Remove this Banner Ad

Brian Lake

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kidd Vicious said:
Wow.

I wonder if Hawthorn will go with the "Pinching a player's windpipe until their body goes limp is fine because he didnt complete black out" line of reasoning.

I can safely assure you that your team will not seek you out as a legal consultant for future MRP/trinbunal issues.
Click to expand...
The tribunal always gets these things right, don't they?

The system takes intent into account so lake is stuffed in terms of suspension, we know that.

You keep ignoring my argument that is grounded in what actually happened, preferring to defer to the Mrps process (always perfect judgements, right?) and minute details of the act.

It doesn't matter to me if it's described as pinch of the threat, or a headlock or whatever. Petrie was fine yet everyone wants lake hanged.

You want to see people suspended for things that don't actually injure their opponent?
 
Misconduct

Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would

be regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike by other participants

in the match or where it had the effect or potential to prejudice the

reputation of any person, club or the AFL or to bring the game of football

into disrepute. Some specific examples of misconduct are now set out in

the Table of Offences.

Serious misconduct offences will be referred directly to the Tribunal.

However any other act of misconduct will be subject to a fixed financial

sanction to be determined by the Match Review Panel.

Any other act of serious misconduct TRIBUNAL

Misconduct (spitting on another person) TRIBUNAL

Intentional contact with umpire TRIBUNAL

Striking or attempting to strike or spitting at or on an umpire TRIBUNAL

Behaving in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner

towards or in relation to an umpire TRIBUNAL

...inury or not.. the bold will see Lake off to the Tribunal for them to make up their minds.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
The tribunal always gets these things right, don't they?

The system takes intent into account so lake is stuffed in terms of suspension, we know that.

You keep ignoring my argument that is grounded in what actually happened, preferring to defer to the Mrps process (always perfect judgements, right?) and minute details of the act.

It doesn't matter to me if it's described as pinch of the threat, or a headlock or whatever. Petrie was fine yet everyone wants lake hanged.

You want to see people suspended for things that don't actually injure their opponent?
Click to expand...

Idiot.

Its a terrible look. Regardless of injury or not.

Deserves a month off. Lake is a weirdo.
 
bigfarter said:
See, this is the AFL/MRP argument that I hate. It means the same two actions can result in different punishments depending on the outcome. If two blokes get reported for elbowing someone in the face, they should cop the same punishment, regardless of if one elbow caused a fracture and the other didn't. It's letting guys off because their victim is tough. The intent and the act should be what's charged, not the random element of how much injury it caused.
Click to expand...
Now there's a valid argument!
I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

If two players try to charge in and break someone's ribs, for example, and one of those players is a 100kg monster that destroys the target and the other is Robbie nagas that bounces straight off I would say only one deserves the suspension.

If you show disregard for your opponent's safety by trying to injure and you miss your target then you're lucky, very lucky. But you haven't actually done any damage.

Toughness as a moderator of impact is overrated. Joel Selwood's skull is, despite the rumours, not infinitely harder than another player's. The same elbow to Joel and someone else's face will cause similar damage.

The rules are there to keep people from being injures unnecessarily on the field. I don't want to see players stretchered off, so I'm glad when someone gets suspended for elbowing a guy in the head (yes I know Harbeow did it last week without penalty, but y'know)

Likewise I don't want to see people suspended for not injuring people. It just seems crazy to me.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Leather Poisoning said:
The tribunal always gets these things right, don't they?

The system takes intent into account so lake is stuffed in terms of suspension, we know that.

You keep ignoring my argument that is grounded in what actually happened, preferring to defer to the Mrps process (always perfect judgements, right?) and minute details of the act.

It doesn't matter to me if it's described as pinch of the threat, or a headlock or whatever. Petrie was fine yet everyone wants lake hanged.

You want to see people suspended for things that don't actually injure their opponent?
Click to expand...

You seem to think pinching someone's windpipe falls is a normal football occurrence, like stray elbows or bumps.

It isn't. It is an incredibly dangerous act.

Lake will pay for this.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Now there's a valid argument!
I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

If two players try to charge in and break someone's ribs, for example, and one of those players is a 100kg monster that destroys the target and the other is Robbie nagas that bounces straight off I would say only one deserves the suspension.

If you show disregard for your opponent's safety by trying to injure and you miss your target then you're lucky, very lucky. But you haven't actually done any damage.

Toughness as a moderator of impact is overrated. Joel Selwood's skull is, despite the rumours, not infinitely harder than another player's. The same elbow to Joel and someone else's face will cause similar damage.

The rules are there to keep people from being injures unnecessarily on the field. I don't want to see players stretchered off, so I'm glad when someone gets suspended for elbowing a guy in the head (yes I know Harbeow did it last week without penalty, but y'know)

Likewise I don't want to see people suspended for not injuring people. It just seems crazy to me.
Click to expand...
Oh well he will go for atleast 2 or 3.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Likewise I don't want to see people suspended for not injuring people. It just seems crazy to me.
Click to expand...
You don't get it.

You send someone unconscious without 'injuring' them, but for some bruising which Drew will have. The fact Drew's hands, body and expression went limp indicates he was gone if Lake wasn't pulled out of it. The AFL will consider that.
 
Kidd Vicious said:
You don't get it.

You send someone unconscious without 'injuring' them, but for some bruising which Drew will have. The fact Drew's hands, body and expression went limp indicates he was gone if Lake wasn't pulled out of it. The AFL will consider that.
Click to expand...
He has never heard of attempted murder the moron dont worry about him
 
Plugger35 said:
A pity Petrie couldn't get Brad Scott out there to protect him.

Seriously there was nothing in it, just a bit of roughhousing that has been part of footy since Noah played CHF for Jerusalem.

Play on.
Click to expand...

l presume that you talking about Noah after the flood because before that he was just very average 'c' grader in the local turkish mt arafat league. it wasn't till after the flood that anybody in the big leagues took him seriously.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
The tribunal always gets these things right, don't they?

The system takes intent into account so lake is stuffed in terms of suspension, we know that.

You keep ignoring my argument that is grounded in what actually happened, preferring to defer to the Mrps process (always perfect judgements, right?) and minute details of the act.

It doesn't matter to me if it's described as pinch of the threat, or a headlock or whatever. Petrie was fine yet everyone wants lake hanged.

You want to see people suspended for things that don't actually injure their opponent?
Click to expand...

If you think the AFL are going to allow a flog like Lake to tarnish their image, then you are going to be disappointed.

Go and ask the NRL how much damage has been done to their brand by such acts.

Look at it this way. Mothers have a lot of say in what sports kids get involved in. If the AFL let this one pass through to the keeper, then they are condoning it. He deserves a couple of weeks in my opinion. He better get ready, because I think the AFL will give him at least four. The AFL brand will never ignore something that hurts its image. Just ask Essendon.

What you ignore, you condone. Leadership 101.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Leather Poisoning said:
The tribunal always gets these things right, don't they?

The system takes intent into account so lake is stuffed in terms of suspension, we know that.

You keep ignoring my argument that is grounded in what actually happened, preferring to defer to the Mrps process (always perfect judgements, right?) and minute details of the act.

It doesn't matter to me if it's described as pinch of the threat, or a headlock or whatever. Petrie was fine yet everyone wants lake hanged.

You want to see people suspended for things that don't actually injure their opponent?
Click to expand...

Umm yes.

This is an incredibly peculiar line of logic you're attempting to run with here.

The tribunal system is a quasi judicial system. It is modelled on that. Are you aware of the charge of attempted murder? Do you think we should allow attempted murder just because the outcome doesn't marry up to the intent? Of course you don't.

Sentences take into account a number of objectives, one of which is deterrence. If you don't present a deterrent to an act that could potentially be dangerous then people are more likely to carry out that act.

The mere fact that Petrie wasn't injured was not by Lake's prudent planning.

His culpability remains the same.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Kidd Vicious said:
You don't get it.

You send someone unconscious without 'injuring' them, but for some bruising which Drew will have. The fact Drew's hands, body and expression went limp indicates he was gone if Lake wasn't pulled out of it. The AFL will consider that.
Click to expand...
Lake will get suspended, I've said it about 20 times in this thread.

What I don't get is why there is a long line of people wanting this.

Why don't we suspend players that fly through with an elbow and completely miss their target?
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Yes, pr should guide all decisions.
Click to expand...
It gets taken into consideration.

Of more importance is the fact that a player was choking another player until his body went limp, and was gasping for air. This is a willing, deliberate and pre-meditated act that falls under the misconduct category.

The arguments you're offering would be setting a very dangerous precedent.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Lake will get suspended, I've said it about 20 times in this thread.

What I don't get is why there is a long line of people wanting this.

Why don't we suspend players that fly through with an elbow and completely miss their target?
Click to expand...
Because we dont need players like that in our game....
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Why don't we suspend players that fly through with an elbow and completely miss their target?
Click to expand...
Did Lake try to grab Petrie's windpipe and miss?

He's even more spuddish than his performance showed, in that case.

Are you saying an elbow that misses should attract that same sanction as a deliberate choke that almost rendered a player unconscious and was only stopped via the intervention of other players?

Just stop it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top