Browne Cops Three

[BlueYoss]

How about you get your facts right before opening your mouth & making yourself look dumber than you already are????? I am the adult, in fact I am a parent myself..... so run along back to your own board & have a whinge about the outcome & brownie getting cleared of the charge. Oh & by the way...... have a nice day

Yeah, what she said!

Until you can learn some respect Cow-moo go back to your paddock!

 

[ShearMagic9]

The inept MRP gave him weeks to appease the blleding hearts supporters like you and the other whining cows supporters that we have had in this thread.

A player gets badly injured and they bay for blood and need a scapegoat...the contact was unnavoidable and any moron with half a brain could see that by viewing the footage.

Peope get hurt playing footy because it's a contact sport ..theres not always a guilty party though.

The contact was unavoidable - yes, no question of that.

The shoulder into the head was avoidable though.

 

[BlueYoss]

The contact was unavoidable - yes, no question of that.

The shoulder into the head was avoidable though.

Totally, Porps shouldn't have ducked his head in.

 

[ShearMagic9]

Totally, Porps shouldn't have ducked his head in.

Okay, I'll pay that.

 

[jo172]

Yup you and the MRP panel have been made to look pretty stupid right now.

You misunderstood my point the whole time and it seems you continue to.

I never took a moral position as to whether or not Browne should get weeks.

I merely argued under a MRP system with the current rules he was always going to get weeks whereas under a tribunal system there would probably be a different result.

I'd say neither me nor the match review panel look stupid as much as the AFL does for insisting on a system which completely contradicts it's original aim of bringing consistancy and streamlining of disciplanry procedures.

 

[parrot]

...
I'd say neither me nor the match review panel look stupid as ....

No, you still look stupid, as do your fellow Floodelaide supporters. You can't re-write the past - you all said Browne lined the guy up an the hit was intentional. Guess what - it was an accident. You'll need to find someone else to blame now.

 

[phantom 309]

You misunderstood my point the whole time and it seems you continue to.

I never took a moral position as to whether or not Browne should get weeks.

I merely argued under a MRP system with the current rules he was always going to get weeks whereas under a tribunal system there would probably be a different result.

I'd say neither me nor the match review panel look stupid as much as the AFL does for insisting on a system which completely contradicts it's original aim of bringing consistancy and streamlining of disciplanry procedures.

But as you can see from points a and b under the


current rules Browne just cannot walk scott free.

and that sentence is a part of one of your posts on this thread. And he has and you were wrong. Why is that so hard to except.

 

[jo172]

No, you still look stupid, as do your fellow Floodelaide supporters. You can't re-write the past - you all said Browne lined the guy up an the hit was intentional. Guess what - it was an accident. You'll need to find someone else to blame now.

You realise this is the 4th time you've baited me in this thread and I still haven't taken it.

You're nowhere near the troll you consider yourself to be.

 

[jo172]

But as you can see from points a and b under the


current rules Browne just cannot walk scott free.

and that sentence is a part of one of your posts on this thread. And he has and you were wrong. Why is that so hard to except.

Exactly, under the current rules which the MRP had to abide by there was no way they could let him walk scot free and they didn't, they gave him 4 weeks.

The Tribunal then quite rightly greatly reduced this sentence because they use an entirely different set of guidelines.

This begs the question as to why have a MRP?

 

[parrot]

....The Tribunal then quite rightly greatly reduced this sentence because they use an entirely different set of guidelines....

What a load of desperate spin-waffle. lol. Browne's contact was accidental. You got it wrong. Hence you look silly. Follow the logic?

 

[Quazza]

I thought it was a disgusting act tbh. Clearly a vicious headbut from Porps that was aiming to rip poor Brownies shoulder off

It's just lucky we breed them tough here

 

[jo172]

What a load of desperate spin-waffle. lol. Browne's contact was accidental. You got it wrong. Hence you look silly. Follow the logic?

You see you've been making a moral judgment this whole time whereas I've been making Legal judgments hence as you have been unable to separate the two you have not understood.

 

[parrot]

You see you've been making a moral judgment this whole time whereas I've been making Legal judgments hence as you have been unable to separate the two you have not understood.

You're all over the place again. lol. This is getting a little sad. It's just a simple game of footy - not sure where all the moral and legal rubbish comes from. Last I heard the rules of our footy game didn't pass through parliament. Let's cut to the heart of your problem. You said Browne hit that guy intentionally, and he didn't, and now you feel stupid, which is understandable.

 

[phantom 309]

You see you've been making a moral judgment this whole time whereas I've been making Legal judgments hence as you have been unable to separate the two you have not understood.

Whereas a Tribunal could make more reasonable assesments which in this case would probably look more like a reprimand to a week.

