MRP / Trib. Yeo offered a week

Remove this Banner Ad

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-...an-lewis-let-down-by-strike-on-todd-goldstein

Both Yeo and this incident called Careless, Lewis has a s**t record and only gets a week longer he left the ground after goldstein marked it with no eyes on the footy... Yes it was a risk to lose yeo for two weeks but this vic/MRP s**t is going to continue to occur unless people grow some balls and stick up to them it sounded like simpson wanted to challenge it but west coasts (brain trust) Department obviously said no.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I blame tim Watson
He needs such a Boooooooing !

Was it also Saints medical report that stitched shuey up last year ?
Hit on Curren off the ball after Curren had been kidney punching him all game .
They didn't have good footage so the medical report was used ?
 
Last edited:
Oh well that sucks. But if we still manage to beat Geelong this week, I'll be ok with accepting since we'll need him for the North game in Tassie.

The bullshit the Eastern States media has been spewing is really sickening though.
 
Bullshit decision by the MRP. Understandably pragmatic decision from the club.

But I'd have fought it on general principle. Sometimes they are more important than the risk ...
 
Bullshit decision by the MRP. Understandably pragmatic decision from the club.

But I'd have fought it on general principle. Sometimes they are more important than the risk ...

Pragmatism perhaps.

I'm guessing that we are hoping to be able to rollover the cats at home and then have Yeo available for our away game

I just don't like the idea of the MRP being quasi sanctioned by the clubs by refusing to fight the system.

We had 2 elements to fight - we only needed to win one of them to avoid suspension.
 
Pragmatism perhaps.

I'm guessing that we are hoping to be able to rollover the cats at home and then have Yeo available for our away game

I just don't like the idea of the MRP being quasi sanctioned by the clubs by refusing to fight the system.

We had 2 elements to fight - we only needed to win one of them to avoid suspension.

I agree 100%.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We're going to be more likely to beat Geelong in Perth without Elliot than we are going to be able to beat North in Hobart so a frustrating but understandable decision.
 
Well, that has ruined my week.
Hopefully we can bounce back. But I honestly don't understand how Yeo gets a week whereas others that have been much worse get odd with a fine...

MRP top job. Top job.
 
IMO they should only have the 25% penalty for challenging (which is effectively what the 'guilty discount' is) applied if the player has a bad record. i.e. if they have a good history they should feel safe to challenge at least once. Or at worst just apply the penalty forwards towards any future penalties, so it's still discouraged but if the club feels confident in the player's discipline they can actually appeal without compromising their immediate games.
 
MRP can go and get ****ed.

As a matter of fact someone please pass on their details to me, i feel like spoiling them in the face. Out of the contest like Lewis instead of in the contest like ******* Yeo!

Bunch CcAuMnPtAsIGNERS!
 
Don't just blame the MRP, the club should have known what a joke of a charge this was and went in to bat for Elliot.

Maybe they took into account how much of a joke the committee is and decided not to bother. 1 week is better than 2. I doubt 0 was an option. These idiots are stubborn.
 
Gutted we aren't challenging. I enjoy following the appeals in general; they're even better when they involve us. Nothing like stickin' it to the man.

Time to look for positives. The only positives I can see in this is that:

(1) the team is confident of getting up this week without Yeo;

(2) the team is confident that the game in Tassie against North is winnable, and want Yeo fit and firing to give us the best possible chance; and

(3) our preparation this week is not affected by the appeal side-show.
 
The only rationale I can see for this is that they

a) See it as a chance to rest Yeo anyway and,
b) Don't want to risk him missing our big game against North.
 
If only we could've have got the AFL working for us to clear him like they did with the Essendon players at their tribunal ;)

We believe that Yeo was in the contest and that he had his arm stretched...we believe that Webster had the ball in front of his face...we believe that Yeo made contact with Webster...but we could not be comfortably satisfied that it was Yeo's fist that caused the minor injury through contact and not some mysterious force acting on Webster's face.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top