brown gets 5 and fine

Remove this Banner Ad

Ted Pellitts said:
should've been six.

i mean look at how 5 is unfair in the breakdown. it basically says the strike would only be worth 1 week to somebody with a clean record

1 week for the strike
2 weeks for record
2 weeks for grand final

it should have been at least 6

To be honest if that's the breakup then the tribunal is in a lot more strife than I thought.

He should serve an extra 2 weeks because of something he has done in the passed AND already served his time for? And another 2 for the fact that it was a Grand Final (the most important game of the year, where players are expected, by everyone except the tribunal, to not hold back).

Lastly, 1 week for the strike. If the actual strike is only worth one week then surely that should be the time he serves.

I agree with Old Dark Navy, fines should be given for wasting their time, not increased suspensions.

Lynch getting 3 weeks for a fresh air punch is equally as confusing as this. Where are all the others?

Another example is Black. Since he has a clean record, his is worth 3 and Brown's is worth 1 (according to your breakup)? Brown's was a make no disguises punch, Black's was in the middle of the action playing for the ball, not even a punch. And he got 3?

I don't think that your breakup is right, nor do I hope it is.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Homer said:
Any more there would have been problems, any less, there would have been problems.
had there been any more there only would have been problems for the team brisbane play in round 7
 
Homer said:
We've seen it already from Essendon supporters, so I reckon you are onto something.
i'm dirty that we play you in round 4 yet simon black only misses 3 games
 
Ted Pellitts said:
i'm dirty that we play you in round 4 yet simon black only misses 3 games

Black doesn't fire up in a way that he carves the opposition up when he returns... (although he hasn't been suspended, just an assumption). Be glad there is no Brown, he just loves playing your mob.
 
Dave said:
Several times? You can't be talking about Shaun then, he missed one match in 2002 and played every game since.

Peter missed two games this year after pleading guilty to kneeing, and copped two suspensions in 2003, 2 two weeks for charging and 3 weeks for a spear tackle on kerr, missed one match in 2001 for striking.

3 suspensions for 2, 2 and 3 weeks is hardly "several times" for "extensive periods". Kneeing is also something I'd describe as being far from "soft".
All of the charges Peter has been done on have been weak and petty, and two or three weeks for them is excessive. And the same goes for the one week Shaun got in '02. Players in sides like Essendon, Collingwood ( Brodie Holland anyone ? ) and Brisbane seem to get off far more lightly on much worse charges. By the way the kneeing charge this year on the Richmond player was a love tap.If you weren't so insular and biased against SA teams you might just see the facts.
 
Fullarton Power said:
All of the charges Peter has been done on have been weak and petty, and two or three weeks for them is excessive. And the same goes for the one week Shaun got in '02.

You being the bastion of objectivity and all when it comes to port.

Players in sides like Essendon, Collingwood ( Brodie Holland anyone ? ) and Brisbane seem to get off far more lightly on much worse charges.

Holland copped four weeks, hardly off lightly. Five weeks for a single striking charge for Brown. 3 for attempted striking for Lynch. 1 week for tripping by hand for the first time in ten years. Yep, they got off lightly.

By the way the kneeing charge this year on the Richmond player was a love tap.If you weren't so insular and biased against SA teams you might just see the facts.

LOL considering your own blinkers. If it was only a "love tap" why the guilty plea? 2 weeks was light.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

brown gets 5 and fine

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top