by Squids » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:57 pm
by Dirko » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:57 pm
westozfalcon wrote:If it was a fringe player from Western Bulldogs or Fremantle in the dock they'd have taken 10 minutes to deliver a 6-week ban.
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:58 pm
LMA wrote:Swanny wouldn't of been able to lift his arm up that high, the fat midget
by goraw » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:59 pm
Squids wrote:We have an easy run in the next four weeks with only Sydney likely to cause problems.
Dogs Carp
Tigers Carp
Swans V.Good
Lions Carp
He will be fresh for our assault on the flag.
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:59 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Turbo wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:Turbo wrote:[quote="SJABC"]Should've lined him up and broken his jaw....
What a crock of shit.
Yep correct. If it was a lesser known player the media wouldn't have even shown interest eg Jackson dislocating Harvey's arm in 09.
Cos he is such a champion he will have to alter this behaviour as he is in the immediate spotlight. Unfortunately we live in a nation that is well known for tall poppy syndrome.
Witch hunt over. All you village idiots can put away the torches and pitch forks
Biased bullshit. He eye gouges a dude, elbows pav in the face...wins a flaming Brownlow real witchhunt on this bloke. Then you lot expect him to get away with pulling a guys arm back behind his back when he is on the ground being tackled by other blokes. If we were talking about Dane Swan here you'd be carrying a pitchfork yourself.
regards,
REB
Speaking of tall poppy syndrome
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:00 pm
SJABC wrote:westozfalcon wrote:If it was a fringe player from Western Bulldogs or Fremantle in the dock they'd have taken 10 minutes to deliver a 6-week ban.
Crap. Wouldn't have even been sighted.
Some Richmond dude did a similar thing last year and got a fine!
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:01 pm
Turbo wrote:
It's all good mate I really couldn't give a crap except for some of the ridiculous posts of a harsher penalty. I can live with 4 given the past record. At least you demonstrate some football understanding unlike some of the other cretins
by CUTTERMAN » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:02 pm
Squids wrote:Surely if Judd set out to injure someone he would target one of the roos better players.
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:02 pm
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:05 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Turbo wrote:
It's all good mate I really couldn't give a crap except for some of the ridiculous posts of a harsher penalty. I can live with 4 given the past record. At least you demonstrate some football understanding unlike some of the other cretins
If I was a Bluebagger I'd be spewing too. Wellingham getting less than Judd just doesn't seem right. This reminds me of when Diesel got nine weeks for pushing that umpire lightly in the chest. Judd has been made an example of and as such it's not a good decision.
regards,
REB
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:08 pm
Jim05 wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:Squids wrote:CUTTERMAN wrote:Taylor Walker hasn't injured anyone with his reports and he's been sidelined for weeks and carry over points, suck it up Carlton, shoe's on the other foot now!
Walker is a douchebag though.
So is Judd. Tonight is the catch up for all the other shit has gotten away with in the past.
regards,
REB
![]()
Yep, has served 3 weeks total only.
Should have got 5 for the eye gouge, 4 for the elbow to Pavlich and 5 for the pressure point.
Protected species
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:09 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Turbo wrote:
It's all good mate I really couldn't give a crap except for some of the ridiculous posts of a harsher penalty. I can live with 4 given the past record. At least you demonstrate some football understanding unlike some of the other cretins
If I was a Bluebagger I'd be spewing too. Wellingham getting less than Judd just doesn't seem right. This reminds me of when Diesel got nine weeks for pushing that umpire lightly in the chest. Judd has been made an example of and as such it's not a good decision.
regards,
REB
by Brad » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:11 pm
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:11 pm
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:13 pm
CUTTERMAN wrote:Judd should be grateful that Squids and Turbo weren't defending him at the tribunal. Gleeson would've put on a loading just for being binkered bumrattlers!
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:14 pm
Turbo wrote:CUTTERMAN wrote:Judd should be grateful that Squids and Turbo weren't defending him at the tribunal. Gleeson would've put on a loading just for being binkered bumrattlers!
Turn it up peanut
by daysofourlives » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:15 pm
by White Line Fever » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:20 pm
daysofourlives wrote:Can the AFL appeal this descision?
I think its a disgrasce given his bad record, this is effectively a 2 week ban plus 2 for previous bad record.
If it was judged by the points system he gets 7, dont worry turbs and didley squids he is still very much a protected species.
How many would Steve Baker have got?
by Turbo » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:37 pm
daysofourlives wrote:Can the AFL appeal this descision?
I think its a disgrasce given his bad record, this is effectively a 2 week ban plus 2 for previous bad record.
If it was judged by the points system he gets 7, dont worry turbs and didley squids he is still very much a protected species.
How many would Steve Baker have got?
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:40 pm
White Line Fever wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Can the AFL appeal this descision?
I think its a disgrasce given his bad record, this is effectively a 2 week ban plus 2 for previous bad record.
If it was judged by the points system he gets 7, dont worry turbs and didley squids he is still very much a protected species.
How many would Steve Baker have got?
The hate is strong with this one.
End well, this will not.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |