View Full Version : Lade
footballphantom
15 Sep 2003, 18:39
Has been reported for rough play
tribunal tomorrow night
Nothing in it but what are the AFL going to do now? Bring a player up before the tribunal and then say there was no reason to do it? Even if Lade somehow gets off our preparation has still been stuffed.
Interesting to see that Gieschen himself said Leppitsch's action on Friday may have been reportable but nothing has come of that. But then, Brisbane are not playing Collingwood next week.
Thanks a ton, Walls.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Eddie Woloschek
15 Sep 2003, 20:19
Well, if Rob Walls says it's reportable, it must be. That boring weak-kneed, butt-kissing, chinless blathering bastard.
Ford Fairlane
15 Sep 2003, 21:42
Originally posted by Eddie Woloschek
Well, if Rob Walls says it's reportable, it must be. That boring weak-kneed, butt-kissing, chinless blathering bastard.
That's a bit harsh Eddie. Are u sure he has no chin?
Be thankful his attempt to get Wangas done was fruitless ...
btw you forgot arrogant, supercilious, condescending and pompous (I don't care if they're synonyms, I want to make a point).
Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Be thankful his attempt to get Wangas done was fruitless ...
You mean that dastardly act where he chin-butted Rioli's elbow? Yes, I thought that was a particularly cowardly piece of thuggery, too.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
footballphantom
16 Sep 2003, 00:18
This also shows how the media have the AFL by the b****
I was worried about this when the new media deal came in. The AFL SHOULD have their own cameras and TV footage outlawed in the tribunal. TV really only go for what is going to rate not what is fair.
Use of video has progressed to ridiculous levels. First it was brought in for the behind-the-play king-hits where there was only one umpire. Then it was decided that umpires could lodge a report after the game if their review of the tape showed there was a reportable offence. Now the AFL has decided to stick their oar in and pick and choose what should or shouldn't be reported.
blackdiamond
16 Sep 2003, 00:55
The Money Man should get off, for once it would be good to see a break go his way.
According to AFL Tables Lade will line up for his 100th game this week.
Would be tough to be suspended. Major leg problems, finally proved of real value so must finally be feeling good about himself and actually confident about getting a game next week.
But I'm confident he will get off. After all, a king hit gets two weeks so obviously a ruckman going in with knees up, as ruckmen do, is right at the other end of the scale.:cool: Hope Mark goes there and gets real impassioned.
He's gone for 2 weeks. As soon as it was unduly rough play as the charge you know he's stuffed. It's the charge you can't defend against as it covers everything or anything depending on how much the AFL hierarchy want to protect the image of the game. And with it been pretty boy hit, like the PB case it's 'we can't scare mums from having little johnny play footy because a big bad ruck will get to take him out' will get Lade suspended.
Of course this would be the perfectly timed opportunity for the AFL instead to go "Due to the intense media speculation and replays of the footage in contravention of the medias own agreement not to replay such incidents repeatedly, the AFL has decided to drop all charges against player Lade as an impartial tribunal case won't be able to be heard. In addition we will be reviewing how the media handles such incidents in the future in order to allow players the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise as per every other legal situation in the country".
But THAT would be common sense AND showing the media who's boss. As the first is mutually exclusive to AFL decision making and the latter never going to happen as the media pulls the puppet strings Lade is going down as an example.
I hope I'm forced to take this all back, but I don't think I will have to :(
Porthos
16 Sep 2003, 10:30
Everything about this case says he'll be pinged. Rough play is a rubbish, overused charge - if its what they say it is, its charging.
Poet from Port
16 Sep 2003, 11:21
As stated on the mainboard.
In my personal opinion, having played in the ruck for 5 years in my poor man's career, if you decide to stand under the fall of the ball in a ruck contest it's OPEN SEASON.
You've consciencly made the decision to put yourself in that dangerous situation, and have effectively obstructed the landing area of the other ruckman. Considering Ladey has broken his leg twice, I can understand him trying to ensure he would land safely.
Ford Fairlane
16 Sep 2003, 11:57
Originally posted by mic59
You mean that dastardly act where he chin-butted Rioli's elbow? Yes, I thought that was a particularly cowardly piece of thuggery, too.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No ... the spoil on Lloyd where Wangas came from the side and according to the imperious one gave Lloyd a "smack across the chops". If he actually cared to watch the video and not report what he thought he saw, he'd have noticed that Wangas missed Lloyd's head and actually made contact with his arm. But then that wouldn't sound so dramatically portentous would it?
