Come on nowSo what your condoning is a massive elbow being thrown back at an unsuspecting opponent? Okay then. And the follow up blind fist that could of hit him anywhere is ok as well. Yeah, no probs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Come on nowSo what your condoning is a massive elbow being thrown back at an unsuspecting opponent? Okay then. And the follow up blind fist that could of hit him anywhere is ok as well. Yeah, no probs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whatās funny is you think you know what your on about, yet you donāt. What stuffed Shiel was a second hit by Astbury about 10 minutes after the Cotchin hit. A massive bump. But you clearly didnāt watch the game. I was there and have watched it as well. So, at least get it right when youāre having a crack.
Well given the penalty is a done deal, I sense that this thread has devolved to banter, so....Wow. Care to explain the relevance of the free kick against Mirra to this discussion...?
One of the more sensible ideas surrounding the fine system.Nah. You csnt throw elbows and punches. Fines make sense. But make them bigger for players beyond the 2 year controlled salary.
Come on now
So Iāve been trying to restrain myself from commenting on this thread even after the false equivalence of the Dusty to Danger actions that many clowns are trying to argue, but then I came across this bit of gross stupidity.
Absolute revisionist history bullshit.
The desire of many of you muppets to whitewash 2017 as the second coming of Jesus, without blemish, is as tiresome as your incessant moaning about anti-Richmond bias now that youāre just a good ordinary side again.
You deserved to win in 2017, you had some luck with Cotchin, and Dusty had an awesome season. That should be enough.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a clean game in rubbing out clear punches and elbows.Nah. You csnt throw elbows and punches. Fines make sense. But make them bigger for players beyond the 2 year controlled salary.
I don't think we are. I am yet to see something that resembles a "massive elbow".So DeBoar didnāt go down when struck? Are we looking at the same footage?
Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
I don't think we are. I am yet to see something that resembles a "massive elbow".
I have seen footage of Dangerfield throwing an elbow back getting de Boer in the guts. Not a whole lot in it though. Certainly not a massive elbow. There was probably 20-30 more powerful elbows thrown in that game than the one Dangerfield threw. A fine is probably fair enough.
The comparisons between this and Martin's strike I've been reading in here are rather laughable to be honest.
Well there is a difference - One was to the head and one was to body.Thereās no difference in a hard elbow to the shoulder/back or a hard elbow to the chest. Iām gonna assume you have played or are playing so you would know that. Both were hard hits.
So how is one worse than the other? They arenāt. And the MRP once again sends a mixed message. You can get suspended for a tackle, yet throw a hard elbow back and a blind fist - fine. Itās just crazy.
Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower
Well there is a difference - One was to the head and one was to body.
Dangerfield's was not a hard hit.
Someone running at another player and striking them high with an elbow will always get a higher penalty than someone throwing an elbow back that occurs many times a game.
I think its time to let the Martin incident go hey captain? It was incorrectly graded by MC and subsequently amended at the tribunal. That is what the system is for. You challenged an unfair grading, and a fair punishment was handed out. Richmond then won against Port and now get Martin back.
Martin hit Kennedy in the head as reported by an umpire standing 20m away. Kennedy also said he hit him in the head.Youāre right, Danger did hit DeBoar in the head after the elbow. Martin hit Kennedy in the shoulder as is on record by the player.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Martin hit Kennedy in the head as reported by an umpire standing 20m away. Kennedy also said he hit him in the head.
Dangerfield hardly hit him in the head. The force was not deemed forecful enough to warrant a suspension.
Is it not possible in your opinion that Kennedy was simply trying to get Martin off by stating it got him in the shoulder originally? Is it possible youāre taking Kennedyās word as gospel and the absolute truth so that it suits youāre narrative that Martin was hard done by? I mean, you have stated tht Martin copped a fair suspension 1 week but here you are complaining again?
Its very simple - one was high, one was not. One player ran at another player from a couple of paces away with a raised elbow. One has carelessly/recklessly thrown an elbow back at a player standing immediately behind him and got him low.
Nah, he didnāt. You better read the statement Kennedy action stated in the challenge to the ban. Youāre actually incorrect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
View attachment 655679
INITIAL contact to shoulder. Then stated he wasn't expecting contact to his head and was in shock when it occurred. Pretty clear he isn't denying contact was made to the head.
But as I have mentioned several times, I guess you only read into that how you want to see it.
He's turning into Ballyntine.. holding people's arms and being annoying as possible.. wouldn't surprise me if he pinches his opponent and pulls their arm hairs lol...Who will be next to hit de Boer
The difference is Martin made contact to the head forceful enough to warrant a suspension. Graded low by the tribunal resulting in a 1 week suspension. The fact Kennedy claims it hit his shoulder first is irrelevant. It resulted in a strike to the head that was forceful - a claim supported by the umpire.So the initial force of the blow was to the shoulder and glanced up to the head. Danger threw a strong elbow to the chest and then glanced the head in an intentional second go. Whatās the difference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Should be good this week. He's a class act as a person and I cant see his ex teamates targeting him.Who will be next to hit de Boer
So the initial force of the blow was to the shoulder and glanced up to the head. Danger threw a strong elbow to the chest and then glanced the head in an intentional second go. Whatās the difference?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The force used and the fact Danger had 2 seperate actions.
Your player ****** up, accept it and move on.
So Iāve been trying to restrain myself from commenting on this thread even after the false equivalence of the Dusty to Danger actions that many clowns are trying to argue, but then I came across this bit of gross stupidity.
Absolute revisionist history bullshit.
The desire of many of you muppets to whitewash 2017 as the second coming of Jesus, without blemish, is as tiresome as your incessant moaning about anti-Richmond bias now that youāre just a good ordinary side again.
You deserved to win in 2017, you had some luck with Cotchin, and Dusty had an awesome season. That should be enough.