View Full Version : Lade not guilty.....channel 2 news
Wishinman
16 Sep 2003, 20:55
:D
Thank goodness commonsense has prevailed:)
Ray Nolan
16 Sep 2003, 21:07
I know the ABC News said it, but part of me still doesn't believe it given the way our players normally get crucified at the tribunal!
Nice one Lazer, have a great 100th this Saturday!
Kid Dynamite!
16 Sep 2003, 21:15
:D
Even when I heard Rioli had got off I was sure Lade would get it because Walls had crucified him during the match and in the papers. IN YOUR FACE, WALLS!!
Port1978
16 Sep 2003, 22:38
EXCELLENT!!! :D
Beffery
16 Sep 2003, 23:52
Awesome :) Glad to see he's finally going to make his 100th. All the best to him!!
**** you Walls!!! :D
He'll still get dropped for the Mattress.
(JOKING)
While I was interested to read that Walls said he was vindicated because the umpire reported Lade, I am curious to now know whether the tribunal has vindicated all those who said Walls was a complete and utter ****er.
What a joke, Lade should have got 2 weeks at least.
Wishinman
17 Sep 2003, 01:09
Originally posted by Port01
While I was interested to read that Walls said he was vindicated because the umpire reported Lade, I am curious to now know whether the tribunal has vindicated all those who said Walls was a complete and utter ****er.
We have had the 'Eddies a Waynker' chant, i just hope some of those that are going over this week can start the 'Walls is a dikchead' chant at the 25th minute mark of the last quarter, just after Lade slots through a goal to put Port up by 24 points.
Originally posted by Wishinman
We have had the 'Eddies a Waynker' chant, i just hope some of those that are going over this week can start the 'Walls is a dikchead' chant at the 25th minute mark of the last quarter, just after Lade slots through a goal to put Port up by 24 points.
Nah, I just want us to win the flag (shock) and have Byron say "I'd like to thank my teammates and coach for not listening when ignorant commentators had a go at me. This one's for you Wallsy" and make the bird gesture. Wouldn't exactly be politically correct, but the port people would go berserk. Ah can only hope.
uncyherb
17 Sep 2003, 11:51
This result is only good for you this week... it sends a clear message - hope that the opposition player who you have jumped into trying to injure says something nice about you at the tribunal....
****ing Lade had no intent other than INJURING ANOTHER PLAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since when are you so friggin arrogant that you think that's within the bounds of fair or even DECENT play!????
You've all attacked Walls.... **** - Lade wasn't looking at the footy - he even admitted that Cornes was the one going for the footy at the ruck contest - he was looking to injure a player... he basically even admitted it at the tribunal...
Since when is that anything that you should be proud of?????? How ****ed up are you when you think that allowing players to jump from full height into someone who isn't jumping against them with THE SOLE INTENT OF INJURING THE PLAYER is good!??
You people friggin amaze me......
Fletcher got two weeks for a careless high tackle one week ago..... fine, thats the standard we should work on.... one ****ing week later and your all crying about trial by media.... get real... LADE DID IT!!!!!!!!!! He deserved at least one week, and probably two considering the Fletcher verdict.
What if David Hille jumps into Wanganeen next time we play and breaks a couple of ribs.... will you be happy to see him not get a charge???? I doubt it... so don't cry "we were done hard by the media... its a good result for common sense" cos it only makes you look like ********s.
EDIT by Porthos: Don't evade the swear filter. Thanks.
Ford Fairlane
17 Sep 2003, 14:20
Three minutes deliberation and the charge was thrown out ... as it should have been (irrespective of the demented ramblings of some on this thread). Good to see Port finally mount a coherent defence and finally stick one up that arrogant posturing wannabe Jack McCoy - Rick Lewis. Hey Rick, sometimes ... smoke (and mirrors) gets in your eyes.
uncyherb
17 Sep 2003, 14:31
Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Three minutes deliberation and the charge was thrown out ... as it should have been (irrespective of the demented ramblings of some on this thread).
Dispute anything I've said.... I'd like to see you argue against any of my points rather than just claiming the high ground without evidence of even a simple theory of WHY the charge should be thrown out.
They were simply following the 'unco ruckman' precedent set in AFL v Stafford (2003).