That incident wasn't even reviewed by the umpires ...
Originally posted by Poet from Port
As stated on the mainboard.
In my personal opinion, having played in the ruck for 5 years in my poor man's career, if you decide to stand under the fall of the ball in a ruck contest it's OPEN SEASON.
You've consciencly made the decision to put yourself in that dangerous situation, and have effectively obstructed the landing area of the other ruckman. Considering Ladey has broken his leg twice, I can understand him trying to ensure he would land safely.
If you're not a ruckman you've got no business being in a ruck contest, if you get cleaned up, bad luck.
Should be no frees award to CHB, FB, FF, Ruckrovers etc going up for a ruck contest against a ruckman, if the team's ruckman cant be bothered getting to a contest then you wear what happens.
The Battler
16 Sep 2003, 13:55
They change the ruck rules to make sure ruckmen leap into the contest, and then they report the ruckmen for doing so.....Well only Port ruckmen :D
Soon will be banning the specky :rolleyes:
How many games did Stafford get for breaking Everitt's jaw at a ruck contest earlier in the year?
blackdiamond
16 Sep 2003, 15:04
Originally posted by Eago77
How many games did Stafford get for breaking Everitt's jaw at a ruck contest earlier in the year?
From memory he had no case to answer. :confused:
If I remember correctly he had two cases to answer that night and didn't receive a game for either.
Originally posted by Scott
From memory he had no case to answer. :confused:
If I remember correctly he had two cases to answer that night and didn't receive a game for either.
That's right, i should have just checked the Port & essendon team lists, as he doesn't play for either of them, then ofcourse he'd have got off scott free.
So you if you dont get any games for breaking a guys jaw in a ruck contest in an accidental, yet reckless way. Is it fair to say that by jumping into someone at a ruck contest and doing no damage you should be ok?
I think he will get 1 game.
I sometimes hold out faith in the tribunal lottery coming up good for us, but I think I'm over that now.
_espoir
16 Sep 2003, 16:31
i dont get how he could be cited. Its hird shouldnt have been going for a ruck, if they did this everytime someone went up for a ruck and didnt have eyes for the ball, lots more players would be out.
is it pick on port season?
Hird got a free. *shurgs* move on media.
:mad: :rolleyes:
lets just ban human contact.
If AFL players were prevented from involving themselves in "reckless behaviour", the likes of Wanganeen, Hird, Voss wouldn't be employed...
This is a joke. We know he's gone. Because he wears teal.
Porthos
16 Sep 2003, 16:44
Charging a player with `rough play' is like making someone play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
footballphantom
16 Sep 2003, 18:36
Just listened to an interview with Andrew D. He says that the reports that are made are not media driven but only make the tribunal more accountable.
He is looking at televising the tribunal next year, as he thinks if we all heard the evidence we would all agree with the tribunal.
I have some questions
1. Which planet is he on?
2. Does he not realise some of us can get the game, download it and do our own video replays?
3. If the umpire is close enough to give a free kick is he also close enough to report a player?
Walls had the arrogance to say in the paper "I gave an opinion and the umpire vindicated that opinion."
Well, if that's how you get your jollies then believe that Walls but although the report has to be made under an umpires' name, none of the umpires' would have made a report if they hadn't been ordered to. And they wouldn't have been ordered to if you hadn't played that over and fulminated at it being a deliberate act.
Once something gets shown on telly that may cause injury the AFL are bound to do something or mothers may stop their boys playing. Of course at the end of this players will be getting suspended for basketball-type infringements and Walls will be screaming about the game being sanitised. And we know where the responsibility for that lies.
Poet from Port
16 Sep 2003, 20:40
Heard on radio he got a reprimand. Yet to confirm
Poet from Port
16 Sep 2003, 20:46
Beginning to think it may not be true. Some guy rang up saying he was on the spot.
Poet from Port
16 Sep 2003, 20:51
Originally posted by Poet from Port
Beginning to think it may not be true. Some guy rang up saying he was on the spot.
No decision yet..
got hopes up for nothing. Sounded too good to be true