Strenglien appeal successful

[Star]

Eckers head went back and to the left. There must have been a second shoulder.

Clever.

I just watched JFK

"back and to the left"
"back and to the left"
"back and to the left"

 

[Portia]

So why didn't the tribunal look at making it Reckless instead of Negligent while they were in session? Or do they only look at what is under dispute by the club?

Also, it seems dodgy that you can get a discount applied -after- you go to the tribunal. Isn't that meant to be an incentive to not take the case to the tribunal in the first place?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

People like you make no sense. You can't tell me what I am thinking. I think I would know that better than you

Iv'e seen a lot worse on the footy field, but at the end of the day, suspension was warranted. Looking at this years tribunal decisions, no one could be blamed for thinking Port have gotten the rough end of the stick.

I agree with the sentiment. The inconsistencies are glaring. Unfortunately, there is a mob mentality where if you think a player should have got off, you need a tissue and if you think a player should have got more, you need a tissue. There is nothing like a sensible debate you can work with, don't you agree?

 

[Ari]

*raises bat for 3000 posts*

3000 posts on and i still dun have a life outside of football

anyway, stenglien deserved atleast 2 weeks, i dun see how u eagles supporters can argue against that seriously

Pathetic isnt it?

I give up sometimes. Watch the replay Eagles.. im sure you have it on tape.

 

[PAFC2004]

I agree with the sentiment. The inconsistencies are glaring. Unfortunately, there is a mob mentality where if you think a player should have got off, you need a tissue and if you think a player should have got more, you need a tissue. There is nothing like a sensible debate you can work with, don't you agree?

I know what you are saying. Everyone does the same thing though when it affects their team.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Cry me a river.

with an adjoining picket fence

 

[teams]

take it he is out?

 

[jourgo]

Just wrong.

He was offered 3 weeks, or 2 weeks if he took the deal. Instead he gambles on 3 weeks and is STILL found guilty, yet gets 1 week? I think the AFL just proved the system doesnt work.

Worse still, theyve set a precedent that youre allowed to stop going for the ball at the last minute and go after the player with a raised elbow. I hope they stay consistant.

Elbow. Elbow. What is it with all this talking of a ********ing elbow!? He hit him with his SHOULDER! Look at the footage again.

 

[PAFC2004]

We know it was his shoulder... but it still hit his head.

 

[teams]

So he comes back for the Bombers game. On the plus side he isn't going to be steaming like Brown was after a grand final.

 

[snakebite01]

After listening to Picketts and the clubs version of the story (being a member), I know that is just not the case. He executed it wrong, but it was not his intention to injure begley.

What do you expect them to say? They are hardly going to tell you his intention was to line up Begley from 20m away and deliberately take him out, which incidentally is what his intention was.

 

[doctormeow]

Unbelieveable, Picketts was a gutless weak pathetic act, the scum got roughly what he deserved (roughly because it was maybe a week or 2 to long). You have some serious issues if you cant understand that.

You have some serious bias issues.

In the Pickett incident, the only weak and pathetic one was Begley, cause he poo-pooed his knickers and dropped/fumbled the ball. If he had two of his best mates in his pants, he would have picked up the ball and hit pickett standing up. Pickett had no intention of getting the ball, his only intention was to hit another weak soft player with the ball - and unfortunately the player he chose was weaker than anyone else he hit before, and forgot to get the ball. Pickett was dumb and stupid, cause it was in the last few minutes, where the game was won - but reputations are reputations and felt the need to establish that he is still the hard-hitter he always has been. The truth is, the tribunal wouldn't hear Port's defence of the incident and couldn't fight the issue of Begleys softness and inability to correctly pick up the ball.

Stenglein hit a player, away from the ball, in the head - No eye on the ball. Thats reportable. It wasn't an accident - he tried to hit him, and collected him high. Tuff. deal with it.

Height isn't an issue - If you say height is an issue, then you might as well take away the too-high rule when punching from behind because it's too tough on the shorter defender. All players play by the same rules, except West Coast it seems.

