Didak: No case to answer

Remove this Banner Ad

It was a stunning hit, but if the match review panel want to be consistant, he'd have to get one or possibly two (I don't know about his past record).

Did Medhurst's hit on Houlihan earlier in the season get anything? They were pretty much similar.
 
SirBloodyIdiot said:
It was a stunning hit, but if the match review panel want to be consistant, he'd have to get one or possibly two (I don't know about his past record).

Did Medhurst's hit on Houlihan earlier in the season get anything? They were pretty much similar.
S.Johnson on Holland last quarter on saturday was very similar, simply lined him up and ran thru him, commentators mentioned that may have made contact wiht Holland's head but as the majority of the hit ws straight down the middle it was play on and a goal to Scarlett was the result.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Negligent conduct that was head high, in play with high impact. Six activation points and a level three offence - 225 points. 2 match suspension, of which I'm not sure on deductions.

Will be negligent as the the definition says;

Negligent means the failure to take due care to avoid any consequences that could reasonably be foreseen to result in a reportable offence. It requires evidence, drawn from observations, that the act or failure to act, resulted in behaviour that a reasonable person would not regard as prudent in the circumstances.

Negligence is different from intentional and reckless in that it does not require a deliberate desire to commit a reportable offence or a reckless disregard for whether or not the action resulted in a reportable offence.
 
DynamoUltra said:
Negligent conduct that was head high, in play with high impact. Six activation points and a level three offence - 225 points. 2 match suspension, of which I'm not sure on deductions.

Will be negligent as the the definition says;

add 80 points to that
305 points
25% guilty, 2 matches, if its contended and loses, 3 matches, see him in 2007 hopefully :thumbsu:
 
Worse than Phil Carmans headbutt to the umpire I would have thought.
 
Mind you OJ Simpson was found not guilty so you never now anything could happen. It doesn't matter if Didak gets off anyway as the Pies won't make it past week two of the finals. :)
 
DynamoUltra said:
Negligent conduct that was head high, in play with high impact. Six activation points and a level three offence - 225 points. 2 match suspension, of which I'm not sure on deductions.

Will be negligent as the the definition says;

Thanks Judge Dredd.

71723802.jpg
 
celtic_pride said:
Mind you OJ Simpson was found not guilty so you never now anything could happen. It doesn't matter if Didak gets off anyway as the Pies won't make it past week two of the finals. :)
Got a better chance than Carlton :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

VanBerlo=God said:
add 80 points to that
305 points
25% guilty, 2 matches, if its contended and loses, 3 matches, see him in 2007 hopefully :thumbsu:

Jeex u guys u are experts arent u. Bet u had Licca , Johnson and Burns rubbed out.

Whatsay with steve Johnson then on Ben Holland.

22 weeks.

Worry abt our own teams.
 
SingaporeSling said:
Jeex u guys u are experts arent u. Bet u had Licca , Johnson and Burns rubbed out.

Whatsay with steve Johnson then on Ben Holland.

22 weeks.

Worry abt our own teams.

Geez, he was only stating the facts.

2-3 weeks.
 
floreatpica said:
The camera never lies.

Feet on ground. Elbow tucked in.

Text-book hip & shoulder.

Doesn't matter these days. The bump is illegal, especially when you hit them in the head.

I don't like the rules, but that's the way it is.
 
I finally saw it just before I would think 2 max, 1 if they are lucky. The way Scotland looked after it will not do Didak any favours either.
 
I'm suprised Didak didn't kick him once he was out cold. Anyhow, I don't think he should go for it. I'd like to see him line up in a final against, say, Melbourne. See him play the "hard guy" when Pickett is bearing down on him. No doubt he'll shirk it like he always does when the heat is on.
 
SingaporeSling said:
Thanks Judge Dredd.

71723802.jpg

If you read the definition of negligent it says that the person who committed the offence did not intend it to, nor did they believe it could be reportable, but due to the outcome, it is.

That said, he did try to avoid being reported by putting his elbow in and not jumping, but the fact he hit his head is what is against him. Could go either way.
 
G-Mo77 said:
I finally saw it just before I would think 2 max, 1 if they are lucky. The way Scotland looked after it will not do Didak any favours either.
???

what about after the siren had gone when scotland went up to dids and had a laugh with him, shook his hand and rubbed his head........clearly he didn't think there was anything wrong with the bump.
 
DynamoUltra said:
If you read the definition of negligent it says that the person who committed the offence did not intend it to, nor did they believe it could be reportable, but due to the outcome, it is.
but what was the outcome??

the bloke played the second half of footy and was one of carlton's better players, the two blokes had a laugh with each other after the siren went.

he lined him up and delivered a perfect hip & shoulder which rattled scotland, that was the outcome.........
 
doppleganger said:
???

what about after the siren had gone when scotland went up to dids and had a laugh with him, shook his hand and rubbed his head........clearly he didn't think there was anything wrong with the bump.
That is because they are mates. Being mates won't wash with the match review panel, though. A hit to the head nowadays is a big no-no. Will definitely score 2 weeks with an early plea.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Didak: No case to answer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top