SA Footy

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:sidey concussed the bloke and he didnt come back on for the rest of the game.

selwood got straight back up and continued playing.

makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Selwood always bounces straight back up. That doesn't mean the action was negligent, intentional, reckless

In my opinion he is guilty of all 3. Just lucky he didnt chin him or it would have been 6.

Protected species, how many times has this prick either not been cited or has been reported only for the crooks to throw it out?
He will get whats coming one day and hopefully the boos continue

tigerpie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:nope, you need force too. its pretty clear cut what the MRP assess on.

of course if the contact was forceful he would have gone for weeks.

Goodes hit Selwood hard, a lot harder than Steele did so your argument is flawed.

Did you see Selwoods face after the contact, he wasnt too happy or moving to well for a while.
If it wasnt Goodes he would have been in that persons face big time.

how can you say he hit selwood harder than sidey did, the dude sidey hit was subbed out with concussion!

Jim05 wrote:Protected species, how many times has this prick either not been cited or has been reported only for the crooks to throw it out?
He will get whats coming one day and hopefully the boos continue

Spot on.

Don't recall this much carry on with ablett last week. Interesting! Ablett elbowed a bloke in the head, much worse then a bump!

Also anyone who said sidebottoms is not as bad as goodes is on some serious gear!!!

One week you lot are bitching that the bump is gone and now you're arms are up in the air...
On the current rules I thought he'd have got 1 at least. People went berresk when Viney (me included) got done for 2 games and he broke someone's jaw. Selwood got straight up!!! Both accidental contact!!!

Accidental contact??

Bollocks

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Accidental contact??

Bollocks

You psychic?

its a pretty fair point though WUB. abletts was at least 100% intentional. probably still below what constitutes a reportable offence but still way worse than goodes' one imo

bennymacca wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:nope, you need force too. its pretty clear cut what the MRP assess on.

of course if the contact was forceful he would have gone for weeks.

Goodes hit Selwood hard, a lot harder than Steele did so your argument is flawed.

Did you see Selwoods face after the contact, he wasnt too happy or moving to well for a while.
If it wasnt Goodes he would have been in that persons face big time.

how can you say he hit selwood harder than sidey did, the dude sidey hit was subbed out with concussion!

Sidebottom only clipped him but got him right on the button. You dont have to hit someone hard to knock em out. I suggest you watch the footage again....without blinkers on.

i might suggest you do the same...

do you know how the charges are graded?

impacts are taken into account, and injury reports are also taken into account. pretty clearly there wasnt an injury to selwood. there was to the st kilda player.

how is that not clear?

tigerpie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:nope, you need force too. its pretty clear cut what the MRP assess on.

of course if the contact was forceful he would have gone for weeks.

Goodes hit Selwood hard, a lot harder than Steele did so your argument is flawed.

Did you see Selwoods face after the contact, he wasnt too happy or moving to well for a while.
If it wasnt Goodes he would have been in that persons face big time.

you taking the piss???

Sidebottom's attack on the man was straight out of the 80s. Was fortunate not more damage was done. Deserved 3-4 weeks without doubt.

bennymacca wrote:you are missing contact guys.

doesnt matter what you do if the contact is so low that its not reportable.

hence why guys dont go for striking every week when they give each other a little jab in the ribs.

Hamish Hartlett says Hello.

bennymacca wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

bennymacca wrote:nope, you need force too. its pretty clear cut what the MRP assess on.

of course if the contact was forceful he would have gone for weeks.

Goodes hit Selwood hard, a lot harder than Steele did so your argument is flawed.

Did you see Selwoods face after the contact, he wasnt too happy or moving to well for a while.
If it wasnt Goodes he would have been in that persons face big time.

how can you say he hit selwood harder than sidey did, the dude sidey hit was subbed out with concussion!

what the bet if it had happened to sloane or dangerfield, bennymacca would be asking for the death penalty ;-)

well i thought douglas should have gone for 1/2 weeks...

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:you are missing contact guys.

doesnt matter what you do if the contact is so low that its not reportable.

hence why guys dont go for striking every week when they give each other a little jab in the ribs.

Hamish Hartlett says Hello.

Bit harder than a jab mate. Sti not huge but was a bit dirty.

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:you are missing contact guys.

doesnt matter what you do if the contact is so low that its not reportable.

hence why guys dont go for striking every week when they give each other a little jab in the ribs.

Hamish Hartlett says Hello.

The Australian of the Year says Goodbye....

regards,

REB

MatteeG wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

Jim05 wrote:Hawks win by 7, more polish when it counted

After looking at some of those frees its pretty easy to work out what they were polishing.

regards,

REB

LOL. Winners are grinners. Take the Charcoal and Orange goggles off REB.

I'd need 16 pairs of googgles to keep up with the arm chair ride you blokes get. Only Carlton had a bigger free kick differential advantage than Hawthorn. It has to be said that is not up to date data though...after the Brisbane game you blokes are probably number one.

regards,

REB

How does schulz get a reprimand and Ablett gets to walk. One incident is a open hand to the mid section with a genuine attempt to spoil the ball. The other is a clear elbow to the head off the ball with only intentions to hurt the player.

bennymacca wrote:i might suggest you do the same...

do you know how the charges are graded?

impacts are taken into account, and injury reports are also taken into account. pretty clearly there wasnt an injury to selwood. there was to the st kilda player.

how is that not clear?

I have stated that Sidebottom got what he deserved.

What i'm not happy about is that Goodes case didnt even rate being looked at.

Again...he took his eye off the ball, he jumped in the air and made contact to the head.

I'm not saying he should have got 3 games for it, but it should have been looked at.