Agreed. What a @#$%&! crock. I just saw the replay on WLF, and how on earth that hit was deemed acceptable, or at least, not worthy of suspension is beyond me.
| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Medhurst free to play http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9330 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | phoenix johnson [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Medhurst free to play |
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=256968 |
|
| Author: | magic [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Absolute BULLSHìT, negligent my ass, he knew exactly what he was doing, he couldn't even keep a straight face when saying it, AFL or whoever the tribunal is run by is dumb. |
|
| Author: | camel [ Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Agreed. What a @#$%&! crock. I just saw the replay on WLF, and how on earth that hit was deemed acceptable, or at least, not worthy of suspension is beyond me.
|
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Are Freo the AFL's new Sydney? |
|
| Author: | BlueWorld [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As I said in the other thread, Derek Humphrey-Smith said he was amazed he got off (didn't even think it was worth going to the tribunal & should have been thankful to have only got a week). Said it sent a bad precedent that it was now OK to pick players off. Appeared as though the match review committee & tribunal weren't consistent or supporting each other. Rodney Eade also said he was surprised he got off (on WLF tonight). |
|
| Author: | Zippy [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice. Next time we play them Medhurst can get a taste of Fevola's hip. |
|
| Author: | Ponkstar [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Okay, it's tough game, but there is absolutely no excuse for going in front on like that against a guy with his head over the ball. It's not a contest, it's an assassination by gutless pricks like Medhurst. Where's the incentive for a bloke to put his head over the ball and pick the thing up? Why not wait until some other sucker picks it up and crucnh him into next week? It's wrong I tell ya. Demetriou and his little mate just can't stop screwing around with the game. The plot has well and truly been lost. |
|
| Author: | thegezman [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
socker! 
|
|
| Author: | bluehammer [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Zippy wrote: Nice. Next time we play them Medhurst can get a taste of Fevola's hip.
And Fev will get 8 weeks... |
|
| Author: | magic [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol probably, tribunal are setting bad precedents, severe reprimand, what a load of crap. |
|
| Author: | Blue Bird [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In my best Mark Williams voice - "Deano: you were right!" Travesty 
|
|
| Author: | Shoshie [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well that's a crock of shit. First he gets suspended, now he isn't? What are you playing at tribunal? You must be taking the drugs. |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Should have got two weeks...this is why you need players who can deal with the likes of Medhurst and prevent this happening again....the AFL tribunal system has been exploited again.....reckless, negligent....two words that mean about the same thing in my books yet the tribunal find a massive enough distinction to allow Medhurst to walk free.... Medhurst needs a negligent smack in the gob..... |
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He submitted an early guilty plea, giving him a 25% discount under the rules, he then argued it down to negligent taking it below 100 points. Sneaky, and I honestly don't know how they sympathised with him. |
|
| Author: | BlueWorld [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He'll have to think twice about doing it again. He's within a whisker of a week already. Might want to watch himself because if you can get away with doing what he did he's fair game now! |
|
| Author: | dancingHomer [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just can't believe that a deliberate hit like that can be 'talked' down. That and the compounding of Marc Murphy's hit not being on video - bils my blood DH |
|
| Author: | camel [ Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some light reading. 
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233446 |
|
| Author: | malbi [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've just viewed the game and so replayed the incident a number of times. The action was pure and simply deliberate. How you can argue otherwise is beyond me. The contact was to the head of a man going for the ball (he did not even have the ball). If it was Gary Ablett (snr), Byron Pickett or Shaun Burgoyne who had done the deed then they would have got 3 weeks at least (I know these guys all had priors). |
|
| Author: | beccarlton05 [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Shit decision. Medhurst you are a filthy dog, it's only a matter of time before you go down. |
|
| Author: | JackWorrall [ Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As Medhurst never had any intention of going for the ball, and made direct impact with Houlihan, surely this is 'charging'? From what I understand, this is still a suspendable offence. Derek Humphrey-Smith described Medhurst's actions as 'picking off' Houlihan, and couldn't believe the Fremantle flower got a downgraded penalty. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|