the match review panel is a joke.
Schwab was a shithouse coach and he can't do this job either.

I think you all know my response. Absolute joke. Same thing as what Medhurst did to him. Medhurst offered a week, appealled and got off.

APPEAL IT FOR @#$%&! SAKE.

PS: I did see the bump and am currently happy that he finally did a bump. Well done Ryan. But APPEAL IT.

_________________
Karma

Loyal & Proud

Hope we can afford the appeal.

Ryan the Hitman Houlihan, has a certain ring to it!

_________________
17 4 10

My favourite part of the Houla bump is then seeing I think Mcgrath swoop past and take off with the ball...

A real team effort..

_________________
Circumstance has no value. It is how one relates to a situation that has value. All true meaning resides in the personal relationship to a phenomenon, what it means to you.

Totally different to the Medhurst bump.

Medhurst ran off the line to take him out off the ball - ie snipe

Houla took the bloke out in a contest for the ball.

Medhurst deserved time, Houla doesn't.

Just discussed on WLF. Schwartz says perfectly fair bump and will be thrown out in 3 mins. Spider is embarrased it's even been cited.

Just saw that, totally agree...

Anyway, opens the door for carrots to come back in if Houla accepts.

I hope he doesn't accept. Do we think he'll appeal?

_________________
Karma

Loyal & Proud

wont need to lay out any money to contest the match panel verdict.

should the tribunal uphold schwab's bullshit decision then we would have to pay $15K or whatever to appeal.

amazing how schwab never fails to cite one of our guys!! hawk players always seem to get off for some reason.

the croad decision on his hit on russell was an absolute disgrace!!!!!

hate the way coaching failures like schwab and geischen land themselves plum AFL roles ... on what @#$%&! basis????????

_________________
... an eagle flew out of the night. he was something to observe, came in close i heard a voice, bending stretching every nerve, had to listen had no choice ...

To anyone who has heard the Schwab interview on 774 that's been replayed a few times over the last week or so, this should be no suprise.

I was absolutely stunned listening to him. He had no conviction in his decisions and was second guessing judgements he'd made only two weeks before. He seemed to think he was the arbiter of the direction of football, in this case the protection of players (and didn't know where he was heading with it). He's not, he's there to judge incidents according to a pre-determined scale that was set out by those governing the game. He's got it completely backwards, he decides what he thinks the penalty should be and then makes something up based on the scales in front of him to equal that penalty.

If those in charge decide that something needs to be done about head high incidents then they need to change the gradings of incidents, it's not up to Schwabby to decide he wants to do something and hand out arbitrary penalties. No wonder no one knows what to expect from the panel.

We have to contest it, surely. Where was the intent, negligence? ANy of that gumph?

If Rosa had have not tried to slightly duck into it, it would have been shoulder to shoulder.

And Deano...if its in the head, it has to be a free, doesn't it? How can you get away from that? It was a free, nothing more.

And if he gets suspended it will not only be his last but everyone's, as it will no longer be worth the risk.

Had another look at that and the club should show that to the tribunal and ask how he could get off and Houla be suspended. Medhurst was not even looking at the ball, while Houla was going at the man with the ball. The bump was at least as vigorous and certainly shook Houla, who did well to keep playing. I can't see how Medhurst could get no weeks and Houla 1-2.

Someone print and frame this post!

About the only one by Abbadon which makes any sense whatsoever.

Additionally, Schwab has to give up either commentating matches for ABC radio, or heading the tribunal panel, surely even a dimbulb like him can see the conflict of interest in possibly commentating on decisions he may have to review later....

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Such as the night he was asked to explain his penalty on Fevola last year before the Hawthorn game (funny coincidence that), and basicly admitted it was due to media pressure, then demanded an apology from Fevola for accurately summarising what he said.

I am utterly stunned to think that conflicts of interest could possibly occur in the AFL.

We have 1 hour and 15 minutes to lodge an appeal.

Surely we are going to lodge an appeal against this farce.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Did he have a bit of a cry like he did at Glenferrie Rd that time?

I'll be embarassed if we don't appeal this one. Or maybe we should use it as an example of how pathetic Schwab is - don't appeal and let the week stand and have the media ask WHAT THE @#$%&!????

_________________
end of message

Move over and we can be embarrassed together - but dont wait for any sympathetic media input on this one.

The arse clown Mike Sheahan doesn't even mention Houlihan's incident preferring to focus Rawlings and Bartels incidents.

And going by Sheahan's excrecable article commenting on our game against the West Coast:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 42,00.html

How on earth he could work in a Collingwood angle on this game defies all logic - basically inviting all supporters to kick Carlton whilst they are down - absolute trawling the depths Sheahan, you really are a miserable piece of dog excrement.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Carlton are taking it to the tribunal.

(Been trying to post this for ages. Why is the site so slow?)