a go.

[Thinline]

But unless I'm wrong it doesn't matter what he does next as anything is pretty much going to topple him into 'week off' territory.

Feel free to correct me, I'm working from memory here and kind of thinking out aloud, but if he wins he gets 130 if he loses he gets 170.

Pretty much farting in an elevator gets you 70 plus doesn't it?

[Mr Magic]

Isn't it just symptomatic of the Collingwood mindset.

They'll do anything as long as they can see a benefit/advantage, no matter how small.

I view it similarly to the plan to send 4 players to Arizona.
It might give them a 1% benefit but they've got the money to do it, so why not.

Good luck to them.
Unless they unfairly denigrate Jones in the process.

[Eastern]

Isn't it just symptomatic of the Collingwood mindset.

They'll do anything as long as they can see a benefit/advantage, no matter how small.

I view it similarly to the plan to send 4 players to Arizona.
It might give them a 1% benefit but they've got the money to do it, so why not.

Good luck to them.
Unless they unfairly denigrate Jones in the process.

They can't and they won't. To do that would reduce their arguement to ZERO !!

[dragit]

I would barrack for al qaeda over collingwood, no doubt about it, they make me feel like Michael Douglas in 'falling down'

[plugger66]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

Because they have a sense of whats right, similar to the stance Lyon, the club and Baker did last last year by not taking it further.

The guy belted a guy, if that was in a pub jones would have a right to have him charged with assualt. Fist to the jaw, drawing blood and perhap concussion. Yet some how this is LOW IMPACT.

Don't bother replying because I can already guess your pathetic AFL endorsed response

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

[SaintPav]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

You don't think it's a little disingenuous to contest a situation where player A clearly smacks a bloke in the mouche?

I understand why they contest, but I also get Solar's point.

Why not contest for 30 extra points. I am sure we have done it before and id be sure every other club has as well. If we had a player in a similar position I reckon most people here would whinge if we didnt have a go.

A bloke at work reckons that he should have got at least 6 weeks for that hit. Can't believe he's appealing.

[dragit]

where can you go to see videos of MRP incidents? bratty?

[SaintPav]

where can you go to see videos of MRP incidents? bratty?

I think we should make a stand and not provide video evidence. It would teach Eddy a lesson as well.

[dragit]

i thought defendants couldn't use their own video evidence anyway?
i meant for me, i want to have a look at this one and the ablett one…

[Johnny Member]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

[saintspremiers]

So the only thing he can lose is an extra 30 odd points....

oh and his integrity

The collingwood football club is a disgrace. How dare they contest a charge that was lower then should have been given. how that was low impact is a disgrace but to suggest it was not intentional is giving a big middle finger to the whole game in general.

So over this whole comp right now.

Tell me you are joking. Why wouldnt they contest the charge and if we didnt we would be a pathetic footy club.

You don't think it's a little disingenuous to contest a situation where player A clearly smacks a bloke in the mouche?

I understand why they contest, but I also get Solar's point.

Why not contest for 30 extra points. I am sure we have done it before and id be sure every other club has as well. If we had a player in a similar position I reckon most people here would whinge if we didnt have a go.

A bloke at work reckons that he should have got at least 6 weeks for that hit. Can't believe he's appealing.

He's not appealing - yet - just taking it to the tribunal.

No doubt Collingwood will take it to appeal if they fail in their pathetic attempt to downgrade the charge though!

[plugger66]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

Yep the AFL have got everything wrong. That makes so much sense. He got 2 weeks and from where I sit I reckon that is right. Apart from some Saints supporters no media has said he didnt get what he deserved but I suppose the media are scared of the pies because that makes as much sense as the AFL not getting anything right apart from having the most successful competition in Australia.

[saintspremiers]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

Yep the AFL have got everything wrong. That makes so much sense. He got 2 weeks and from where I sit I reckon that is right. Apart from some Saints supporters no media has said he didnt get what he deserved but I suppose the media are scared of the pies because that makes as much sense as the AFL not getting anything right apart from having the most successful competition in Australia.

Cheers Andy.

Now that the TV rights are done and dusted, are you getting those new gold teeth you were after?

[Eastern]

Steady Folks,

This is NOT a StKilda issue. It's between Collingwood and the AFL/AFL system. I think, what would CJ say if it was under the old system? I'd think he would say there was nothing in it (whether there was or not) and that is why we have the current system. NO, it's not perfect but is more transparent than the old subjective system !!

[Johnny Member]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

Yep the AFL have got everything wrong. That makes so much sense. He got 2 weeks and from where I sit I reckon that is right. Apart from some Saints supporters no media has said he didnt get what he deserved but I suppose the media are scared of the pies because that makes as much sense as the AFL not getting anything right apart from having the most successful competition in Australia.

