Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:44 pm
selwood could have just as easily avoided contact, he chose not to.
Hawkins was a feeble yet deliberate act and again a woosy umpire sweetheart
got off
I, m amazed he had the nuts to do it
Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board
This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
https://magpies.net/
Suspension during finals
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:46 pm
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:53 pm
Dont know why umps favor sooks and not hard at it players
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:53 pm
How many weeks did dawson get with freo being out
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:05 pm
Hawkins should know better and have got a week, but of course no.barrybc41 wrote:Hawkins was a feeble yet deliberate act and again a woosy umpire sweetheart
got off
I, m amazed he had the nuts to do it
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:13 pm
Magroo on Jezza --now that WAS a bump
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:17 pm
I also believe that the contact was unintentional head contact with little force. In the real world he would get off. In the AFL world anything is possible.
The tribunal in its many forms over the years has always been inconstant and to some extent biased. Nothing has changed.
And the AFL wonders why people's interest in the sport is waning.
The tribunal in its many forms over the years has always been inconstant and to some extent biased. Nothing has changed.
And the AFL wonders why people's interest in the sport is waning.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:24 pm
His carry over points and poor record count against him. Given the circumstances it was stupid, is it worthy of a week, probably not, but why would you put yourself in that situation 1st game back from suspension.The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote:I agree, the incident isn't even worthy of the time that will be wasted in tribunal.Woods Of Ypres wrote:agree in principle, but Boomer hardly touched him. one week for that is a joke.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:37 pm
Nope but they ARE playing the swans, can't have the kangas to competitive now!The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote:I agree, the incident isn't even worthy of the time that will be wasted in tribunal.Woods Of Ypres wrote:agree in principle, but Boomer hardly touched him. one week for that is a joke.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:06 pm
\think positive wrote:Nope but they ARE playing the swans, can't have the kangas to competitive now!The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote:I agree, the incident isn't even worthy of the time that will be wasted in tribunal.Woods Of Ypres wrote:agree in principle, but Boomer hardly touched him. one week for that is a joke.
Not when they are up against the best team AFL (diverted money) can buy.
I am hoping the Gil has the testicular fortitude to change the way the league is being manipulated by the AFL. I am not holding my breath. I suspect he was part of the problem in the past and will not be part of the future solution.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:20 pm
The bump was just on Channel 9 news and another look--Boomer intended to bump
but just he collided with Selwood a team mate cannoned into him causing Boomer to pitch forward
The power brokers at Arden St with their lawyers are hoping to enlist Selwood in their challange to suspension
but just he collided with Selwood a team mate cannoned into him causing Boomer to pitch forward
The power brokers at Arden St with their lawyers are hoping to enlist Selwood in their challange to suspension
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:29 pm
It's not accidental, it's negligent, given the choice to bump.RudeBoy wrote:I agree, but that is the rule.swoop42 wrote:Accidental head on head contact.
You shouldn't miss a final because of that.
The rule needs to be changed, so that incidental head to head contact does not attract a penalty. If he'd collected Selwood with his shoulder or elbow, even accidentally, then I'd be in favour of a suspension, but not when it's a clash of heads. Seriously, Selwood is a sook and a lagger. Just hope he doesn't win the bloody brownlow.
I think the logic of the rule is sound. A player engaging in a dangerous act (a bump), needs to take every care not to do damage to his opponent. If as a result of his choice to bump there is a head clash then that is his responsibility.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:33 pm
I actually don't mind the kangas too much... if I hadn't of picked the Pies when I was a little boy, it would have been the Roos.. glad I picked the Pies thoughthink positive wrote:Nope but they ARE playing the swans, can't have the kangas to competitive now!The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote:I agree, the incident isn't even worthy of the time that will be wasted in tribunal.Woods Of Ypres wrote:agree in principle, but Boomer hardly touched him. one week for that is a joke.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:35 pm
Be careful or we won't have anyone on the field... the game has already changed to much for the weak of stomach.AN_Inkling wrote:It's not accidental, it's negligent, given the choice to bump.RudeBoy wrote:I agree, but that is the rule.swoop42 wrote:Accidental head on head contact.
You shouldn't miss a final because of that.
The rule needs to be changed, so that incidental head to head contact does not attract a penalty. If he'd collected Selwood with his shoulder or elbow, even accidentally, then I'd be in favour of a suspension, but not when it's a clash of heads. Seriously, Selwood is a sook and a lagger. Just hope he doesn't win the bloody brownlow.
I think the logic of the rule is sound. A player engaging in a dangerous act (a bump), needs to take every care not to do damage to his opponent. If as a result of his choice to bump there is a head clash then that is his responsibility.
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:38 pm
Just love to see the "big boys" knocked off by the Kanga,s