Craig Parry - deregistration successfully appealed

[Ian]

I'm not sure if they 1/2 it because they are under stricter scrutiny in the AFL (more cameras etc) or because they hand out bigger penalties for trivial offences, I can't think of any other reasons why they would.

[am Bays]

Surely the penny drops once you get to 10 games? Or in Parry's case maybe it is still falling?

[maxyoz]

And there's probably about 20 weeks worth of suspension that he got away with because an Umpire didn't see it or was not caught on camera.

[Banker]

Make an example out of him.

Its 2013. Snipers are no longer tolerated.

[Ecky]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

[HH3]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

Didnt he get rubbed out for 4 games last year? This rule is to punish people that dont learn. He obviously hasnt learnt. Also, he should've known about the rule, and he should've been aware he was on very thin ice. He still chose to do what he did, and should be punished for it.

[Armytank]

Hentschel said in the paper that the Eagles were aware of it, so no excuse

[Banker]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

You're comparing a driving infringement with multiple assaults?

[Ian]

Maybe something like, once you've reached 16 games suspension for your carreer, if it averages to more than XX games per year the deregistration is enforced. Not sure what a fair figure would be but perhaps 2 games a year? That would stop someone playing 20 years and being derigestered for less than 1 game suspension average a year

[Ian]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

You're comparing a driving infringement with multiple assaults?

Some driving infringements potentially have worse concequences than a assault

[Ecky]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

Didnt he get rubbed out for 4 games last year? This rule is to punish people that dont learn. He obviously hasnt learnt. Also, he should've known about the rule, and he should've been aware he was on very thin ice. He still chose to do what he did, and should be punished for it.

I'm arguing something separate - what the rule should be, not whether Parry should suffer the consequences of the current rule or not.
I agree that if Parry knew about the rule and his club accepted it was the rule, then he needs to accept it, regardless of its supposed fairness.

[cracka]

Regardless of Parry's guilt or character, the rule is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 matches over a 20 year career be treated the same as 16 matches in a single year?

It's like a 50 year old losing their driver's licence over 1 fine because of demerit points accrued 30 years previously (with a perfect record in between). Is that fair?

As Mark Beswick said, the rule needs to take into account when the offences were committed, not just the total number of games suspended.

You're comparing a driving infringement with multiple assaults?

Some driving infringements potentially have worse concequences than a assault

And those ones incur Jail time.

[once_were_warriors]

They should stop getting in his way, he just wants the football.

[Jim05]

They should stop getting in his way, he just wants the football.

The ball is usually at the other end of the field when he belts someone.
Only hits people when they have their back to him and the play is up the other end.
He will get his just desert one way or another

[Dols]

I heard today that on last 3 occasions he has accepted early plea but in the calculations of games suspended they have included them. Eg was given 5 games but down to 4 with the early plea, they have counted this as 5 games suspended and not 4. Given this he should now only be on 15 games. Anyone else heard this?

[HH3]

I heard today that on last 3 occasions he has accepted early plea but in the calculations of games suspended they have included them. Eg was given 5 games but down to 4 with the early plea, they have counted this as 5 games suspended and not 4. Given this he should now only be on 15 games. Anyone else heard this?

If thats true, then surely his suspension will be overturned once they appeal.

[once_were_warriors]

They should stop getting in his way, he just wants the football.

The ball is usually at the other end of the field when he belts someone.
Only hits people when they have their back to him and the play is up the other end.
He will get his just desert one way or another

Exactly , if they let him have the ball then no need for a belting
Turning your back is rude and only teaching good manners.
Strawberry ice cream is his favourite.

[Punk Rooster]

not really sure Parry deserves any favours...

[Jim05]

They should stop getting in his way, he just wants the football.

The ball is usually at the other end of the field when he belts someone.
Only hits people when they have their back to him and the play is up the other end.
He will get his just desert one way or another

Exactly , if they let him have the ball then no need for a belting
Turning your back is rude and only teaching good manners.
Strawberry ice cream is his favourite.

One day he will will whack the wrong guy and Parry might be eating that strawberry icecream through a straw

[Pseudo]

The rule itself is a reasonable idea. We don't want guys who can't control themselves on a footy field,

... unless they are twin brothers?

I didn't realise the Stringers were twins.