Match Review Panel

[TEX07]

Based on current rules and good record they probably got this one right, ugly incident, but he did get 5 and was able to plead down through good record to three. He does it again and he will get hammered, I dont mind this if they become consistent in who goes up and who gets off. Unfortunately you cant base it on how long the injured player is out for, what if Simpson didnt break his jaw and was only out for 1 for concussion, does Wellingham then only get the one? The incident is still the same.

[MAY-Z]

Not Wellinghams fault he gets 3 weeks, would you say the same thing if he got 5?

I realise it's not his fault it's the precedent set by the AFL, and it's flawed system.

If he missed the same amount of games as Simmo, then fair enough, play on.

If I was a club, and I knew I could break Dane Swan's jaw and only get 3 weeks, I'd send someone out with a good record, who you wouldn't necessarily miss for 3 weeks and "unintentionally" do it, the week before the finals.....

get your carlton goggles off jabber

there isnt anything you can argue with on the mrp finding - high contact, severe impact and reckless. adds up to a 5 match ban which is longer than simpson is reported to be out. he only gets it down to 3 because he has been in the system for more than 5 years without getting a record and accepting the early guilty plea which is all reasonable.

the only way it could have been graded to a higher penalty would have been if it was classed as intentional. but it couldnt be classed as intentional as he didnt intentially hit him in the head, he intentially made contact with simpson. for an intentional grading the intention has to be to hit him in the head, as he made contact with his head accidentally but intentionally made contact it gets a reckless grading. had he not intentionally made contact then it would have been negligent contact.

people suggesting the length of time a player is out should determine how long the offender should get simply havent thought the process through at all. for instance if the tribunal didnt overturn lindsay thomas' sliding suspension against gary rohan would people have suggested thomas miss the whole year plus any pre-season that rohan misses?

what about a few years ago when tim notting ended blake caracella's career with a head high bump which caused him severe neck injury. would you say that notting has his career ended too?

[Turbo]

should of gotten 3 brownlow votes for that.

Pusillanimous comment demonstrative of someone who must be of low intelligence.

[Dirko]

Holy shit May-Z has made it into the AFL threads for the first time all year! Hooray!

should of gotten 3 brownlow votes for that.

Highly intelligent comment. Must be the inbreeding.

[Punk Rooster]

Wellingham very lucky to only have to sit out 3.

Sets the precedent. Break a blokes jaw and get 3, whilst the dude with the broken jaw misses 4 - 6.

Makes sense....

I hope someone breaks Sharrods jaw, and puts him out for the same amount of time, and then listen to that fat ******* retard Eddie squeal....

What a classy post- made more ironic (maybe moronic) by the fact that Carlton harboured David Rhys-Jones?

should of gotten 3 brownlow votes for that.

Highly intelligent comment. Must be the inbreeding.

It is still more intelligent than your comment.
Must be something about Carlton supporters- don't mind giving it, can't take it.
Danyle Pearce would feel at home...

[Dirko]

And hooray in wads Punky Brewster for his go!

Read the post again. What would Eddie McChins say if the same thing happened to Sharrod?

Ohh that's right. Nothing. Eddie wouldn't put his media hat on and ride the case now would he.....

Perhaps I need to put a few things like this in my posts so you can understand them better

[Dirko]

What a classy post- made more ironic (maybe moronic) by the fact that Carlton harboured David Rhys-Jones?

Rhys-Jones got as good as what he gave out....

Next.

[Punk Rooster]

Perhaps I need to put a few things like this in my posts so you can understand them better

and here's a pictorial that will surely get you excited

[Dirko]

Sure does.

Give it a go big boy...you don't know what you're missing out on.

[scoob]

Not Wellinghams fault he gets 3 weeks, would you say the same thing if he got 5?

I realise it's not his fault it's the precedent set by the AFL, and it's flawed system.

If he missed the same amount of games as Simmo, then fair enough, play on.

If I was a club, and I knew I could break Dane Swan's jaw and only get 3 weeks, I'd send someone out with a good record, who you wouldn't necessarily miss for 3 weeks and "unintentionally" do it, the week before the finals.....

get your carlton goggles off jabber

there isnt anything you can argue with on the mrp finding - high contact, severe impact and reckless. adds up to a 5 match ban which is longer than simpson is reported to be out. he only gets it down to 3 because he has been in the system for more than 5 years without getting a record and accepting the early guilty plea which is all reasonable.

the only way it could have been graded to a higher penalty would have been if it was classed as intentional. but it couldnt be classed as intentional as he didnt intentially hit him in the head, he intentially made contact with simpson. for an intentional grading the intention has to be to hit him in the head, as he made contact with his head accidentally but intentionally made contact it gets a reckless grading. had he not intentionally made contact then it would have been negligent contact.

people suggesting the length of time a player is out should determine how long the offender should get simply havent thought the process through at all. for instance if the tribunal didnt overturn lindsay thomas' sliding suspension against gary rohan would people have suggested thomas miss the whole year plus any pre-season that rohan misses?
what about a few years ago when tim notting ended blake caracella's career with a head high bump which caused him severe neck injury. would you say that notting has his career ended too?

100% Agree

[helicopterking]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

[Punk Rooster]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

what about Judd and the eye-gouging?

[howzat]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

what about Judd and the eye-gouging?

watched the game last friday night dont remember that

[Spargo]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

That would be the sack tap with the ELBOW - correct? Appeal denied, there goes a good chunk of head high ducks- sorry frees for a fortnight.
And Lynch contesting his trip? It was almost kicking. Do west coast realise there are replays these days that the powers that be can refer to?
F#cking gob smacking.

[Johno6]

[Turbo]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

That would be the sack tap with the ELBOW - correct? Appeal denied, there goes a good chunk of head high ducks- sorry frees for a fortnight.
And Lynch contesting his trip? It was almost kicking. Do west coast realise there are replays these days that the powers that be can refer to?
F#cking gob smacking.

Both incidents deserved the penalties received

[helicopterking]

Still cannot believe Shuey was given 2 for a sack tap on Thomas. Considering Brent Harvey put his elbow almost through Wingards face earlier in the year and got off.

That would be the sack tap with the ELBOW - correct? Appeal denied, there goes a good chunk of head high ducks- sorry frees for a fortnight.
And Lynch contesting his trip? It was almost kicking. Do west coast realise there are replays these days that the powers that be can refer to?
F#cking gob smacking.

Both incidents deserved the penalties received

Not when Wellingham gets a total of 3 for what he did.

[Rik E Boy]

Wellingham's was deemed unintentional. What bulltish. He lined up Simpson big time. Another beauty was that it was 'out of character'. Again not so sure. He seems to give out little cheap shots regularly. Three weeks is bollocks IMO.

regards,

REB

[howzat]

Wellingham's was deemed unintentional. What bulltish. He lined up Simpson big time. Another beauty was that it was 'out of character'. Again not so sure. He seems to give out little cheap shots regularly. Three weeks is bollocks IMO.

regards,

REB

pretty sure wellingham said on the sunday footy show the blues were getting a bit of a run on so more or less thats why he did it....oh but he didnt mean to hurt him ROTFLMAO....

[Squids]

Mitch Robinson is going to make One Direction pay next time we play the Poos