Tribunal a DISGRACE - Tazza Hard Done

[BroadhurstMonk]

What a disgrace that Tarrant went for that"soft" forearm!!!! Is he the most hard done by forward in the league???? He needs to talk to Lloydy or Dustin Fletcher and ask how to get away with murder!!

Still can't get over the fact that Lynch gets nothing for breaking a guys cheek with a clinched fist and Tazza gets 2 for diflecting his forearm off a guys shoulder and grazing his face - what happened the facing up the consequences of your actions?????

I think Taz has been harshly done by because of the uproar in the media that Licca got off easy!!!!!!

Still in SHOCK!

 

[dunno4]

trent Caroll admits he was not hit in the head but the tribunal still says he was.

Lets not bother to call witnesess again, the tribunal doesn't need them, they are a law unto themselves

 

[GreekLunatic]

tazza got 2 for that vanderberg will get 42 weeks for what he did

 

[melbournemartin]

lloyd and especially fletcher have been suspended a lot more than Tarrant has been

they dont and couldnt get away with anything let alone murder

it was an unwarrented elbow in the face while the ball was atleast 2 metres from the scene and it is something that we do not want in our game.

perhaps u should stop dwelling on the past and try to think of a way to beat it without your soon to be oscar winner tarrant

 

[BroadhurstMonk]

good on ya "melbournemartin" - you are just happy caus ehe is out and that is the best chance you have of beating us this week!!!! So you going skiing or to game!!!!! I thnk we all know the answer to that!

 

[melbournemartin]

dont worri ill be out there in force


seriosly if you think that he should have gotten off after elbowing a guy in the face with force then you need to get your eyes checked

cya at the game mate

 

[rileystuart]

2 a bit stiff

2 weeks a little bit stiff but as melbournemartin said... he cant expect to get away with it... 1 week should stay... unfortunatly 4 u guys!!

go the demons...

lets hope its a sell out

 

[grayza]

i thought he was stiff but oh well shyte happens

we get to see how the pies will cope against a top team, without their in form forward, whether we are a show at making the finals or not and how the others stand up

i think we can still win

also, the appeal is still to come so you never know

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

We won't win.

No Tarrant, No Rocca - no hope.
Doesn't matter having Bucks back because we will have no one to kick to up forward. C2 will snag a few, Didak may kick one or two. But, for the most part, we won't have a proven focal point up forward.


Not to mention that Tarrant absolutely destroys the snow bunnies every Queen's Birthday.

Tarrant should have gotten off. No bias, no BS, it's a joke. If it were Neitz for the Dees I would say the same thing. He was coming full bolt on a lead, and we all know how fast Tarrant is. Cameras clearly show he had his eyes on the ball the entire time and at the last second, instinctively raised his arm as a defence mechanism.

The tribunial do a great job of cancelling out what little credibility they have left with their unbelievable inepitude and inconsistency.

For example, tripping.
Kosi- 1 week.
Licuria - Gets off.
What is the difference?! Make up your mind!

Same with this Tarrant incident and other incidents this year - namely Lynch in Round 3.

Get rid of Collis. Put in people who are not seriously out of touch with the modern game. Who are actually aware of body mechanics, the speed of the game etc. Because Collis has no idea and is in position to govern.

 

[Joel]

Tarrant gets suspended for that, yet ****er Lloyd elbows someone in the face earlier in the year, and he gets off (albeit on appeal).

 

[VEEBEE]

Originally posted by GreekLunatic
tazza got 2 for that vanderberg will get 42 weeks for what he did

Loonie mate, the way the tribunal has been going , vandenberg will probably get a suspended sentence.

 

[guess_who]

We'll I think that he probably should have atleast goten one week. Thats even with one eye closed. I suspect that he would have pleeded not guilty. He was found gulty so therefore given one week and another for being guilty when he pleaded not guilty.

 

[yikes]

The tribunal should listen to what the player has to say. He said he was hit in the neck but the tribunal says he was. Why do they have the players in there if they are not going to listen to what they say and hand down a penalty according to what the players say.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

I could stand alright with one week but two weeks is a joke, literally.

Neil Balme said they will appeal because the tribunal did not use players evidence or the fact that he had his eyes on the football. Hopefully it is successful and downgraded to one week.

 

[melbournemartin]

the lloyd one was downgraded from 2 to 0 but i doubt it will go as far as that for Taz

1 week suspension is the best u can hope for

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I think the problem ended up being the fact he had his eyes close in the point of impact, which according to the tribunal was "reckless".

From my POV, I was extremely surprised to hear he got 2. I won't say I was disappointed cool, but genuinely surprised.

You might go close to getting it reduced, but I don't think he will get off completely. I think 1 is the best you can hope for.

Plus if Tarrant does miss, do you think Rocca will play regardless of how his ankle is?

 

[rychenroller]

Well it can go 2 ways, deep down, Mick knows we cant win this game without Taz and Rocca, we will struggle with only one available. So he could risk Rocca (I think he will) and give us an outside chance at the game, or he could rest Rocca, therefore giving him the break and throw some young-uns in again.

Micks policy as he says, is play em at only 100%, but without em both, he might just risk it.

 

[dees02]

i agree he was hard done by, probably deserved one week, but the fact is that he missed the ball by such a distance, and the contact was late and forceful. I don't actually understand it, contact was made to the right of tarrant, where as the ball was on the left of Taz. So it's clear that the contact wasn't aimed at the ball, and therefore, the contact is reckless and the appeal should be dismissed.