romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yep he is good.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Brian Lake
- Thread starter zhoung
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
romeoh
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2011
- 6,199
- 4,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I'd be surprised if he goes around next year. 33 and injured? You got a great return-well worth it. Good luck to you and him.
Yep, he automatically gets an extension for 2015 if he plays 15 or more games in 2014.
That can't happen now. Even before the suspension he would have needed to play all remaining games and 3 finals to get to 15.
cryptor
Brownlow Medallist
- May 11, 2008
- 25,041
- 66,043
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
As far as I'm aware the jury were free to set it at as many points as they like and would be able to know what it would end up at following carry over points and loadings. Not fussed with the difference between 3-4 weeks as we only play Melbourne and Bulldogs in weeks 3 and 4 who don't have any overly dangerous key forwards for Lake to play on anyway. I'm more fussed about the processes.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 9,443
- 15,271
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Banned
- #2,056
is there anything else you want to tell us?
I'm not talking about whether Petrie should have gone for eye-gouging. I'm talking about the "oh, Petrie wasn't struggling the way you would if someone was choking you", "he looked like he was playing dead" stuff.
- Banned
- #2,058
If I choked you in the middle of the street would you press charges?
In that sentence, I'm talking about how I think it should work. And it's the root cause of a lot of what irritates people, when two players do an identical action and one gets off lightly because luckily no damage was done, whereas another gets outed for a lengthy period because unluckily there was. The actions were identical - the intent/recklessness/negligence is what was wrong, not the result. So, I disagree it was a stupid thing to say. But you're possibly a bit too annoyed about this specific instance to want to talk about the general point at the moment.
WWSD
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2018
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2018
- Sep 7, 2009
- 24,285
- 55,000
We don't need Lake for the Dockers game.
- Banned
- #2,066
A normal man would be facing years in jail for assault which is wrong that he isn't. Sack him as compensation for not being put on some kind of remand and trial
this. Cant wait to hear 100 Mins of BOOOOOOOOOOOO
And the Walters incident.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 9,668
- 13,505
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
If you tried to claw at my eyes, choking is the last thing you should be concerned about.
- Banned
- #2,070
I wouldn't be clawing at your eyes in the first place. But you seem to come off as a choker
We heard you the first 100 times
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,861
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
The ironing is delicious.
- Sep 19, 2006
- 48,113
- 50,691
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Rotor Volgograd, The Exers
The more that one looks at it, the more one is surprised at how ineptly Lake's case was handled by Hawthorn.
Firstly everyone was assuming the monetary penalties given to Hall and Southern would continue when it was clear that most cases that went directly to the tribunal got relatively large penalties.
Secondly the press reported prior to the hearing that Hawthorn (and this was aided by various media pundits of the Hawthorn persuasion) were going to blame the victim and attempt to minimise the actions of Lake.
Thirdly , and most importantly, they pleaded not guilty when the vision itself was so damning of the choking ( regardless of what Petrie did or did not do) and then tried to blame the victim.
Fourthly, they should have been aware from the blaze of attention given to the case, that the AFL were attaching some importance to setting a benchmark.
Fifthly they knew Lake had carryover points and a loading so any penalty would have been exacerbated by the this.
Yet they chose to roll the dice.
They could have pleaded guilty, and then prepared for that verdict, including a reference to the circumstances of the case.
As it was they got 4 with the loading, they may have been able to have had it reduced to 3 or 2 with extensive carry over points, if they'd come in seeking the mercy of the tribunal.
Extraordinarily bad work by Hawthorn.
Firstly everyone was assuming the monetary penalties given to Hall and Southern would continue when it was clear that most cases that went directly to the tribunal got relatively large penalties.
Secondly the press reported prior to the hearing that Hawthorn (and this was aided by various media pundits of the Hawthorn persuasion) were going to blame the victim and attempt to minimise the actions of Lake.
Thirdly , and most importantly, they pleaded not guilty when the vision itself was so damning of the choking ( regardless of what Petrie did or did not do) and then tried to blame the victim.
Fourthly, they should have been aware from the blaze of attention given to the case, that the AFL were attaching some importance to setting a benchmark.
Fifthly they knew Lake had carryover points and a loading so any penalty would have been exacerbated by the this.
Yet they chose to roll the dice.
They could have pleaded guilty, and then prepared for that verdict, including a reference to the circumstances of the case.
As it was they got 4 with the loading, they may have been able to have had it reduced to 3 or 2 with extensive carry over points, if they'd come in seeking the mercy of the tribunal.
Extraordinarily bad work by Hawthorn.
- Status