 

[Milenko]

PAFC2004 = Eckermann's Mum

Nuff said.

 

[camsmith]

Couldnt of said it better doctormeow.

 

[Mead]

So why didn't the tribunal look at making it Reckless instead of Negligent while they were in session? Or do they only look at what is under dispute by the club?

Also, it seems dodgy that you can get a discount applied -after- you go to the tribunal. Isn't that meant to be an incentive to not take the case to the tribunal in the first place?

..It would be a huge incentive not to take the case to the tribunal in the first place, but it would also make the whole idea of trying to convince the tribunal that one of the factors is less serious than they thought pretty damn silly- you convince them to give you one less week and gain one week for not pleading guilty?

Doesn't make much sense where there is no incentive to try and show the tribunal they've erred even if you're completely sure of that.

 

[LexyBaluca]

So players are now going to think it's fine to bump other players in the head? Inconsistant, not good enough. If the impact wasn't severe, what is? It almost knocked Eckermann out and left him with lacerations on the side of his face.

Ironic!

 

[Carn the Coasters]

they successfuly argued that contact was with the shoulder, not the upper arm or the elbow. They also successfully argued that the impact was only so strong because Ben was running whereas strenglein only took two steps.

So the severity of the charge was downgraded from severe to high. I'm not sure exactly how the points were calculated down to one week. He would have still got a 25% reduction for a good record but lost the 25% discount for a guilty plea.

You still get the 25% discount for the early guilty plea as he pleaded guilty to the downgraded charge.

Because he wasn't offered a fair deal initially, the fact that he (or any other player) didnt accept it has no relevance (it wasnt an appeal it was the first sitting of the tribunal). THey thought it was worth 7 activation points (level 3 = 325 points) and he pleaded guilty to that new charge.

Thus good record + guilty plea = enough to bring it down to 182.81 points or so.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Ironic!

Don't you think?

 

[Portia]

..It would be a huge incentive not to take the case to the tribunal in the first place, but it would also make the whole idea of trying to convince the tribunal that one of the factors is less serious than they thought pretty damn silly- you convince them to give you one less week and gain one week for not pleading guilty?

Doesn't make much sense where there is no incentive to try and show the tribunal they've erred even if you're completely sure of that.

Of course, its even more ridiculous that you can go to tribunal to quibble over that definition, and if they disagree over a minor change, its a two-week difference!

This whole `plead guilty' deduction seems to be too big a component in the sentence, I think.

 

[captain ebert]

With a shoulder when your opponent is a midget, its acceptable when your opponent is running at you and you have no choice but to brace for a collision.

that is such crap - how many replays do you need to watch before you notice that stenglein was moving towards eckermann at the same time?

oooh - better brace - a midget is in my midst.

 

[hotpie]

that is such crap - how many replays do you need to watch before you notice that stenglein was moving towards eckermann at the same time?

He took two steps towards him. Deserved a week penalty for a very late hip and shoulder, no more.

 

[dA Crow]

In the Pickett incident, the only weak and pathetic one was Begley, cause he poo-pooed his knickers and dropped/fumbled the ball.

Clown.

 

[VoR]

The Port sooking on this thread is priceless...

Steggles has been outed for a week because that Port kiddie was a weak dog.

 

[D-N-R]

there are plenty of posts on big footy complaining at how soft the game is getting. west coast is doing every other team a favour by contesting this charge. they may yet appeal the one match ban. (despite the title of this thread it wasn't an appeal, merely a defence - the appeal may still be lodged).
by contesting this charge wce are challenging the softness creeping into our game. this is a benefit for all clubs and the game as we know and love it if this is successful.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The game is being sanitised so much that I guess we have applaud when a sentenced is reduced these days. What makes you lose sight of the big picture is when there appears to be no rhyme or reason from sentence to sentence. They probably got this one right in the end but have got a few others wrong based on the same theories. I guess supporters of teams that have been on the receiving end of the tribunal system have to just realise that two wrongs don't make a right and move on. It is hard to do though when that decision can affect your whole season.