Remove this Banner Ad

Moved Thread #7: Jack Ziebell [Part I] © -

JZ Best Position

  • Inside Midfielder

    Votes: 89 41.8%

  • Forward Pocket

    Votes: 124 58.2%
  • Total voters
    213

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
In that case Dangerfield should have got weeks when he broke murphy's shoulder
New Law #127658 Any player involved in any incident which results in injury to an opponent will be rubbed out; 4 weeks
 
kangatime said:
its completely different to the Harbrow one. Harbrow extended his arm and punched the ball. JZ had one are tucked in and the other hand raised away from the ball. The ball hit him in the forearm before it went near his hand. JZ needs to change the way he plays, still go hard but get stop tucking the arm in. The bump has been outlawed for years. (and I'm not saying thats a good thing, its just the way it is post Choppy)

Shit outcome but he was never going to get off.
Click to expand...

NO ****ING WAY HE DOES.
 
Old Skool said:
Jumping for the ball has now been outlawed.
Click to expand...

not the first player to get rubbed for a clumsy attack on 'the ball'. thought he'd be in trouble when i saw the collision but 4 weeks is very, very stiff. i can't get my head around decisions these days.

good luck for the rest of the season you blokes. hope jack's absence doesn't upset your good run of form too much.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Roobound said:
Pity the next bloke who goes for a mark with an opponent running with the flight of the ball.

IF he jumps for the ball and contacts the player running with the flight high he must be reported
thats the precedent now.
Click to expand...

What does "running with the flight of the ball" have to do with anything?

It's just as logical to deduce that you cannot jump in the air and make heavy contact a playing running AT the ball.
 
kangatime said:
his alternative was to reach out and try and grab or punch the ball. He didn't do this. It was pretty plain, thats why it took a minute of deliberations.
Click to expand...

There would've been more than a minute's deliberation if that Judd case didn't drag on for so long.

And what is this alternative crap? There's a ****ing alternative way to every incident.

So if a player kicks the ball into a head of another and knocks him out, he should get done because he could've handballed it instead?

He contested the ball, that should've been the only criteria.
 
Igloo said:
Someone in the live chat thing made a good comparison to the Harbrow - Lewis hit. Harbrow demolished him, but he had no case to answer, because he went for the ball.
Ziebell didn't hit Joseph anywhere near as hard, and gets suspended for 4 weeks. Insanity.
Click to expand...

****ing weird how much things have changed since then.

 
This wasn't our appeal, it was our tribunal hearing. We can definitely take it a step further. How much does an appeal cost though? I don't know if it would be worth it, as much as Jack deserves it.
 
What a load of rubbish, was always going to happen after Judd decision. They had to find him guilty to appease the mass of Carlton supporters who will be already up in arms after the golden boy copping his right wack. There was no way in hell the "independant" tribunal were going to over turn the MRP's decision after giving Judd 4 weeks, Andy D just wouldn't want that to happen. It's just a joke.
 
Igloo said:
Someone in the live chat thing made a good comparison to the Harbrow - Lewis hit. Harbrow demolished him, but he had no case to answer, because he went for the ball.
Ziebell didn't hit Joseph anywhere near as hard, and gets suspended for 4 weeks. Insanity.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking of this incident - based on the logic of the AFL a player is no longer allowed to try to gain posession if a punch is an alternative option when a collision is likely. Ludicrous.

We MUST appeal!

On a side note, can someone please explain to me HTF Taylor Walker had no case to answer for shoving Grima into the post & Daniel Rich gets 2 weeks for doing the same thing? Seems Rich was a tad unlucky there wasn't a goal post nearby to stop Jones cannoning into the fence.

Tribunal was amateur hour tonight; a 21st century Salem witch hunt. This sort of reasoning is why a great number of appeals are upheld. Please North, do not let this one go, we MUST appeal.

Staggered, absolutely ******* staggered at the conflicting logic from the Tribunal tonight.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

lol Carlton board think its some sort of justice for Judd getting suspended... bunch of morons....
 
roobear said:
This wasn't our appeal, it was our tribunal hearing. We can definitely take it a step further. How much does an appeal cost though? I don't know if it would be worth it, as much as Jack deserves it.
Click to expand...
Costs Jack's dignity and love for the game. If he can't do that sort of 50/50 stuff then he is just another player. shocking call.
 
boat13 said:
i don't think we can appeal this, this was our appeal :(
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, we challenged the MRP finding so we can appeal the tribunal decision from my understanding.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Sorry to intrude on your board guys, but seriously, WHAT THE F***?!?

To be honest, I really had no i did which way the decision would go- shows the joke that is the Tribunal..

Ziebell gets more weeks than Wellingham and the same as Judd? Go figure..
 
I really feel the AFL has gotta change something about its process.
Ok Wellingham gets five for terrible incident, good record down to three.
Zeibell would have got one or two at most if not for poor record but got three end up challenging turns to four, worse punishment than Wellingham.
Not fair by a mile, even Judd's was not as bad as Wellingham. Each case needs to be worked on case by case, poor or good record should record should not be in it. You can however continue to take early plea or challenge if legit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top