More pain, Fevola gets 1 week suspension. No appeal.

camel · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:03 pm

Ryan8024 wrote:

Just watched the incident again. It should've been a free kick, and MAYBE a warning to Fev, at the worst.

It will be laughed out before it even makes the match review panel.

I hope you guys are right â€¦ but I think there might be some tears on here next week. :shock:

redskins · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:24 pm **Posts:** 715

at first glance it looked awful...visions of Byron Pickett getting 6 weeks came to mind..

on closer reflection, it is obvious he did not hit the head and was in fact very similar to Brett Burtons report last year..As Burton got cleared i am hoping so will Fev.Only problem is we have no idea what the tribunal is thinking from week to week.

Highly unlikely that it will be thrown out. If it is, i will get up in front of all of you, ala The Fonz and state " I was wr.. wr... wr.....wr.."

Synbad · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:15 pm

Was it any difference to the play that had Benticks head bandaged?
Bentick dropped the head so did Kirk.
Fev however could have knocked him into the middle of next week and chose to shoulder Kirks shoulder.

Nothing in it.

Gwilty · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:25 pm

For sheer stupidity, he deserves a week.

But it was a fairly soft incedent on reflection, and deserves a reprimand we carry over points.

Does Fev have any points on record already? If so, I'd be thinking he'll get a week due to that.

walker1 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:47 pm

http://www.aflpa.com.au/media/Trib%20Ref%20Jan05.pdf

Here's the link with the points for the tribunal. Does anyone know if Fev has any points to carry over?

Lace Out · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:51 am

I'm pretty sure he has some points, but no idea how many..

bondiblue · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:36 am

The supposed 'hit' was not vicious, shows no malice, and there was no connection to the head, shoulder...by a hip, knee, elbow or fist...Kirk was dicked by Fevola. Where in the rule book does it state that a player will carry a suspension for dicking someone.

If he's suspended, then this game is absolutely run by F***wits, and as for the game, then it's f*****d as well.

Ponkstar · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:38 am

bondiblue wrote:

If he's suspended, then this game is absolutely run by F***wits, and as for the game, then it's f*****d as well.

And therein lies the concern about Fev's immediate future

nightcrawler · **Joined:** Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:48 am **Posts:** 2891

1st quarter. Bentick hemmed in on the boundry line. Looks up and sees the swan player coming and ducks his head. Gets tacked over the line and gets up with his head bleeding. No free paid, and Walls says its irresponsible play by Bentick, putting himself at risk.

3rd Quarter. Kirk looks up and sees Fev coming. Ducks his head over the ball and gets taken down (abeit crudely). No actual contact to the head. Gets up immdiately. Free paid, report taken. Walls saids its reckless and dangerous cause Kirk had his head over the ball.

Gee Walls shits me off.

I reckon the soon we stop rewarding players for ducking their heads in a contest the sooner players will stop doing it. They should stand up take the tackle and if it's a high/head shot that's when the umpires/tribunal should step in and protect them.

killpies · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:53 pm

Wojee wrote:

I have a feeling Fev will get weeks just because he's Fev. The only consistency at the tribunal is that some players get shafted whenever they walk in the door.

Agree, unless your Wanganeen, then you could take to the ump with a baseball bat and have it deemed accidental contact.

CK95 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:29 pm

If you look at it you'll find Fev is focussed on the ball enough to still soccer it at the point he meets Kirk.

I have blamed Fev in the past but will defend his right to do what he did here to the hilt...which was GOING HARD FOR THE BALL. Kirk was fine.

Seriously, footy's shit compared to 10-15 years ago.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

150 points. One match if he pleads guilty.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:44 pm

BlueWorld wrote:

150 points. One match if he pleads guilty.

And Leppitsch 4 down to 2 I think.

I could cop that, though I haven't seen the points breakdown etc

phoenix johnson · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:45 pm

BlueWorld wrote:

150 points. One match if he pleads guilty.

Absolute joke.

fevolaaaa · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:54 pm

I think it'd be due to his prior record, and he wouldn't have missed a match otherwise

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

fevolaaaa wrote:

I think it'd be due to his prior record, and he wouldn't have missed a match otherwise

Pretty sure that's right. I think it was assessed as 125, would have come down to 93.75 but because of poor record gets increased instead.

bjaffe · **Joined:** Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:18 pm **Posts:** 56

The system is a joke if the Fev is getting rubbed out for such an innocuous challenge. Anyone with a brain could see Fevola had kicked the ball ahead, had a full head of steam, got a bit excited with his soccer skills and accidentally ran into Kirk - no malice, nothing untoward at all. The tribunal's got it all wrong.

JK · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:19 pm **Posts:** 2188

Lets challenge it then

Abaddon · **Joined:** Fri May 13, 2005 10:45 pm **Posts:** 423

1 match for that is bullshit.
contest at the tribunal for sure.

blu944 · **Posted:** Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:45 pm

Kennedy, Carlos, Hartlett?? I wonder who's gonna get the gig?

More pain, Fevola gets 1 week suspension. No appeal.

Who is online