by story of my life » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:34 pm
by southee » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:48 pm
blueandwhite wrote:Cowardly -probably
Crude- definitely
Thoughtless-definitely
Suspension for 2 wks -definitely
Did the Bay player deserve it- from what I saw ,definitely.
by story of my life » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:53 pm
southee wrote:blueandwhite wrote:Cowardly -probably
Crude- definitely
Thoughtless-definitely
Suspension for 2 wks -definitely
Did the Bay player deserve it- from what I saw ,definitely.
Yep ...the little snipper, loud mouth got what he asked for !!!!
by Big Phil » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:13 pm
by nwdfanparade » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:20 pm
Big Phil wrote:Haven't seen anything official but have spoken to a few people and read elsewhere that the Sutherland report was thrown out this morning and Andrew Hayes will face the tribunal.
by Brucetiki » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:27 pm
nwdfanparade wrote:No wonder he had a smile on is face after being reported because he knew that as a Doggie player it would more than likely be dropped or end up as 'not guilty'. How many doggie players have had reports dropped before going to the tribunal this year? Of the 7 doggie reports that have gone to the tribunal, 5 have been found not guilt (including 1 appeal upheld) and only 2 resulted in 1 match suspension each.
by bulldog2004 » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:56 pm
nwdfanparade wrote:Big Phil wrote:Haven't seen anything official but have spoken to a few people and read elsewhere that the Sutherland report was thrown out this morning and Andrew Hayes will face the tribunal.
That sucks. At no time did Sutherland look towards the flight of the ball. At no time did his hand/s go in the direction of the ball as Zorzi was going for the mark. He was hunched over with the point of contact under Zorzi's arm and on his (zorzi's) side. Sutherland was in no way attempting to mark or spoil the marking contest. Sutherland aimed for Zorzi, and made no attempt to mark or spoil the ball in the marking contest.
by Grahaml » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:49 am
nwdfanparade wrote:Big Phil wrote:Haven't seen anything official but have spoken to a few people and read elsewhere that the Sutherland report was thrown out this morning and Andrew Hayes will face the tribunal.
That sucks. At no time did Sutherland look towards the flight of the ball. At no time did his hand/s go in the direction of the ball as Zorzi was going for the mark. He was hunched over with the point of contact under Zorzi's arm and on his (zorzi's) side. Sutherland was in no way attempting to mark or spoil the marking contest. Sutherland aimed for Zorzi, and made no attempt to mark or spoil the ball in the marking contest.
by Jim05 » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:24 am
by jockey » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:33 am
nwdfanparade wrote:Big Phil wrote:Haven't seen anything official but have spoken to a few people and read elsewhere that the Sutherland report was thrown out this morning and Andrew Hayes will face the tribunal.
That sucks. At no time did Sutherland look towards the flight of the ball. At no time did his hand/s go in the direction of the ball as Zorzi was going for the mark. He was hunched over with the point of contact under Zorzi's arm and on his (zorzi's) side. Sutherland was in no way attempting to mark or spoil the marking contest. Sutherland aimed for Zorzi, and made no attempt to mark or spoil the ball in the marking contest.
No wonder he had a smile on is face after being reported because he knew that as a Doggie player it would more than likely be dropped or end up as 'not guilty'. How many doggie players have had reports dropped before going to the tribunal this year? Of the 7 doggie reports that have gone to the tribunal, 5 have been found not guilt (including 1 appeal upheld) and only 2 resulted in 1 match suspension each.
by CENTURION » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:22 am
by redwhiteandblueblooded » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:43 am
jockey wrote:nwdfanparade wrote:Big Phil wrote:Haven't seen anything official but have spoken to a few people and read elsewhere that the Sutherland report was thrown out this morning and Andrew Hayes will face the tribunal.
That sucks. At no time did Sutherland look towards the flight of the ball. At no time did his hand/s go in the direction of the ball as Zorzi was going for the mark. He was hunched over with the point of contact under Zorzi's arm and on his (zorzi's) side. Sutherland was in no way attempting to mark or spoil the marking contest. Sutherland aimed for Zorzi, and made no attempt to mark or spoil the ball in the marking contest.
No wonder he had a smile on is face after being reported because he knew that as a Doggie player it would more than likely be dropped or end up as 'not guilty'. How many doggie players have had reports dropped before going to the tribunal this year? Of the 7 doggie reports that have gone to the tribunal, 5 have been found not guilt (including 1 appeal upheld) and only 2 resulted in 1 match suspension each.
Sour grapes ??
by westcoastpanther » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:59 am
by HOORAY PUNT » Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:27 am
by geppscrossrams » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:14 am
HOORAY PUNT wrote:Yes that was ridiculous that one. What else could he do ?
by Grahaml » Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:51 pm
geppscrossrams wrote:HOORAY PUNT wrote:Yes that was ridiculous that one. What else could he do ?
They also need to factor in that the Eagles player was actually pushed into him as well.
by Big Phil » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:27 pm
smac wrote:Hayes free to play.
by fish » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:38 pm
Was never in doubt!Big Phil wrote:Yes, given a reprimand which is all it should have been. The correct decision there.smac wrote:Hayes free to play.
by CENTURION » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:06 pm
fish wrote:Was never in doubt!Big Phil wrote:Yes, given a reprimand which is all it should have been. The correct decision there.smac wrote:Hayes free to play.![]()
Can now play for his fifth Premiership Medallion.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |