Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
was just climbing too high-
did Hawthorn influence the tribunal because they were being made to look foolish becuase he has played more in half a season with the Saints than they could give him in 5 years
-Dawson has been one of the competition's most improved players this year after his career appeared at the crossroads when he was delisted by Hawthorn at the end of 2008 having played just 14 matches in five seasons.
But he was thrown a lifeline by the Saints in the rookie draft last year and has become a crucial part of their defence this season after being promoted to the senior list, averaging over 12 possessions across 16 matches
The Tribunal is a disgrace! If an incident is worth one week when it is reviewed, what about the same incident CHANGES in order for it to be worth 2 weeks when the Tribunal reviews it..? The answer - NOTHING! The incident involving Zac did NOT change between the Review Committee and the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal system is a Kangaroo Court run by mediocre puppets without a single innovative thought between them. Pity they aren't made to improve from year to year as the people they are judging are... Zac deserved a week... not 2 for challenging fools!
SoopaSaint wrote:The Tribunal is a disgrace! If an incident is worth one week when it is reviewed, what about the same incident CHANGES in order for it to be worth 2 weeks when the Tribunal reviews it..? The answer - NOTHING! The incident involving Zac did NOT change between the Review Committee and the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal system is a Kangaroo Court run by mediocre puppets without a single innovative thought between them. Pity they aren't made to improve from year to year as the people they are judging are... Zac deserved a week... not 2 for challenging fools!
The incident was assesed by the MRP as being worth 2 weeks, and 1 week for a guilty plea. If no guilty plea, then if the challenge loses, then he gets the 2 weeks.
I am gald the club had the balls to challenge the decision. bad luck that the jury disagreed.
SoopaSaint wrote:The Tribunal is a disgrace! If an incident is worth one week when it is reviewed, what about the same incident CHANGES in order for it to be worth 2 weeks when the Tribunal reviews it..? The answer - NOTHING! The incident involving Zac did NOT change between the Review Committee and the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal system is a Kangaroo Court run by mediocre puppets without a single innovative thought between them. Pity they aren't made to improve from year to year as the people they are judging are... Zac deserved a week... not 2 for challenging fools!
The MRP deemed it was worth 2 weeks - 225 points - but you get a 25% reduction in the points if you plead guilty so this reduces to 168.75 points or one week. There was no change in the penalty - however there is always the chance that the penalty would be altered both up and down - if you appeal the decision you open it up to full review. A bit like taking the deal from before going to court or facing a ry of your peers.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
Take your point... but the question then is... IF it is worth 2 weeks - GIVE 2 weeks! Why should you get a week's credit just for agreeing with the MRP? Yes... idiots including the former Saints players who participate.
However I also agree - I too am glad we challenged the matter!
Stand for something... or fall for nothing!
