- Banned
- #26
Re: Gehrig suspension a joke
Absolutely pathetic, worst decision ever made.
Absolutely pathetic, worst decision ever made.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
gehrig out for 2 weeks
- Thread starter jaydenrussell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I was just agreeing with Bestbird. Even without Gerhig it will still be an impressive effort (yes you can quote me) if you beat them.Black JuJu said:
When you are most likely to be 7-0 I would have thought that you would want any weaknesses in your backline to be fully tested.
Black JuJu said:
I have been fairly restrained lately.
Re: Gehrig suspension a joke
They will appeal and Gehrig wll get one week so he can play against the WCE in two weeks. Which is good because I'd rather play them at full strength.
And I thought it was weak too - absolutely sh it system with an absolute wan ker in charge.
They will appeal and Gehrig wll get one week so he can play against the WCE in two weeks. Which is good because I'd rather play them at full strength.
And I thought it was weak too - absolutely sh it system with an absolute wan ker in charge.
Re: Gehrig suspension a joke
It will cost nothing for the Saints to appeal this bull. shyte. Even if found guilty he cant get more than the two weeks
Voss did exactly the same thing and didn't even get looked at. Supposed to be consistant this new fangled tribunal. Totally crap.
First the Moloney rubbish, now this. Whats the AFL coming to
smilingassassin said:
It will cost nothing for the Saints to appeal this bull. shyte. Even if found guilty he cant get more than the two weeks
Voss did exactly the same thing and didn't even get looked at. Supposed to be consistant this new fangled tribunal. Totally crap.
First the Moloney rubbish, now this. Whats the AFL coming to
Kildonan
Premium Platinum
Re: Gehrig suspension a joke
Gehrig's clash with Cloke was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point), in play (one point) and body contact (one point) meaning a total of six activation points - which relates to 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension.
But even if he pleads guilty and avoids facing the tribunal, Gehrig has no chance of getting the ban reduced to just one match.
That is because he has a previous one-match suspension and a previous two-match suspension, which increases his penalty by 30 per cent to 292.50 points - bordering on 300 points or a three-match suspension.
If Gehrig pleads guilty and gets the 25 percent points discount that would still only reduce the penalty to 219.38 points, which would still mean a two-game ban and missing the blockbuster clashes against the Cats and the Eagles.
To contest this and win, Gehrig would have to either convince them that it was unintentional (not likely) or that no contact was made (again unlikely). He will more than likely just have to cop it as contesting it will cost him nothing except 73 activation points but it will gain him nothing either.
I am livid that this was even considered worthy of citing when there are considerably worse incidents ignored every game.
Joffaboy said:It will cost nothing for the Saints to appeal this bull. shyte. Even if found guilty he cant get more than the two weeks
Voss did exactly the same thing and didn't even get looked at. Supposed to be consistant this new fangled tribunal. Totally crap.
First the Moloney rubbish, now this. Whats the AFL coming to
Gehrig's clash with Cloke was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point), in play (one point) and body contact (one point) meaning a total of six activation points - which relates to 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension.
But even if he pleads guilty and avoids facing the tribunal, Gehrig has no chance of getting the ban reduced to just one match.
That is because he has a previous one-match suspension and a previous two-match suspension, which increases his penalty by 30 per cent to 292.50 points - bordering on 300 points or a three-match suspension.
If Gehrig pleads guilty and gets the 25 percent points discount that would still only reduce the penalty to 219.38 points, which would still mean a two-game ban and missing the blockbuster clashes against the Cats and the Eagles.
To contest this and win, Gehrig would have to either convince them that it was unintentional (not likely) or that no contact was made (again unlikely). He will more than likely just have to cop it as contesting it will cost him nothing except 73 activation points but it will gain him nothing either.
I am livid that this was even considered worthy of citing when there are considerably worse incidents ignored every game.
Re: Gehrig suspension a joke
Regardless of activation points ? they have to contest this and push for it to be thrown out. At the least the context and impact have to have a larger say than intentional rubbish - Archers trip was likely to cause more damage yet he is only reprimanded??
Geezus even Sheehan "on the couch" along with Walls said Saints "have a duty" to the footy public to contest this - our game is truning into netball.
StKildonan said:
Regardless of activation points ? they have to contest this and push for it to be thrown out. At the least the context and impact have to have a larger say than intentional rubbish - Archers trip was likely to cause more damage yet he is only reprimanded??
Geezus even Sheehan "on the couch" along with Walls said Saints "have a duty" to the footy public to contest this - our game is truning into netball.
Apparently St Kilda have announced they will fight the charge.
SEN, ON the Couch and most footy "experts" have called the suspensions a farce and insisted Saints must fight the charge or the games reputation as "nancy ball" is confirmed.
Has to be thrown out surely
SEN, ON the Couch and most footy "experts" have called the suspensions a farce and insisted Saints must fight the charge or the games reputation as "nancy ball" is confirmed.
