Folau cleared by the MRP

Remove this Banner Ad

The Swans lodged an injunction with the Supreme Court iirc to allow Dunkley to play (someone may correct me on this). I think the suspension stood but it was carried over into next season.

Of course with the benefit of hindsight it didn't matter. For obvious reasons the Hall 2005 one is something that still grates with me.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Swans lodged an injunction with the Supreme Court iirc to allow Dunkley to play (someone may correct me on this). I think the suspension stood but it was carried over into next season.

Of course with the benefit of hindsight it didn't matter. For obvious reasons the Hall 2005 one is something that still grates with me.
And for the same reason, it would have rankled with North fans, had the Swans won a close game in 96, with Dunkley playing even though he should have been out.

Still, karma delivered that day. :)
 
Call me crazy but I believe that had Izzy commited an offense worthy of suspension he would have received the appropriate punishment.
 
Of course it's a conspiracy. The AFL will be spitting mad that he, someone who they've invested so much into, might not have played in the GWS showpiece because of being reported TWICE.

Another embarrassing moment after the tanking, Scully and Ablett debacles
 
The Swans lodged an injunction with the Supreme Court iirc to allow Dunkley to play (someone may correct me on this). I think the suspension stood but it was carried over into next season.
AFL didn't inform the Swans until some point inside the minimum notice time. Swans got an injunction on those grounds. AFL had nothing to do with Dunks being allowed to play.

Of course with the benefit of hindsight it didn't matter. For obvious reasons the Hall 2005 one is something that still grates with me.

Gaspar got off with less than Hall for elbowing McGregor before the siren even went in the prelim. Why is that any less outrageous than Hall getting found guilty but getting a discount?
How outrageous!! He didn't actually kill Hird, did he?

Was there a point to this post? You posted and I said what actually happened.
 
Over in the Richmond board's gameday thread ...

Dr Tigris, a Richmond supporter said “Folau’s booking confused everyone, a total joke”.

In the same thread, this is what BeinPurpleandGreen, a Fremantle supporter, said about the incident

"The report was the most pathetic, soft, ridiculous effort I've seen from any umpire in the last ten years. The tackle deserved a free (it was just a pick up by the waist and dump, classic league tackle, not high, or late, or a spear tackle). It was an absolute joke of a report, made worse by the repeated harangues that Nicholls delivered to Folau for the next 40 minutes, every time they crossed paths he got stuck into Izzy. Umpires should not be heard unless they are blowing the whistle. Made worse when Nicholls ignored two blatant head high tackles on Folau. The same rules should apply to every player, and they weren't properly applied today by this umpire. Very poor."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gaspar got off with less than Hall for elbowing McGregor before the siren even went in the prelim. Why is that any less outrageous than Hall getting found guilty but getting a discount?

Because:

1 - There was that giant kerfuffle over whether what Hall did was in play or not in play
2 - Hall kicked a few goals in a team that won a premiership by four points
3 - I don't even know what you're on about with Gaspar (and many others would too), and in any event Gaspar was an average player and one of the worst players for a losing side in the GF.
 
I love how we're in this weird netherrealm greyspace where everyone recognises that the Folau reports were soft and should naturally have been thrown out, BUT we're still saying that if he HAD done something suspension-worthy he'd have been let off anyway.

Can't win.
 
Footage of both incidents in this video:

[YOUTUBE]vcXcguOxr1k[/YOUTUBE]

Fair to say they were worthy of free kicks, but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that he should've been suspended.
 
Footage of both incidents in this video:

[YOUTUBE]vcXcguOxr1k[/YOUTUBE]

Fair to say they were worthy of free kicks, but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that he should've been suspended.

Wow, that's nothing. 1st one is play on and second one he pretty much lays him down gently on the ground. Borderline free kicks at the most.
 
Would anybody else in the AFL be suspended for throwing another player to the ground off the ball?

:D:DJake King was given weeks for tackling a player to the ground while he had the ball ... was ruled played on by the umpire and was later suspended.
I was under the impression tackling a player with the ball was ok ... without it was illegal.
Face it, he was never going to be suspended!!! Can't have the poster boy missing the Giants debut!!!
 
Jesus, he was reported twice for those?!?!?!

double-facepalm.jpeg
 
Anderson sounded very sheepish when saying on the radio Izzy would be treated like everyone else.

Yeah Right!

You could tell he was lying.:D


The vision of both incidents were shown on Foxfooty 360 show tonight.

I was at the game, and shook my head in shame when he got reported.

As expected they were thrown, especially the first report, which was a freakin joke.

Umpire should have been sacked for reporting him.

Soft pussies.:(
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top