Farmer got off

[Punchy Bassett]

What a shock.....not

 

[tribey]

What a disgrace.

Deserved at least a week for sheer recklessness.

Chris Grant lost a Brownlow for far less.

 

[bluecrow]

What a crock of sh1te...

 

[Stiffy_18]

Thata a ****ing disgrace!!!!!!

 

[Gets!]

Shoulda got 9 Weeks.

 

[Hit And Rum]

This is not trolling just what I believe and no I am not a Dockers supporter but...

I am not a great fan of Jeffrey but without doubt it was not malicious and the way the SA media went mental was simply pathetic.

I have lambasted the tribunal this year but on this one they got it right. A natural movement and nothing else. Well done tribunal.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
This is not trolling just what I believe and no I am not a Dockers supporter but...

I am not a great fan of Jeffrey but without doubt it was not malicious and the way the SA media went mental was simply pathetic.

I have lambasted the tribunal this year but on this one they got it right. A natural movement and nothing else. Well done tribunal.

Obviously the decision came down to the question of intent - and unless Farmer confessed that yes he deliberately kneed Doughty then the benefit of the doubt had to be given on that count.

However...

The act was reckless. A natural movement such as getting up should not have caused such a serious head injury to a player who Farmer knew was on the ground in front/under him.

As I stated earlier, at the very least it deserved a week for recklessness.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
This is not trolling just what I believe and no I am not a Dockers supporter but...

I am not a great fan of Jeffrey but without doubt it was not malicious and the way the SA media went mental was simply pathetic.

I have lambasted the tribunal this year but on this one they got it right. A natural movement and nothing else. Well done tribunal.

But it was RECKLESS. FFS Doughty has a fructured eye socket.

Should have got at least a week

 

[Hit And Rum]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
But it was RECKLESS. FFS Doughty has a fructured eye socket.

Should have got at least a week

I dont agree it was reckless and I believe it would be very hard to prove that it was. I was mucking around with a mate in backyard footy when I was 16 and he "headbutted" me and fractured my nose. It looked bad at the time I went to a doctor and got it fixed however at no point did I say he intentionally did it it was just part if him getting up to play on with the ball and me standing still.

Unlucky yes. Reckless no. Intentional no.

 

[AngelEyes]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
But it was RECKLESS. FFS Doughty has a fructured eye socket.

Should have got at least a week

Yet Chad Cornes got 2 last year for 'kneeing' Sinclair in a less damaging inccident. And, well to me, Chad looked to be actually less reckless.

The tribunal is nothing but one word; inconsistant.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum
Reckless no.

Not reckless when the play had stopped - umpire had already whistled for a bounce - and Farmer knew he had a prone player directly in front of/under him?

End game = Farmer's knee hits Doughty's face with so much force that Doughty suffers a fractured eye socket?

That can't be deemed reckless in your eyes?

 

[Blues_Girl]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Thata a ****ing disgrace!!!!!!

Sums it up perfectly!

Anyone wanna head to Perth and belt the ****er up ourselves??

 

[Go South]

Pigs ****ing ring it wasn't reckless.

Play had stopped, the umpire had called for a bounce. It was completely unnecessary. As was his smirking as he came off the ground later.

Whoops... just happened to pound my knee into my opponents face. I can't see how 'natural movement' is enough to break someone's cheekbone, personally.

Jeff Farmer is a pig.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by AngelEyes
Yet Chad Cornes got 2 last year for 'kneeing' Sinclair in a less damaging inccident. And, well to me, Chad looked to be actually less reckless.

The tribunal is nothing but one word; inconsistant.

Cornes got what he deserved.

Farmer should have got a month.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Hit And Rum


I am not a great fan of Jeffrey but without doubt it was not malicious and the way the SA media went mental was simply pathetic.

I have lambasted the tribunal this year but on this one they got it right. A natural movement and nothing else. Well done tribunal.

Gotta agree, IMO simply an accident

 

[relapse]

I havent seen the incident on tv I only saw it on the screen at AAMI and what I saw was that his knees were firmly planted and then he lifted it into doherty's face. Looked deliberate to me !!whats next, I didnt mean to punch him I was just stretching my arm and he got in the way???

Farmer is and always will be an sneaky and dirty opportunist, it started at Melbourne and his ways have continued at Fremantle. Kahma does come back and he got a bit of a serve of it last year when he hurt his back in the final against Essendon were he hugely overreacted that he was being held and because of him throwing himself backwards pretending he was held seriously injured his back, which I thought was hilarious as it couldnt have happened to a nicer P***k.

I am so surprised that he got off I would have though 4-5 was in order for that. Good to see that kneeing an opponent in the face is legal, it makes a joke out of the week that McLeod got for that apparent charge on Lloyd a few years ago.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Trouble is we have all seen the incident in slow motion, making it look bad and deliberate.
In real time he hardly could have thought that quickly if his intent was to inflict damage.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Trouble is we have all seen the incident in slow motion, making it look bad and deliberate.
In real time he hardly could have thought that quickly if his intent was to inflict damage.

Same could be said for Biglands v Polak earlier in the year. Biglands didn't mean to hurt Polak, but was reckless in his actions & deserved the games he got - with a previously clean record. Farmer was reckless with a poor record & ....

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Same could be said for Biglands v Polak earlier in the year. Biglands didn't mean to hurt Polak, but was reckless in his actions & deserved the games he got - with a previously clean record. Farmer was reckless with a poor record & ....