Has to be thrown out surely
I can see why it should be thrown out, but at the same time he almost deserves a week just for the sheer stupidity of the act
We have St Kilda in a fortnight and stand to benefit from this report, but there is no doubt it is utterly ridiculous inconsistent and farcical.
Why exactly was this cited when Voss's lovetap on Judd a fortnight ago wasn't? (after tackling Judd and the ball had been disposed of, Voss leant forward and gave a quick jab in the cruets) Before anyone accuses me of having a whine about the latter, I'm of the opinion that neither should be cited, but under the rules there is no difference between the incidents, the same decision should apply to both.
Clear footage existed of Voss hitting Judd, all the commentators noted it at the time. Voss's act was clearly intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point), in play (one point) and body contact (one point) meaning a total of six activation points - which relates to 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension. I challenge anyone who saw the incident to dispute any of those points, that's what happened.
Brisbane would retort that it was just a quick thump, he probably didn't hit him very hard, that kind of thing is part of the game, players need to learn to deal with that treatment, this isn't netball etc etc. And they'd be totally right, but all of those arguments apply equally to Gehrig.
Given clear footage existed of both, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that the reason Gehrig is being cited and Voss isn't, is because one is a multiple brownlow medallist and supposed ornament of the game who would never do anything unsporting, the other is supposedly a thug. That's patently unjust.
This is a pathetic, silly, and downright embarassing report and a sad indictment on the video reporter, the tribunal system and the AFL. As an eagle supporter I hope he goes for 2 weeks, but as a football fan I hope that the incompetent who made this report is sacked forthwith. It doesn't matter how well thought out a system is when its being administered by cretins.
Why exactly was this cited when Voss's lovetap on Judd a fortnight ago wasn't? (after tackling Judd and the ball had been disposed of, Voss leant forward and gave a quick jab in the cruets) Before anyone accuses me of having a whine about the latter, I'm of the opinion that neither should be cited, but under the rules there is no difference between the incidents, the same decision should apply to both.
Clear footage existed of Voss hitting Judd, all the commentators noted it at the time. Voss's act was clearly intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point), in play (one point) and body contact (one point) meaning a total of six activation points - which relates to 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension. I challenge anyone who saw the incident to dispute any of those points, that's what happened.
Brisbane would retort that it was just a quick thump, he probably didn't hit him very hard, that kind of thing is part of the game, players need to learn to deal with that treatment, this isn't netball etc etc. And they'd be totally right, but all of those arguments apply equally to Gehrig.
Given clear footage existed of both, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that the reason Gehrig is being cited and Voss isn't, is because one is a multiple brownlow medallist and supposed ornament of the game who would never do anything unsporting, the other is supposedly a thug. That's patently unjust.
This is a pathetic, silly, and downright embarassing report and a sad indictment on the video reporter, the tribunal system and the AFL. As an eagle supporter I hope he goes for 2 weeks, but as a football fan I hope that the incompetent who made this report is sacked forthwith. It doesn't matter how well thought out a system is when its being administered by cretins.
Mead said:
Great to read an unbiased, balanced and logical arguement. Must disagree on the "hope hets 2 weeks" bit as even with a full squad you guys are gonna be tough over there but was hoping for a game where 2 sides go at it with their best in.
ahh the tribunal.....laughable one day.....farcical the next.....
Very, Very soft. Nothing in it. New tribunals credibility will be at stake if/when they appeal.
So you throw a headbutt, but you don't do time, hardly seems fair.Nardz said:he threw a punch. Simple as that. Do the crime, do the time.
If he appeals he risks losing the 25% discount for pleading guilty, hence bringing it to 3 matches
- Dec 1, 2001
- 2,253
- 0
- Other Teams
Didnt Camporeale go for exactly the same thing on Welsh in the Mickey Mouse Cup? Dont remember any outrage about that decision.
I remember that one he should have got off, he only got one though. Add that to the Jolly case and the new system seems to have a flaw.The Phat Side said:
No wad I'm saying if gerhig goes cloke should go too.Nardz said:
ComicStoreGuy said:
besides, the tribunal owe cloke a few after making him miss a grand final, and quite possibly a premiership for a spoil gone wrong, then clearing lynch for the same a year and a bit later.
- Dec 1, 2001
- 2,253
- 0
- Other Teams
ComicStoreGuy said:
Gehrig would have only got one if he didnt have a poor record. Appears consistent where I sit. Punch someone in the guts and youre gone.
What a load! As I said earlier, if Gehrig goes for that measly jab in the guts (AND FOR 2 WEEKS!!) i'm jumping on the North QLD Cowboys. Goodbye AFL! Soft pricks! What a girls game this is comming too! The game is turning BORING! I can't believe it....
But in the other thread you said there was nothing in it, ******** of troll.The Phat Side said:
Similar threads
