by Big Phil » Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:33 pm
Brodlach wrote:These reports were at two different stages IIRC.
by topsywaldron » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:09 pm
by sjt » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:12 pm
Big Phil wrote:Brodlach wrote:These reports were at two different stages IIRC.
Correct - the Sansbury one was from in the 2nd term where Adam Hartlett hit Alan Obst about 50m off the ball. Sansbury came in to retaliate in sticking up for his team mate...
The Obst report was from the final term, where the big mele broke out, resulting in Joel Tippett coming from the ground, groggy...
by cennals05 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:15 pm
sjt wrote:Big Phil wrote:Brodlach wrote:These reports were at two different stages IIRC.
Correct - the Sansbury one was from in the 2nd term where Adam Hartlett hit Alan Obst about 50m off the ball. Sansbury came in to retaliate in sticking up for his team mate...
The Obst report was from the final term, where the big mele broke out, resulting in Joel Tippett coming from the ground, groggy...
If the hartlett strike on obst was caught on video, is he going to get reported Cennals??
Bloody hell what did eddy do to get a game with his good record, rough conduct?
No wonder obst went up and remonstrated with hartlett. The turnover cost us, I think west kicked a goal. I hope (if true) hartlett gets done for it.
I think my hartlett question just got answered.
by Dutchy » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:19 pm
cennals05 wrote:Obst been offered 2 games and Eddie 1 game.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:21 pm
Big Phil wrote:Brodlach wrote:These reports were at two different stages IIRC.
Correct - the Sansbury one was from in the 2nd term where Adam Hartlett hit Alan Obst about 50m off the ball. Sansbury came in to retaliate in sticking up for his team mate...
The Obst report was from the final term, where the big mele broke out, resulting in Joel Tippett coming from the ground, groggy...
by Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:22 pm
maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
by Big Phil » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:23 pm
Dutchy wrote:cennals05 wrote:Obst been offered 2 games and Eddie 1 game.
Nason for Eddie, like for like
by topsywaldron » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:26 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
You're the first person, except the goal umpire to think that.
by nwdfanparade » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:30 pm
jim5112 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Looked like a goal to me in real time. Just one of those decisions. Can't blame the umpire for not getting that right.
The goal umpire was in perfect position to see. Pity his guide dog wasn't.
Dogwatcher wrote:maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
You're the first person, except the goal umpire to think that.
topsywaldron wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
You're the first person, except the goal umpire to think that.
The ABC commentator thought the West guy had kicked the ball as well.
by sjt » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:31 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
You're the first person, except the goal umpire to think that.
The ABC commentator thought the West guy had kicked the ball as well.
by Dogwatcher » Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:32 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:maccad wrote:the goal that people are talking about when slowed down shows. the west player kick the ball not centrals.
You're the first person, except the goal umpire to think that.
The ABC commentator thought the West guy had kicked the ball as well.
by sjt » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:00 pm
Big Phil wrote:Dutchy wrote:cennals05 wrote:Obst been offered 2 games and Eddie 1 game.
Nason for Eddie, like for like
Eddie and Nason may both play in the game if the club goes to the tribunal, fights the charge and get it reduced to a reprimand...
You can't help yourself, can you Dutchy?
by FlyingHigh » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:03 pm
by cennals05 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:04 pm
sjt wrote:Big Phil wrote:Dutchy wrote:cennals05 wrote:Obst been offered 2 games and Eddie 1 game.
Nason for Eddie, like for like
Eddie and Nason may both play in the game if the club goes to the tribunal, fights the charge and get it reduced to a reprimand...
You can't help yourself, can you Dutchy?
Surely (though I don't know what he got reported for) if its marginal they'll appeal Eddies game? He's about the cleanest player there is.
by CENTURION » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:22 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Obst, Sansbury and Hartlett all offered games by the tribunal.
by Big Phil » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:35 pm
FlyingHigh wrote:Wasn't too much in the Sansbury one, other than the deliberate intent, running 30-40 yards from the bench.
Is Hartlett a bit lucky to only get one game, hasn't he been suspended once or twice this year?
by FlyingHigh » Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:36 pm
by on the rails » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:44 pm
CENTURION wrote:topsywaldron wrote:Obst, Sansbury and Hartlett all offered games by the tribunal.
WOW! Which ones? Mouse Trap? Kerplunk? Snakes & Ladders?
by Strawb » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:47 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Strawb wrote: Nope I wouldn't be but then again I wouldn't be making a complete tool of myself either.
You wouldn't? Now I've seen it all.
Football SANFL