Porthos
17 Sep 2003, 14:40
Originally posted by uncyherb
Dispute anything I've said.... I'd like to see you argue against any of my points rather than just claiming the high ground without evidence of even a simple theory of WHY the charge should be thrown out. But you didn't make any points. All you did was fling accusations.
Ford Fairlane
17 Sep 2003, 14:48
Originally posted by uncyherb
Dispute anything I've said.... I'd like to see you argue against any of my points rather than just claiming the high ground without evidence of even a simple theory of WHY the charge should be thrown out.
Here's a simple one for you. Prove Lade's intent. Show me the portal into his mind that allows you to decide what he was thinking. I'll dispute that. You can carry on all you like that you "know" what he was thinking but you can't. I can dispute your statements at that basic level and you have no comeback.
Three learned football people sat in judgement, listening to 80 minutes of evidence and took three minutes to dismiss the charge. The charge itself - "rough play" - demonstrates the charging umpire could not demonstrate intent. Lade's words to the tribunal were that his intent was to make "solid contact". As all ruckmen in ruck contests do. That does not translate, no matter how hard you try to twist it, to he was trying to injure another player.
Now get over it.
_espoir
17 Sep 2003, 14:55
reason fletcher got matches is because of his RECORD!
god...
:D damn walls........ brain washed people.
:)
Originally posted by uncyherb
Dispute anything I've said.... I'd like to see you argue against any of my points rather than just claiming the high ground without evidence of even a simple theory of WHY the charge should be thrown out.
We could easily argue every point you made, mainly on the fact that you were looking at everything from a totally biased perspective. But what would be the point? You're obviously a sore loser and a vindictive little bastard who's going to stick to his claim that what Lade did was one step down from Satanic worship. And if Hille did the same and broke a couple of Wanganeen's ribs, yes, I daresay we would be going off our trees but we would be just as wrong as you are. And nothing happened to Hird except a free was paid so what is your problem?
uncyherb
17 Sep 2003, 15:22
We could easily argue every point you made, mainly on the fact that you were looking at everything from a totally biased perspective. But what would be the point? You're obviously a sore loser and a vindictive little bastard who's going to stick to his claim that what Lade did was one step down from Satanic worship. And if Hille did the same and broke a couple of Wanganeen's ribs, yes, I daresay we would be going off our trees but we would be just as wrong as you are. And nothing happened to Hird except a free was paid so what is your problem?
The Essendon medical staff thought that Hird had broken ribs from the incident. At least he had extremely bruised ribs. The intent was to damage him, the extent might not have been what he was aiming for , but he was close.
reason fletcher got matches is because of his RECORD!
And how does a record prove guilt??? It doesn't.. Fletcher was railroaded and told that he didn't show a duty of care towards the opponent he collided with.. Lade ADMITTED that he aimed to contact with Hird. Both players (Hird & the Freo kid) played out the game. Why wasn't Lade asked to show a duty of care???
Here's a simple one for you. Prove Lade's intent. Show me the portal into his mind that allows you to decide what he was thinking. I'll dispute that. You can carry on all you like that you "know" what he was thinking but you can't. I can dispute your statements at that basic level and you have no comeback.
Jesus you're not too clever are you... Lade ADMITTED he aimed for Hird. In what world do you imagine that Lade jumps no where near the path of the football, admits that he aimed to make significant contact with hird and yet his intent wasn't to harm him?
What did he think was going to happen? He's 109 kilos and is comming down from a full jump with his knee extended directly at the body of a guy who is standing on the ground.
Despite what some people have posted here based solely on Lade's testimony, the only part that Hird was playing in that ball-up situation was as a rover.... he wasn't jumping up for the footy.
Lade admitted that once he saw Cornes going for the ball he jumped past him... why? To get Hird and to "make space for the ball to drop". So here we see that your number one ruckmen thinks "Hmmm... who should get the footy? Me - ruckman? Cornes - not ruckman? Hangon... I can see Hird roving the pack... I'll jump into him because Cornes can cover the ball... I'll aim for his body because that's a team rule"
It's bull****, cut and dried. The only reason he didn't break Hird's ribs was luck... not because he showed any duty of care towards him.
The tribunal last week declared that you MUST show a duty of care.... but obviously you think that Lade doesn't have to because it would be inconvienent for you tilt at a flag.