This is another one of your quotes, not a copie of a tribuneral or match review ducument, its your words clearly saying Brown WOULD probably get a week. Its these comments that you have consistently made and now you try to hide behind some other piont of reasoning ie a legal judgment, sorry but no, you made biased comments you said Brown would get a week, your high moral ground does not sit with me, you like so many other cows supporters CONVICTED Brown, befor the dam Trial.

 

[jo172]

Whereas a Tribunal could make more reasonable assesments which in this case would probably look more like a reprimand to a week.

This is another one of your quotes, not a copie of a tribuneral or match review ducument, its your words clearly saying Brown WOULD probably get a week..

That's an amazing effort to distort 50% of what I said in 3 lines. I said reprimand to a week, from what I understand the charge was thrown out. I was close, not deadly accurate, but alot closer than the MRP.

Its these comments that you have consistently made and now you try to hide behind some other piont of reasoning ie a legal judgment, .

Wrong, I've been the only poster other than another Carlton poster to actually use the MRP guidelines to assess the original sentence. Because I stated they were correct in what they gave under their guidelines you, and other passionate Blues fans assumed I was asserting they were morally correct rather than correct by their guidelines.

sorry but no, you made biased comments you said Brown would get a week,.

I said Browne would get a reprimand to a week because I honestly believed there was a little more in it and also that the Tribunal wouldn't have the balls to totally slap the MRP in the face. I have no bias against Browne, if we were playing Carlton next week I'd want to see him rubbed out for a week, but as you're not going to be playing finals we're not meeting again this year, why would I care to the point of bias?

you like so many other cows supporters CONVICTED Brown, befor the dam Trial.

No, that's the job of the MRP I merely made the mistake of attempting to explain the reasoning of the MRP's decision as it was based on guidelines to some who have been blinded by sheer passion and fury.

 

[BlueYoss]

You realise this is the 4th time you've baited me in this thread and I still haven't taken it.

You're nowhere near the troll you consider yourself to be.

and yet you're still here responding...great way not to take the bait

 

[jo172]

and yet you're still here responding...great way not to take the bait

That's the only response I've made to Parrot

 

[phantom 309]

That's an amazing effort to distort 50% of what I said in 3 lines. I said reprimand to a week, from what I understand the charge was thrown out. I was close, not deadly accurate, but alot closer than the MRP.



Wrong, I've been the only poster other than another Carlton poster to actually use the MRP guidelines to assess the original sentence. Because I stated they were correct in what they gave under their guidelines you, and other passionate Blues fans assumed I was asserting they were morally correct rather than correct by their guidelines.



I said Browne would get a reprimand to a week because I honestly believed there was a little more in it and also that the Tribunal wouldn't have the balls to totally slap the MRP in the face. I have no bias against Browne, if we were playing Carlton next week I'd want to see him rubbed out for a week, but as you're not going to be playing finals we're not meeting again this year, why would I care to the point of bias?



No, that's the job of the MRP I merely made the mistake of attempting to explain the reasoning of the MRP's decision as it was based on guidelines to some who have been blinded by sheer passion and fury.

I never took a moral position as to whether or not Browne should get weeks
yes the highlighted text is another quote of yours, you are not only making a fool of yourselfe here, you are starting to look like a lying hypercrite, but you will keep going i am sure of that.

 

[jo172]

I never took a moral position as to whether or not Browne should get weeks
yes the highlighted text is another quote of yours, you are not only making a fool of yourselfe here, you are starting to look like a lying hypercrite, but you will keep going i am sure of that.

For a start what you did was bold text, not highlight it, secondly, I must be quite dumb because I cannot see the inconsistancy between that quote and the text that you have bolded.

So i'm not lying, and I don't understand you're reference of hypocrisy, so i'm assuming you don't understand the word which would explain it's spelling.

When I keep going, it's because I've been slandered wrongfully, when you keep going it's because you've pulled two quotes of mine together and made a completely baseless statement.

 

[Brighton_Diggins]

For a start what you did was bold text, not highlight it, secondly, I must be quite dumb because I cannot see the inconsistancy between that quote and the text that you have bolded.

So i'm not lying, and I don't understand you're reference of hypocrisy, so i'm assuming you don't understand the word which would explain it's spelling.

When I keep going, it's because I've been slandered wrongfully, when you keep going it's because you've pulled two quotes of mine together and made a completely baseless statement.

Tool of the week goes to.....jo172.
Well done... you won by Miles.

 

[parrot]

...When I keep going, it's because I've been....

....made to look very silly and hypocritical. lol. Browne was clearly innocent and found to be so by the tribunal so you got it wrong. Suck it up and move on.

 

[KingsCrow]

....Suck it.....

You love just chopping up qoutes now don't you parrot.

Ya Gallah