View Full Version : 2 weeks for burger
Paralowiepower
1 Apr 2003, 19:52
what a bloody joke. April fools is suppose to finish at midday! The PAFC has to appeal this one. :mad: :mad: :mad:
I am now officially annoyed. All those idiots at AFL house seem to want to do is make sure we are not going to be able to field a full team for weeks. If Burger goes for two for a crappy little move like that tell me how countless players in the AFL's favored teams never even go on report when they do exactly the same thing? The word I got from Brisbane was that Essendon were doing just about nothing but playing the man for at least half of their game.
not impressed. Didnt think it deserved two. Maybe one. Again, a pathetic decision considering other charging decisions made this year.
It didn't deserve anything. We should go back to using the video for what it was meant, spotting malicious behind-the-play events, not picking on challenges for the ball and building them up into something they're not. If the umpires don't see fit to report at the time that should be it.
footballphantom
1 Apr 2003, 21:11
It didn't deserve anything. We should go back to using the video for what it was meant, spotting malicious behind-the-play events, not picking on challenges for the ball and building them up into something they're not. If the umpires don't see fit to report at the time that should be it.
Agreed mic59
Just how the tribunal comes to their decisions I do not know. What amazes me is that I thought the Brisbane/Essendon match was much worse.
This is the kind of thing that makes me annoyed with the AFL in that they try all these new rules during the preseason and do not clean up the ones that are causing problems.
So how come some from the preseason got off. They looked much worse?
The game has just got too fast and maybe it is about time to review the interchange bench and bring it back to two. Not like the old days where they could only be reserves for injury but if the AFL are going to continue this video charging then somehow we have to slow the game down. The pace of the game now does not allow players to be able to stop without causing themselves serious injury
P0RT P0WER
2 Apr 2003, 01:23
Disgrace,
There goes Peter Burgoynes Brownlow chances.
It is like we have a 100 % with the tribunal, what I do not understand about these lowlife scumbag, filthy, *****, ******, *****, ******* over rated, overpaid, good for nothing, pathetic, game ruining, interstatist cheats is that they are so inconsistent.
For example look at Ben Cousins, got rubbed out after Dimma said he played for it and the AFL think his view is irrelevant but only 10 rounds ago Michael Stevens hit Stewart Loewe with a soft blow and Stewart Loewe done the opposite and squealed so the AFL took his oppinion therefore suspending M Stevens for 2 games? Where is the fair play? Another example is Monty when he hardly touched squealer Big nose Burton and Burton who gave evidence resulted in Monty getting suspended.
What is the point of using the victim as evidence if they are only going to use it if it jeopardizes the culprit, or is it just a bluff so the AFL can use their little Powers to pick and choose who and what team they want to suffer?
On that Stewart Loewe incident also Nick Stevens got reported for 2 weeks in that game for slinging his arm back which happens every week, though Shane Crawford done it to a Melbourne player off the ball two weeks prior and made full contact not getting anything. These incosistencies happen week in week out in all facets of the game and we just live with it.
There are so many flaws in our once great game, the AFL Heirachy is the fraudelent, over charging, discriminating, corrupt business that it is.
Once this game belonged to the fans, they expect the normal person to to pay $22 week in week out and for being loyal all year they slug us a mammoth $45 in a finals series, what a farce.
P0RT P0WER
2 Apr 2003, 01:36
What a disgaraceful start to the year, I mean I may be being biased as it is my team but Im ****ed off, there is no accuracy in the reportable offences, someone one day will take the tribunal system to the cleaners, I mean they have little laws but the charging one hasn't even been officially interpretated, there is loopholes right through the system, no set penalties, Peter Burgoyne maybe should of got one game just what disappoints me is the inconsistencies, some get ignored some get over exposed.
Burgoyne was only defending himself and putting his body on the line, f*ck all contact was even made. If a player tackles a player high intentionally tackling him and catches him high it is only a free kick, why can't it be the same in the burgoyne instance, if he was going to mark it give him 50, it is more corageous for a player to run back into the ball and more cowardly to do it from behind but the AFL never punishes the cowardly more dangerous play.
The umpires are a joke, West Coast players just touched their head acting after no contact was made but they gave the free kick to the player taking the dive, imagine if AFL umpires refereed soccer, all the dives and acting in that game, both teams would be red carded out by the 10th minute mark.
He deserved a medal, not a two week holiday.
Wishinman
2 Apr 2003, 20:48
This suspension is workplace bullying!!!
Originally posted by P0RT P0WER
The umpires are a joke, West Coast players just touched their head acting after no contact was made but they gave the free kick to the player taking the dive, imagine if AFL umpires refereed soccer, all the dives and acting in that game, both teams would be red carded out by the 10th minute mark.
If they refereed a game like they umpired that West Coast game, one team would be completely red carded, the other one would still be on the field.
Frees against for acting might do a bit towards cleaning up this mess.
footballphantom
2 Apr 2003, 23:22
This suspension is workplace bullying!!!
I have been wondering how long the players themselves will come to the conclusion that they will soon need legal counsel at the tribunal. I noticed somewhere that the Players Association have brought up set penalties in their bargaining agreement and it will not be long before they insist on a lawyer.
What really needs to happen sometime is for someone to take the AFL to court again because if there was this much confusion in our workplace then the union would step in and say enough is enough.
I just wonder what would happen if the players went on strike?
koulagirl22
2 Apr 2003, 23:47
Originally posted by footballphantom
I have been wondering how long the players themselves will come to the conclusion that they will soon need legal counsel at the tribunal. I noticed somewhere that the Players Association have brought up set penalties in their bargaining agreement and it will not be long before they insist on a lawyer.
What really needs to happen sometime is for someone to take the AFL to court again because if there was this much confusion in our workplace then the union would step in and say enough is enough.
I just wonder what would happen if the players went on strike?
When I get out of here I'd have a readymade job as tribunal person at the PAFC, hopefully...