Well stuff the friggin lot of you. When Rioli only got three weeks for eye gouging against Sydney in 2002 I was loudly condemming the tribunal's decision. He should have gotten somewhere between 5 anf 8 weeks for a **** effort like that.
Why can't you admit that Lade was given a free ****ing ride by the AFL tribunal last night. What he did was a cowardly, dogs act and should have been dealt with with at least two weeks.
Originally posted by Port01
While I was interested to read that Walls said he was vindicated because the umpire reported Lade, I am curious to now know whether the tribunal has vindicated all those who said Walls was a complete and utter ****er.
I believe they have:)
Originally posted by uncyherb
This result is only good for you this week... it sends a clear message - hope that the opposition player who you have jumped into trying to injure says something nice about you at the tribunal....
****ing Lade had no intent other than INJURING ANOTHER PLAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since when are you so friggin arrogant that you think that's within the bounds of fair or even DECENT play!????
Our players always tow the party line of "i only felt a glancing blow" or words to that effect. I think you've confused us with the squeelers from adelaide, or Girly-man Bell or Girly-man Loewe. We deserve a few favurs back from players at the tribunal, full credit to Hird, wonder what he would have said if we weren't playing collingwood this week?
Originally posted by uncyherb
You've all attacked Walls.... **** - Lade wasn't looking at the footy - he even admitted that Cornes was the one going for the footy at the ruck contest - he was looking to injure a player... he basically even admitted it at the tribunal...
Walls is a ****er.
Originally posted by uncyherb
Fletcher got two weeks for a careless high tackle one week ago..... fine, thats the standard we should work on.... one ****ing week later and your all crying about trial by media.... get real... LADE DID IT!!!!!!!!!! He deserved at least one week, and probably two considering the Fletcher verdict.
[/COLOR]
Have you seen the length of Fletcher's record, that's why he got two weeks and Lade got of with a warning. If it was P Burgoyne he'd have been gone for 2 as well.
Originally posted by uncyherb
What if David Hille jumps into Wanganeen next time we play and breaks a couple of ribs.... will you be happy to see him not get a charge???? I doubt it... so don't cry "we were done hard by the media... its a good result for common sense" cos it only makes you look like ********s.
I'd like to know what Gav was doing in the ruck contest?
Condering Gav usually almost gets killed twice a game, what's nother few broken ribs?
uncyherb
17 Sep 2003, 17:33
Originally posted by Eago77
Have you seen the length of Fletcher's record, that's why he got two weeks and Lade got of with a warning. If it was P Burgoyne he'd have been gone for 2 as well.
Geeze ... I'm not sure how many times I have to say this.... but here we go again.
Fletcher's record has nothing to do with it..... you've basically made a presumption of guilt because he has been done for striking before (BTW, only 3 times in 10 years prior to last week, the others were all wrestling/melee, goal post shaking and two trippings - geeze - he's an animal NOT) ... and you reckon Walls is a ****er because he pre-judged Lade..."pot to kettle = your black!"
Lade didn't get a warning... he got off NOT GUILTY.
By your reasoning Lade will never be found guilty, because he doesn't have a record, yet Fletcher will allways be guilty because he does. Absolute crap that you can't possibly believe.
And still... no-one has really disputed the facts that suggest that what Lade did was WRONG.... the best I've had so far is "you cant tell what was on his mind... prove his intent".... and "Lucky James Hird didn't sell him up the river by telling the truth like Adelaide might've"
Ford Fairlane
17 Sep 2003, 18:27
Originally posted by uncyherb
Jesus you're not too clever are you... Lade ADMITTED he aimed for Hird. In what world do you imagine that Lade jumps no where near the path of the football, admits that he aimed to make significant contact with hird and yet his intent wasn't to harm him?
Lade admitted that once he saw Cornes going for the ball he jumped past him... why? To get Hird and to "make space for the ball to drop". So here we see that your number one ruckmen thinks "Hmmm... who should get the footy? Me - ruckman? Cornes - not ruckman? Hangon... I can see Hird roving the pack... I'll jump into him because Cornes can cover the ball... I'll aim for his body because that's a team rule"
You're childish name calling attempting to bluff and bluster your way out of your incoherent argument is tiresome. Hopefully you really have given up as you claim, but here's one last try. Here is Brendon Lade's quote to the tribunal about the ruck contest.
"As I was about to leave the ground, out of the corner of my eye I could see Chad Cornes was going to be the second man up. It's one of the set plays around ball-ups that we have a second man to help ease flooding problems."
Chad was the second man up . Do you think then that Lade considers he was the primary ruckman in the contest? Or do you think he thought his imaginary friend Tommy Turtle was going to do the ruck work for him? Lade expected Hird to take the ruck ... read the comments from the tribunal ... and Cornes was going to come over the top to clear the ball. Lade's responsibility to his teammates, coach and club is to make a contest in the ruck ... which he did.
If you have your panties in such a bunch over this decision ring the AFL and speak to the members of the tribunal. They dismissed the charge in three minutes. They obviously considered it frivolous despite all the posturing of Rick Lewis. Why you expect us to explain it to you on this board when clearly you've made up your mind about it is a mystery to me.
Ford Fairlane
17 Sep 2003, 18:39
Originally posted by uncyherb
And still... no-one has really disputed the facts that suggest that what Lade did was WRONG.... the best I've had so far is "you cant tell what was on his mind... prove his intent".... and "Lucky James Hird didn't sell him up the river by telling the truth like Adelaide might've"
And you reckon I'm not too bright ... can't you actually draw a conclusion? OK I'll spell it out ... Lade did nothing wrong. Seeing as you are incapable, here are the conclusions that can be drawn from the tribunal hearing
1. Lade considered himself the primary ruckman
2. Lade considered Hird was going to oppose him in the ruck.
3. Lade jumped against Hird as he would against any ruckman he was opposed to in that situation.
The only thing Lade did "wrong" was not read Hird's mind about how he was going to take the ruck contest. Maybe he should have consulted your amazing telepathic powers. Lade jumped, Hird didn't, Lade crashed into Hird. It's bad luck but it actually happens sometimes.
Lade was found not guilty in an adversarial tribunal hearing where all the evidence was presented and then considered by independent judges. They saw fit to dismiss the charge based on that evidence not on wobbly conclusions drawn from watching a video a few times.
Originally posted by uncyherb
The Essendon medical staff thought that Hird had broken ribs from the incident. At least he had extremely bruised ribs. The intent was to damage him, the extent might not have been what he was aiming for , but he was close.
"The intent was to damage him"
You are on drugs pal. Hird was getting an absolute bath, if he became wounded he'd have probably been replaced by someone who might have made a contribution...
As far as Port were concerned he was worth more ON the field, damaged or not.
I think the Lade case has been done to death by now. These Essendon supporters who keep rehashing it are just trying to justify that was the reason they lost. If Hird hadn't just stood there like a stunned mullet underneath the bounce zone and actually contested the ball it would have been a non-issue.
Anyway onto next weeks game... let the Bomber supporters bitch about it all off season we have better things to focus on.
GO THE POWER!!!
SKC
uncyherb
18 Sep 2003, 12:07
Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
And you reckon I'm not too bright ... can't you actually draw a conclusion? OK I'll spell it out ... Lade did nothing wrong. Seeing as you are incapable, here are the conclusions that can be drawn from the tribunal hearing
1. Lade considered himself the primary ruckman
2. Lade considered Hird was going to oppose him in the ruck.
3. Lade jumped against Hird as he would against any ruckman he was opposed to in that situation.
The only thing Lade did "wrong" was not read Hird's mind about how he was going to take the ruck contest. Maybe he should have consulted your amazing telepathic powers. Lade jumped, Hird didn't, Lade crashed into Hird. It's bad luck but it actually happens sometimes.
Lade was found not guilty in an adversarial tribunal hearing where all the evidence was presented and then considered by independent judges. They saw fit to dismiss the charge based on that evidence not on wobbly conclusions drawn from watching a video a few times.
Goodamm.... how insane are you? What little dream world are you pretending to live in???
On one hand you've suggested that Lade thought that Hird was going to contest the ruck.... How???? Is Lade that dumb that he thinks a guy several metres away from the bounce is going to actually be able to jump at the footy and make a contest? Lade crashed into Hird before Cornes had even touched the football!!! There is no way in the world that Hird could have gotten to the football to tap it while he was airborne.... it would have been physically impossible to make up the distance needed... lets have a quick look at the photo at the point of impact shall we...
