-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Shattock - 5 weeks, 3 if he pleads guilty
- Thread starter PAFC2004
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Errr Stenglein got offered 4 weeks,2 if pleaded guilty and it wasn't as bad as his.Correct decision if you want to be consistent.
You are so full of ********.Just because Ball is stronger than that Eckerman weak ******** doesn't mean it was a worse hit.He lined him up,jumped at him well before contact and made it forcefully to the head.PAFC2004 said:
I suppose the end result worked.
Take your punishment I say.
Take your punishment I say.
Take your hand off it PAFC, he jumped at a man 10 meters away from the ball. There was no chance of him jumping for the ball because it was not near the contest, and the fact that Ball couldn't defend himself made it worse.
What can you do when you've got a bloke running and jumping at you with his shoulder bracing for a hit?
What can you do when you've got a bloke running and jumping at you with his shoulder bracing for a hit?
- Thread starter
- #8
weagles_fan said:
Weak? Perhaps you are the one that's full of it. Eckermann has lacerations on the side of his face that were bleeding. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stenglein lined up Eckermann, and made forceful contact. Stop posting in this thread, you are too much of an idiot.
I think it's harsh considering players like J. Brown can punch a guy in the face, in a GF, after being suspended twice that year already, and get 6 weeks.
- Thread starter
- #10
Marns said:
It was within 5 meters, and was consequently called "in play".
I'm not disputing that what he did was stupid and reckless. But 5 weeks is just ridiculous.
- Thread starter
- #11
94_Eagles said:
Stenglein changed his mind at the last minute and turned towards Eckermann, looking at him. Comparisons aside, 5 weeks is way too harsh.
PAFC2004, you have demonstrated so clearly how biased you are.
Last week you are defending the Stenglein verdict and now you are calling this absolutely disgusting. Get some perspective FFS.
Shattock's was worse than Stenglein's. The match review committee got it exactly right and we have finally seen some consistency this year. Shattock made a beeline for Ball, infact the ball was closer to him than Luke Ball was, he could have gone straight to the footy but targeted Ball with a complete disregard for the play. I don't even think the ball would've been within 5 metres when he hit him.
Take your 3 weeks and run.
Last week you are defending the Stenglein verdict and now you are calling this absolutely disgusting. Get some perspective FFS.
Shattock's was worse than Stenglein's. The match review committee got it exactly right and we have finally seen some consistency this year. Shattock made a beeline for Ball, infact the ball was closer to him than Luke Ball was, he could have gone straight to the footy but targeted Ball with a complete disregard for the play. I don't even think the ball would've been within 5 metres when he hit him.
Take your 3 weeks and run.
- Banned
- #13
PAFC2004 said:
Shattock had one aim in mind, head high contact on Ball. He wasn't even looking at the ball which was 5 metres away behind him, if not more.
Dirty is the only word for it.
- Thread starter
- #14
snakebite01 said:
And you aren't biased at all? I agree that what he did was just stupid. I have said that all along. 5 weeks is just ridiculous for an offence like that. I said that stenglein deserved 2, no more.
The tribunal is ridiculously harsh towards many non victorian clubs. Just look at how lucky melbourne have been with the tribunal this year.
You are so full of crap pafc2004.Last week you were saying 2 weeks was fair for Stenglein yet this week a Port player does something similiar and getting 1 extra week is "disgusting".
He should've got atleast as much as Stenglein because it was as bad,if not worse.The deciding factor which probably got him more weeks was because he jumped off the ground.Did Stenglein jump?I think not.
He should've got atleast as much as Stenglein because it was as bad,if not worse.The deciding factor which probably got him more weeks was because he jumped off the ground.Did Stenglein jump?I think not.
Stenglein was offered 4.Just 1 less than your Port boy.His was worse as well as he jumped into him.PAFC2004 said:
- Thread starter
- #18
weagles_fan said:
See, this is where the problem is. I said 2 weeks was fair. 4 weeks, as originally handed down was way too harsh. As is 5 weeks for shattocks incident.
And garth, it was hardly a dog act. He didn't intend to knock the guy out or anything, he was trying to stop him from reaching Cassisi, who had the ball.
If he accepts it he will get 3 weeks.PAFC2004 said:
PAFC2004 said:
Told you last night, didn't I numbnuts? The pr!ck is going to get what's coming to him for a real dog act.
I don't buY that crap from your mealy mouthed coach that he wasn't put up to it either.
So go and sook somewhere else, clown as he deserves to be rubbed out for 4 or 5 weeks
Well it was consistent.Stenglein got 2 weeks,so Shattock getting 3 is fair.PAFC2004 said:
PAFC2004 said:
Do you honestly believe that?
There were other players closer to Cassisi than Ball that he could have shepherded. He didn't look at Cassisi, the ball or where it was for an instant. He saw Ball, lined him up and charged him. His only intention was to take him out.
- Thread starter
- #25
Ball was going straight for Dom. Like I have said before, it was a stupid thing to do... but having said that, I highly doubt he was trying to cause injury.
It was not a dog act, just executed incorrectly.
It was not a dog act, just executed incorrectly.
Similar threads
- Poll
