Page 1 of 1
Tribunal News

Posted:
Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:53 pm
by sydney-dog
Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:58 am
by Blue Boy
sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
Still spewin about the Roo decision. Clement got straight up - Collingwood players are the first to go over ala that Italian bloke in the box @ the World Cup Soccer.
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:36 pm
by Punk Rooster
Blue Boy wrote:sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
Still spewin about the Roo decision. Clement got straight up - Collingwood players are the first to go over ala that Italian bloke in the box @ the World Cup Soccer.
Bollocks.
What a stupid comment.
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:40 pm
by locky801
sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
wonder what Holland would have got if the Colliwobbles were still in the finals
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:51 pm
by JK
locky801 wrote:sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
wonder what Holland would have got if the Colliwobbles were still in the finals
Agreed Locky ... Seems to be much more leniency for those with their season still in tact
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:04 pm
by Blue Boy
Punk Rooster wrote:Blue Boy wrote:sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
Still spewin about the Roo decision. Clement got straight up - Collingwood players are the first to go over ala that Italian bloke in the box @ the World Cup Soccer.
Bollocks.
What a stupid comment.
A bit touchy on that one Punky !!!

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:32 pm
by Rik E Boy
Touchy, but right.
regards,
REB
Re: Tribunal News

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:37 pm
by Booney
Punk Rooster wrote:Blue Boy wrote:sydney-dog wrote:Holland - 6 weeks, I don't have an issue
Check, gets off, this I have an issue, no intent for the footy, swans had possession so it was not a shepard, this decision with the Didak verdict two weeks ago is a little confusing, considering Roo got one week
Still spewin about the Roo decision. Clement got straight up - Collingwood players are the first to go over ala that Italian bloke in the box @ the World Cup Soccer.
Bollocks.
What a stupid comment.
I hear you Punky.

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:29 pm
by sydney-dog
is it just me, I think the Didak incident was the Holland incident, two totally different verdicts
Chick, I can't understand this one, the player he hit was 10m from the ball and the swans had possession so Chick could not of been sheparding, his sole intent was to take this player out

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:38 pm
by Dutchy
sydney-dog wrote:is it just me, I think the Didak incident was the Holland incident, two totally different verdicts
Chick, I can't understand this one, the player he hit was 10m from the ball and the swans had possession so Chick could not of been sheparding, his sole intent was to take this player out
its just you...

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:53 pm
by Punk Rooster
sydney-dog wrote:is it just me, I think the Didak incident was the Holland incident, two totally different verdicts
Chick, I can't understand this one, the player he hit was 10m from the ball and the swans had possession so Chick could not of been sheparding, his sole intent was to take this player out
Chick got off, did he?
Glad he doesn't play for the Pies, otherwise more conspiracy theories to nauseaum...

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:21 pm
by sydney-dog
Chick not only got off but no case to answer too

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:25 pm
by sydney-dog
confirmed, Holland gets 6 matches

Posted:
Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:11 pm
by dinglinga
be the first time holland belted a bloke.....
did he jump in the grandstand onsunday and knock a female member of the filth cheersquad out