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,285336,00.jpg
So here you can see.
1) Lade impacting with Hird.
2) The so called second ruckman, Cornes, has yet to contact the footy
3) Essendon's ruck contesting player, Lucas, is also no where near the contest... this is his role at the time, but he fails to make the contest.
4) Hird is STANDING on the ground
Get these points through your thick skull... HIRD WASN'T A RUCKMAN... no matter how many times you, or Lade, say it he wasn't contesting the ruck as a ruckman..... if he was, he would have been airborne and all this would be a moot point to me... He was roving the pack and a guy who's sole intention wasn't the footy jumped into his body.
You reckon Lade needs ESP to work out if a guy is going to jump do you? Have you actually ever played footy?
Answer me this.... looking at that picture would you say that Lade jumped with the intent of A) Getting to Hird or B) Getting to the footy?
The ONLY answer is A), because as even you admit, you cant change your path mid-flight. Since he has gone well past Cornes who has his eyes on the football, the only two conclusions you can draw are A) He is the worst ruckman in the league because he cant even jump where the footy might possibly go or B) He aimed at Hird before jumping.
Seeing how the only logical explanation is that he aimed at Hird as the sole intent of his jump direction then answer me this...
If Lade knew he had to jump well beyond the are where the ball would land in order to contact Hird, how did he think that Hird was ever going to get to the ruck in order to 'tap' the footy... what? he was going to suddenly run 100% faster and jump in the air? Somehow he expected Hird to be able to make up that extra couple of metres AND be able to jump up instantaneously? You are full of **** if you believe that for a second.
As for hiding behind the tribunal..."They found him not guilty so he can't have been"... How short on brain cells are you??? THATS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING - THE TRIBUNAL WERE WRONG!!!
Ford Fairlane
18 Sep 2003, 12:13
Originally posted by uncyherb
Goodamm.... how insane are you? What little dream world are you pretending to live in???
On one hand you've suggested that Lade thought that Hird was going to contest the ruck.... How???? Is Lade that dumb that he thinks a guy several metres away from the bounce is going to actually be able to jump at the footy and make a contest? Lade crashed into Hird before Cornes had even touched the football!!! There is no way in the world that Hird could have gotten to the football to tap it while he was airborne.... it would have been physically impossible to make up the distance needed... lets have a quick look at the photo at the point of impact shall we...
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,285336,00.jpg
So here you can see.
1) Lade impacting with Hird.
2) The so called second ruckman, Cornes, has yet to contact the footy
3) Essendon's ruck contesting player, Lucas, is also no where near the contest... this is his role at the time, but he fails to make the contest.
4) Hird is STANDING on the ground
Get these points through your thick skull... HIRD WASN'T A RUCKMAN... no matter how many times you, or Lade, say it he wasn't contesting the ruck as a ruckman..... if he was, he would have been airborne and all this would be a moot point to me... He was roving the pack and a guy who's sole intention wasn't the footy jumped into his body.
You reckon Lade needs ESP to work out if a guy is going to jump do you? Have you actually ever played footy?
Answer me this.... looking at that picture would you say that Lade jumped with the intent of A) Getting to Hird or B) Getting to the footy?
The ONLY answer is A), because as even you admit, you cant change your path mid-flight. Since he has gone well past Cornes who has his eyes on the football, the only two conclusions you can draw are A) He is the worst ruckman in the league because he cant even jump where the footy might possibly go or B) He aimed at Hird before jumping.
Seeing how the only logical explanation is that he aimed at Hird as the sole intent of his jump direction then answer me this...
If Lade knew he had to jump well beyond the are where the ball would land in order to contact Hird, how did he think that Hird was ever going to get to the ruck in order to 'tap' the footy... what? he was going to suddenly run 100% faster and jump in the air? Somehow he expected Hird to be able to make up that extra couple of metres AND be able to jump up instantaneously? You are full of **** if you believe that for a second.
As for hiding behind the tribunal..."They found him not guilty so he can't have been"... How short on brain cells are you??? THATS WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING - THE TRIBUNAL WERE WRONG!!!
The dead horse is well and truly flogged. Nobody cares any more ... except you ....
PS ... you're still wrong ...
Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
The dead horse is well and truly flogged. Nobody cares any more ... except you ....
PS ... you're still wrong ...
What that guy said.