I don't think you read what I wrote man.

In this instance, the MRP probably got it right under the AFL's system.

But as I said above, how on earth this system can grade what Thomas did as equal to some of the other stuff we've seen if just a joke.


Jumper clashes - can't get it right.
MRP - can't get it right.
Rule changes - can't get it right.
Umpiring - can't get it right.
The Draw - can't get it right.
Fixturing - can't get it right.
The conditions of the grounds - can't get it right.
Relocating clubs - can't get it right.
Drugs in the game - can't get it right.
Sexism in the game - can't it right.
Relationship with the clubs - can't get it right.


The list just goes on, and on, and on.


The AFL has been the 'most successful competition in the country' for as long as I've existed. These stooges running it now can't claim credit for that.

I can't for the life of me, see one single thing the commission has done really, really well and fixed that was broken when they took over.


People accept these f*** ups because they've love the sport. They have no choice. The club they grew up with plays in the AFL, so there is no option but to grit your teeth and accept the farcical decisions these people make.

[SaintPav]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

Yep the AFL have got everything wrong. That makes so much sense. He got 2 weeks and from where I sit I reckon that is right. Apart from some Saints supporters no media has said he didnt get what he deserved but I suppose the media are scared of the pies because that makes as much sense as the AFL not getting anything right apart from having the most successful competition in Australia.

The bloke at work is a Richmond supporter. He's dad used to umpire in the EDFL in the 80s.

[plugger66]

Do you realise the MRP ask the saints for a medical report? Obviously you have seen it to suggest he may have had concussion. He got a cut lip so to me it is low impact. Any club would and should challenge if you cant get a further increase in penalities. It would be a disgrace to the player and the supporters if they didnt. But have your whinge. Hope it makes you feel better to be more angry.

See, this is what I find so weird and frustrating about the AFL.

We're told the head is sacrosanct. You can't even look at a bloke's head without getting pinged for it.

Yet a blatant, malicious punch to the face of an unsuspecting player behind the play to the head - is deemed 'low impact' even though he was forced from the ground due to it.

It is considered the same, in terms of the 'crime', as the slap to the stomach that Fraser Gehrig gave Cloke a few years ago.


The AFL just can't get anything right.

Yep the AFL have got everything wrong. That makes so much sense. He got 2 weeks and from where I sit I reckon that is right. Apart from some Saints supporters no media has said he didnt get what he deserved but I suppose the media are scared of the pies because that makes as much sense as the AFL not getting anything right apart from having the most successful competition in Australia.

The bloke at work is a Richmond supporter. He's dad used to umpire in the EDFL in the 80s.

Well there is one.

[saintspremiers]

Steady Folks,

This is NOT a StKilda issue. It's between Collingwood and the AFL/AFL system. I think, what would CJ say if it was under the old system? I'd think he would say there was nothing in it (whether there was or not) and that is why we have the current system. NO, it's not perfect but is more transparent than the old subjective system !!

rubbish.

So you don't think this system is subjective?

Well, please explain all the inconsistencies.

Explain Baker's treatment.

It's friggin corrupt as all hell.

And WHY is this not a St Kilda issue, when Daisy SMASHED a Saints player?

If it gets downgraded, it's an insult to our medicos and an insult to our club.

[plugger66]

Steady Folks,

This is NOT a StKilda issue. It's between Collingwood and the AFL/AFL system. I think, what would CJ say if it was under the old system? I'd think he would say there was nothing in it (whether there was or not) and that is why we have the current system. NO, it's not perfect but is more transparent than the old subjective system !!

rubbish.

So you don't think this system is subjective?

Well, please explain all the inconsistencies.

Explain Baker's treatment.

It's friggin corrupt as all hell.

And WHY is this not a St Kilda issue, when Daisy SMASHED a Saints player?

If it gets downgraded, it's an insult to our medicos and an insult to our club.

Can you explain how it is an insult to our medicos and the club? Love to read it. Eastern is exactly right thought, CJ would have said he didnt feel a thing under the old system. Both systems make mistakes but at least we dont have to hear crap coming from the injured player under this one.

[gringo]

The old system was blatantly inconsistent but at least it gave some flexibility to the charges. The current system is about saving time and in the process money. It hasn't stopped the strange anomalies, just gets the whole thing done quicker. It is still a lottery as to what you will get when the MRP charges you. It is like mandatory sentencing, good in theory because it saves money but doesn't allow justice to be served in the appropriate way to fit the crime.