brown gets 5 and fine

[bangers]

this would have been fair if brown hadnt been at the tribunal so much but as a frequent offender the panalty should have been harsher.
what do people think?

 

[Bartl.]

Brown has to learn, facing the tribunal five times in one season is ridiclous, lucky to play in the finals after getting off on a technicality, in the rough play incident against Blake

The $3000 fine for wrestling is going to leave another hole in his pocket

I believe 5 weeks was okay, but could have easerily been harsher, especially after his record, missing eight matches this season through suspension. Brown just needs to learn! People are becoming more annoyed none more than Matthews

 

[feher]

Brown has to learn, facing the tribunal five times in one season is ridiclous, lucky to play in the finals after getting off on a technicality, in the rough play incident against Blake

it doesn't matter how many times he goes up, its all about how many times he gets suspended, out of those 5 how many times did he cop at least 1 week?

 

[hatter]

Despite the fact I am Lions, I reckon he was pretty lucky to be honest. I was thinking he would get at least 6, and maybe 8 given his record and the fact he made decent contact.

Still, I'll take 5 and be happy.

 

[Giuseepe]

I want to know what actually has happend not people speculating what might happen. The title of the thread made it look like a news item. It wasn't and I am disapointed so I wish people would stop starting these speculating threads that we have already heard before.

 

[Karbassiyoon]

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

 

[chris p79]

I don't understand how Lynch can get 10 and Brown only half of that. Then again, this is the tribunal we're talking about isn't it?

 

[feher]

I want to know what actually has happend not people speculating what might happen. The title of the thread made it look like a news item. It wasn't and I am disapointed so I wish people would stop starting these speculating threads that we have already heard before.

its true he has got 5

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=173974

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

That is your breakdown though isn't it? Does the AFL say anywhere that a grand final is worth 2 and a bad record is worth 2 before they even consider the actual infringement?

Does the crime, does the time and I think that you should get done only for the infringement and fined for wasting the tribunals time constantly.

 

[Moo://_Cow]

Should have got 4, it was soft.

 

[konstas_87]

Despite the fact I am Lions, I reckon he was pretty lucky to be honest. I was thinking he would get at least 6, and maybe 8 given his record and the fact he made decent contact.

Still, I'll take 5 and be happy.

he didnt really make decent contact, carr didnt even fall over.
but i agree, from what ppl were saying he's pretty lucky to get 5.

 

[bOmBeR_BoY1]

Ahh yes, very convenient indeed!

 

[bucksfan1987]

Should have been more than five, should have been ten! if a player continually gets put before the tribunal he must learn the hard way and that might stop him from re-offending.

 

[MOJOE]

Back for the Essendon game - thanks AFL & 'independent' tribunal!!!

 

[SydneyBomber]

Back for the Essendon game - thanks AFL & 'independent' tribunal!!!

excellent.

 

[Fullarton Power]

Weak as pi$$. Had it been Pickett, or Burgoyne.. you could have doubled it and then some. This bloke's a protected species like that little **** from Essendon.

 

[Ricketts]

.

Bartel?!?!?!

 

[feher]

Weak as pi$$. Had it been Pickett, or Burgoyne..

when was the last time either of those two get 10 weeks again? when was the last time either got 5?

 

[Fullarton Power]

when was the last time either of those two get 10 weeks again? when was the last time either got 5?

Inconsequential. Burgoyne has been rubbed out for extensive periods on very soft charges before, several times.

 

[BomberGal]

Back for the Essendon game - thanks AFL & 'independent' tribunal!!!

That's alright, will be more satisfying when we beat them. Hope we smash the ****er.

Bias aside, should have been at least 6 anyway.

 

[scarlett]

I don't understand how Lynch can get 10 and Brown only half of that. Then again, this is the tribunal we're talking about isn't it?

lynchy got 10 because he was reported on several counts of striking and attempting to strike. browny was only reported for 1 count of striking.

 

[SydneyBomber]

....a protected species like that little **** from Essendon.

Wanganeen plays for you guys these days.

 

[dumesny1]

Goodbye Brian Collis. The penalty is a joke and you are an idiot.

 

[eddiesmith]

If he is back for the Bombers v Lions then, well done Brian Collis. best decision you ever handed down. GO Lions

 

[Dave]

Inconsequential.

It isn't when you name them when sooking about Brown.

Burgoyne has been rubbed out for extensive periods on very soft charges before, several times.

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".