View Full Version : Monty Given Reprimand/ Headland Cleared
The Coon Dog
5 Jun 2006, 20:26
Just saw on the Fox Sports website that Brett Montgomery has been offered a reprimand for rough conduct.
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19370775-23210,00.html
'Geelong forward Gary Ablett and Western Bulldogs defender Brett Montgomery were each offered a reprimand for rough conduct charges.'
Can anyone throw some light on this? I didn't see anything.
I think Des Headland was lucky he didn't connect or his stint on the sidlines would have been considerably longer.
Bell & Headland missing does deprive the Dockers of run through the middle.
Aquamarinejewel
5 Jun 2006, 20:37
I wasn't aware Monty was up on report :eek: did anyone else see the incident?
Libba_39
5 Jun 2006, 20:44
I think it was for a head-high bump on Everitt.
Ablett got cited for that? ... remember thinking to myself at the time what a great bump.. (if that's what he got cited for).
Aquamarinejewel
5 Jun 2006, 20:47
I think it was for a head-high bump on Everitt.
Thanks for that info Libba_39 ... I am surprised we didn't hear more about it when the incident happened.
I wasn't aware Monty was up on report :eek: did anyone else see the incident?
As i stated in another thread, I saw the incident on the replay, monty very lucky to get off imo, ran in from the square, bump to Everitt's head whilst Spiders head was down, similar to when Neitz tried to do the same with Will Minson, but Neitz didn't connect, as soon as i saw the Monty incident, i was thinking 1 -2 weeks.
Headland just got off his attempted to strike on Pettifer, staggering! :confused:
of course he did, the panel knew they were playing us this week.
The Coon Dog
6 Jun 2006, 19:59
Des Headland is free to play against the Doggies this week after being cleared by the AFL tribunal.
He succesfully argued that due to a hand injury he was unable to clench his fist & did not attempt to strike Kayne Pettifer, rather he attempted to get free of him.
Curley, Larry & Moe on the tribunal agreed with him.
Just heard the report on SEN.
Tiger 19
6 Jun 2006, 20:18
How did he handball if he couldn't make a fist??
He succesfully argued that due to a hand injury he was unable to clench his fist & did not attempt to strike Kayne Pettifer, rather he attempted to get free of him.
That's gold:) :) :) :)
The prisons would be empty if the tribunal members were Justices of the Peace.
Defendant: "I wasn't attempting to rob the milkbar your honour, I slipped and fell and hand got stuck in the till. When the police arrived I was trying to free myself."
Judge: "Free this man at once! Why is the prosecutor wasting my time with this rubbish?"
Aquamarinejewel
6 Jun 2006, 20:47
The Coon Dog, threads have been merged...similar content.
gridlocked
6 Jun 2006, 21:40
Ah well hes not much of a player really.
good decision. i was shocked when i heard that he got 2 weeks originally...
'attempting to strike' is rubbish.
i agree that headland just missed him, and that if his arm was longer, he would have connected with him.
if headland was 5 metres away from pettifer and had a swing at him but missed, would he have got 2 weeks for 'attempting to strike'?? remember, if his arm was longer, just like in the real instance, he would have connected with him....
I don't want to see him rubbed out either. It was nothing much.
It's just such a waste of time and effort to bring these things to the tribunal, when the tribunal judges then look for loopholes and barmy excuses to get players off.
scooter600x
7 Jun 2006, 13:04
Didn't Brodie Holland and Glenn Archer (?) get a week each for 'attempting to strike'?
They would be (rightfully) royally *****ed off.
If Headland's wasn't an attempt to stike then the law should be taken out of the book because there will never be a more blatant one than that.
Tiger 19
7 Jun 2006, 15:52
I reckon that the logic applied by the review panel was rubbish. How can you say something is HIGH impact if you don't connect?? I still think that attempting to strike should be reportable, but it should be NO impact - thus lower points and probably a reprimand - which is probably the right result. If a serial offender - it would get a week.
Having said that - his defence was also a load of crap and he should have had a week added on for taking the panel for fools.
On a different tangent - if you are carrying points over (as for example Monty now is), hypothetically, what would happen if you pulled a hammy and you knew you were going to miss a week or three, could you whack someone - get a meaningless suspension (as you wouldn't be playing anyway) and clear your points, so that if you offend later in the season, or in the finals, it doesn't cost you later???
Am I off the mark, or have I found a hole in Anderson great system??
scooter600x
7 Jun 2006, 16:14
I reckon that the logic applied by the review panel was rubbish. How can you say something is HIGH impact if you don't connect?? I still think that attempting to strike should be reportable, but it should be NO impact - thus lower points and probably a reprimand - which is probably the right result. If a serial offender - it would get a week.
Having said that - his defence was also a load of crap and he should have had a week added on for taking the panel for fools.
I heard them discussing this on SEN this morning and apparently it's written in the rules that an attempted strike that was aimed at the head is considered to be high contact. That bit seems to be black and white. Whether it should be or not is another matter entirely and I tend to agree with you that it should be no contact and no activation points.
The defense he used should have ensured he got 3 weeks.
On a different tangent - if you are carrying points over (as for example Monty now is), hypothetically, what would happen if you pulled a hammy and you knew you were going to miss a week or three, could you whack someone - get a meaningless suspension (as you wouldn't be playing anyway) and clear your points, so that if you offend later in the season, or in the finals, it doesn't cost you later???
Am I off the mark, or have I found a hole in Anderson great system??
Points are only carried over for 12 months. It would hardly be worth it.
You need to go 5 years without a guilty finding to be eligible for 25% good behaviour discount.
Tiger 19
7 Jun 2006, 17:07
Thanks Scooter.... so its like a 12 month good behaviour bond.