MRP / Trib. 2018 MRP - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

What does this mean? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!

What that means is that Thy had a double espresso and what should have meant ample time to post something straight after a post instead of quoting ended up a further 5 posts down the page.

Then I couldn’t delete it....

So I quoted the post I wanted to comment on and placed my point about Michael Clarke being a terrible sharer and removed as best as possible what would have been a double post.

Moral of the story, when you see Thy on a Tourette’s posting binge quote....then post
 
What that means is that Thy had a double espresso and what should have meant ample time to post something straight after a post instead of quoting ended up a further 5 posts down the page.

Then I couldn’t delete it....

So I quoted the post I wanted to comment on and placed my point about Michael Clarke being a terrible sharer and removed as best as possible what would have been a double post.

Moral of the story, when you see Thy on a Tourette’s posting binge quote....then post
I understood the other post better.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The silver lining out of this is that if Geelong planned on coming knocking for Charlie, we can just remind him of the bullshit they pulled on he and his brother when they had a collective tantrum about the results relating to one of their team mates' tantrums.
 
It's not even Ed getting rubbed out that pisses me off the most, it's May in China
What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.

Whateley is drinking so much of his own bathwater that he cannot be taken seriously as a footy commentator.
 
What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.

Whateley is drinking so much of his own bathwater that he cannot be taken seriously as a footy commentator.
I don't think hocking needed whateley to tell him what most already knew. Most here were also surprised when Ed got off with a fine.
 
What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.

Whateley is drinking so much of his own bathwater that he cannot be taken seriously as a footy commentator.


I think you’ll find it was actually the other way around.
 
I think the AFL has pretty much said they have no interest in what umpires have to say about the incidents. Gleeson was clever to say that their views shoudl be disregarded because of the good will they would display. Clarke was remiss in not responding that Gleeson therefore is positing that any umpire who does complain - is therefore by definition showing 'bad will' towards players.

Umps have been treated very badly by the AFL in this matter.

A big problem, which runs deep in the grass roots culture of our game is that the umpires are not regarded with the level of respect that the refs and umpires in other codes are. Rugby is a good comparison: as physical as the game is, generally rugby players would not even consider disrespecting the referee. If necessary he can halt play, call the relevant players over and give them a good talking to. They have to listen, like naughty schoolboys being told off by the principal. And he can send them off - as in pretty much every other team sport on the planet. Worth noting that the lack of an order off rule denies our umpires some extra leverage, and respect. It suggests that they're not really in control of the game.
 
Yeah it's strange there's no send off rule.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top