Licuria gets off!

[masai]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
Definately not! Ask Clive & Macca & D.J. & Sir Robert & Snake.

Fair point, but a hellva lot of money must have been coming from a black and white hand.

I would have not minded Balga's Boy Made Good, chucking a wobbly over the umpiring.

 

[Ausgard]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
The scump didn't even pay a free kick,

And wasn't that a mistake

Originally posted by FIGJAM
let alone make a report. Surely he'd have been consulted on the matter and would reinforce his initial contention that there was nothing in it.

If the umpire was fair dinkum he would undermine is original non-decision and say "I missed that one - it was an obvious free kick"

 

[understudy]

Re:

Originally posted by speedy
Licuria gets off!

I believe the correct term is NOT GUILTY!

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Jarryd Dons Fan
Fletcher rubbed out twice and Kosi once. Wheres the consistency.

Fletcher kicked players, not tripped them.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
No more baffling than the Scarlett one. Yes I am still going on about that.

Starting to see a pattern though?

Burns in the GF - nothing.

HE got suspended (or was that 2002? LOL!).

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by The Fireman
Joel I didn't hear you complaining about Kosis penalty? There are some real hypocritical barstards on here.

I didn't care about Kosi, and why should I? My interest is in Collingwood, not St. Kilda.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Fred
Simple really - if your player gets off, it's a fair decision. If an opposition player does, it's a bad decision and he deserved life.

Exactly.

In all seriousness, I didn't care about Kosi. If the tribunal stuffed up, and it was in regards to St. Kilda, I don't care. Again, why should I?

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by MGREG
Not really, its justr that he couldnt give a flying **** about as St. Kilda player and honestly why would you?

Spot on.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by The Fireman
Well like you he is hypocritical, simple.
you are a footy fan , Right? you are interested in the tribunal outcomes right?
Your player gets off but another doesn't for the same thing but you think thats ok?
Sums you up mate.

No, he is a COLLINGWOOD fan, so am I. I would prefer the tribunal be consistent, but seriously, I don't care if Kosi got suspended. Why would I?

No one said it was okay Kosi didn't get off, stop making things up.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by The Fireman
you have been summed up.

...and what was wrong with that POV? Give it a rest. Give me one good reason why we should give a **** about St.Kilda?

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Black JuJu
Yeah fair enough, it didn't look like an intentional action to and I think he would have been a bit stiff to go, these things happen in the course of play. Ahh the tribunal always brings out the best in this site, the usual chorus of anti-Collingwood stuff, fans banging on about decisions that are long gone etc etc I think we can all just agree that the tribunal isn't perfect and never, ever will be and hell, I'm an Eagles man so I should be probably whinging and wining about Evil Eddie and his tribunal pay offs all night long.....

Good post!

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by rORy=)
It's just a bizarre decision. Collis said that he was satisfied there was a trip, but not that it was intentional! WTF?! What happened to the concept of "reckless"??

How was it reckless? In that action, what damage could have possibly happened? NONE!

A head high tackle is reckless, but players don't get suspended for that.

 

[Z_K]

Licuria's record of utterly clean football and his standing in the game as a player of absolute integrity was probably taken into account, and fair enough too IMO.

I don't think for a second that he approached Sansbury to trip him but does any player that trips have it in his head to do that? I can't think of a trip I have seen that I didn't think was not an accident.

Reckless, unfortunate but he did trip him with his leg. I would have let him off, but I reckon I am biased because I love the bloke as a footballer. Not embarrassed to say that if D Fletcher did it, I would be calling for a lifetime suspension.

 

[TD]

Originally posted by NorthBhoy
Reckless, unfortunate but he did trip him with his leg. I would have let him off, but I reckon I am biased because I love the
bloke as a footballer. Not embarrassed to say that if D Fletcher did it, I would be calling for a lifetime suspension.

Which he no doubt would have got! Fletchers record is grossly exagerated! If you look at all of his indescretions, there is very little in any of them. Guys like Licuria would have probably got off almost every one of Fletchers suspensions.

 

[Z_K]

Originally posted by TD
Guys like Licuria would have probably got off almost every one of Fletchers suspensions.

Massive call!!!

Dustin has done some genuinely dirty things on a footy field. Some of his "trips" have had force behind them, making them closer to kicks if anything (he may have actually charged with kicking a few times, I can't recall).

You are basically inferring that is a massive conspiracy that Fletcher has the record he does. He is a dirty footballer IMO, and while he may be hard done by
occasionly in terms of weeks recieved, it can only be assumed that he gets the extra weeks because of his record and rep, which is fine IMO.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by Joel
How was it reckless? In that action, what damage could have possibly happened? NONE!

A head high tackle is reckless, but players don't get suspended for that.

Or get a free kick, if your a Roos player in the ruck, taken around the neck by the Pies ruckman .

 

[Z_K]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Or get a free kick, if your a Roos player in the ruck, taken around the neck by the Pies ruckman .

Then called for holding the ball.

It also makes it fun when the boundary umpire has thrown it in because he didn't call the OOT 20 seconds earier.

Gee that was a fun 2 minutes............

 

[PTP]

Originally posted by The Fireman
soz
put this one in too
http://www.yetisports.org/e_playonline.php#

Ta Fireman.

You, apparently like me, have WAY too much time on yer hands!

 

[TD]

Originally posted by NorthBhoy
Massive call!!!

Dustin has done some genuinely dirty things on a footy field. Some of his "trips" have had force behind them, making them closer to kicks if anything (he may have actually charged with kicking a few times, I can't recall).

You are basically inferring that is a massive conspiracy that Fletcher has the record he does. He is a dirty footballer IMO, and while he may be hard done by
occasionly in terms of weeks recieved, it can only be assumed that he gets the extra weeks because of his record and rep, which is fine IMO.

Care to name the genuinely dirty things that Fletcher has done? HE has done quite a few pretty stupid things - most of which have been extremely soft (cant think of too many that Dustin has actually hurt) but I can't think of too many genuinely dirty things he has done.

 

[dave_27]

decision was a joke, i like licuria but he should of been rubbed out for a week, 2 if he had a record. Fletcher missed a final for the same thing, get ****ed tribunal.

 

[Joel]

Have a sook. Want a tissue?

 

[skipper kelly]

I read the heading and thought it was another Eddie thread.