Difference Biglands looked him fare in the eye prior to raising his forearm. No doubt deliberate at whatever speed.

If you've played footy those things happen quite often. At the speed AFL is played it would be extremely difficult to premeditate that incident.

 

[macca23]

All this talk of an accident is crap.

That was a low down dog act.

At the point of impact that knee was really travelling. Farmer was stationery just prior to that. No way was it an accident through slipping.

The fact that the tribunal found him innocent is almost proof that he was guilty, given their inconsistency.

Farmer may have escaped the 4-5 weeks suspension he should have got on this occasion, but mark my words, you can't ecape karma. Farmer will ultimately find this out- and there won't be any sympathy fom me.

Every dog has it's day, and he's a low-down dog!!

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

I am sorry but that is ****ing bull****. I am at a loss over this one. How on earth did that little bastard get off?

There is no justice in the system at all.

k
xx

 

[spindoctor]

It was reckless. Undoubtedly. Breaking someone's eyesocket with an action like that is not 'accidental'. The tribunal need to go back and study the criminal law definition of recklessness and learn from it.

 

[_espoir]

okay.. IMO he should have gotten off... jump at me all you wont.
I dislike Farmer as a player. But in this case it was an accident.

In my view he was off balance, as he looked at the umpire to complain (i guess about not getting a free for holding the ball) Doughty moved, which may have caught Farmer off guard. Yes we get that it was a knock to the eye etc etc.. But "reckless", then you might as well count out ever tackle that causes an injury, should the guy that broke Crawford's arm go for 6 matches? No. But it was a "reckless" tackle wasnt it? If thats what "reckless" is gonna boil down to.

If Farmer was looking at Doughty when contact was made then... 3-4 matches. Knowing that he was there and where his head was, to make the "reckless" contact. But his eyes were somewhere else, Doughty also moved.

As for the other issues in the past, sometimes they get it right sometime they get it wrong, dont you think that they look at the past and think..crap must watch that, as that issue didnt need a match or matches. Like everyone that had a go at Chad. *shrugs*

Trouble is we have all seen the incident in slow motion, making it look bad and deliberate.

Agreed. Its the problem with slow mode, You can pick how and why things happen because you see it played over and over then, and you pick on things that arent there. You start seeing things in a different light than when it was fast and live.

Thank you for taking the time to read...now on to the bashing on how my views suck

 

[conVINCEd]

Originally posted by _espoir
Thank you for taking the time to read...now on to the bashing on how my views suck

Her views sure do suck. She's the most suckiest suck I've ever seen before. I mean, I've seen teams suck, but she is the most suckiest suck thats ever sucked.

Sorry, I gotta go, my damn wierner kids are listening.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by _espoir
okay.. IMO he should have gotten off... jump at me all you wont.
I dislike Farmer as a player. But in this case it was an accident.

In my view he was off balance, as he looked at the umpire to complain (i guess about not getting a free for holding the ball) Doughty moved, which may have caught Farmer off guard. Yes we get that it was a knock to the eye etc etc.. But "reckless", then you might as well count out ever tackle that causes an injury, should the guy that broke Crawford's arm go for 6 matches? No. But it was a "reckless" tackle wasnt it? If thats what "reckless" is gonna boil down to.

I understand where you're coming from on this, but in the case of the Mattner/Crawford incident, Mattner laid a fair tackle which was 110% fair and legal under the laws of Australian Rules Football. Crawford's broken arm was merely an unfortunate result of the tackle - the result of misfortune rather than any misbehaviour or recklessness on Mattner's part.

Take Byron Pickett for instance. Many (non-Port) supporters, scribes and commentators moan about his bread and butter - which of course is the bonecrunching shirtfront. Well they can moan all they like because as we know, 99% of the time Byron delivers his bumps legally within the laws of the game. Injuries have resulted from this tactic, the most notable being Brendan Krummel at Waverley a few years ago, but stiff cheese, it's fair.

Originally posted by _espoir
If Farmer was looking at Doughty when contact was made then... 3-4 matches. Knowing that he was there and where his head was, to make the "reckless" contact. But his eyes were somewhere else, Doughty also moved.

But that's exactly it. Farmer got off because the tribunal couldn't prove intent and Farmer of course was going to claim the contact to be accidental.

The reason it was reckless (at the very least) is because the whistle had gone. Play had stopped. Farmer knew Doughty was directly in front of/under him lying prone and vulnerable on the ground - he simply should've been more careful. And unlike the Mattner/Crawford tackle or as I said, all of Pickett's shirtfronts, kneeing a player in the face is not legal under the laws of the game - and therefore if it wasn't deliberate, at the very least it was reckless.

At the end of the day Doughty is out for the next 3-4 weeks (and his AFL career is in jeopardy) because of Farmer, while Farmer will get to play. As I previously stated, Chris Grant lost a Brownlow in 1997 for far less - a missed spoil (when he was side on to the player and not even facing him) deemed to be a 'strike' which caused no injury to the opposition player but cost him a week and ultimately the highest individual honour in the game.

Originally posted by _espoir
Thank you for taking the time to read... now on to the bashing on how my views suck

Your opinions are as valid as anyones, in fact it was brave of you to go against the grain on the Crows board - even though we disagree on this (there's a first time for everything, although I don't think we see eye to eye on Ricciuto for some reason ) there's nothing wrong with that, that's footy.

Hopefully people will start respecting the opinions of the females on here rather than ignoring them.

Cheers!