Grundy suspension upheld

[sliver member]

confirmed via twitter on afl website.

 

[Riders of Rohan]

Disappointing really, was hoping he'd get off and have the impact that Walker did last time we played when he mystically avoided a suspension.

Ah well.

 

[mark121]

Not suprising considering how rarely chalenges suceed.

 

[Dangas]

Suspension for stupidity anyway.

 

[TripleB]

Disappointing really, was hoping he'd get off and have the impact that Walker did last time we played when he mystically avoided a suspension.

Ah well.

Spot on.

For a club that the sheep want to continually label the AFL's lovechild, we haven't had a lot of luck at the tribunal this year.

First Goodes gets a week for sliding where the opponent suffered a grass burn. Next week Lindsay Thomas breaks Gary Rohans leg clean in half and eventually walks free. Then Tex Walker slides in 5x worse than Goodes and gets cleared, just so he can come out against us and kick 5 goals in a game we lost by less then a kick.

Now Steve Johnson gets a week for bumping Hanners, which ironically means if we lose this week, he's back fresh and primed to take on ... yep, u guessed it, Sydney. FML...

 

[Tedeski]

Spot on.

For a club that the sheep want to continually label the AFL's lovechild, we haven't had a lot of luck at the tribunal this year.

First Goodes gets a week for sliding where the opponent suffered a grass burn. Next week Lindsay Thomas breaks Gary Rohans leg clean in half and eventually walks free. Then Tex Walker slides in 5x worse than Goodes and gets cleared, just so he can come out against us and kick 5 goals in a game we lost by less then a kick.

Now Steve Johnson gets a week for bumping Hanners, which ironically means if we lose this week, he's back fresh and primed to take on ... yep, u guessed it, Sydney. FML...

All the more reasons why we should just smash them fair & square!
If we bring out the intensity we showed against the Hawks in the first one & a half Qs, then we'll beat them by 50 points plus because they won't be able to cope with that pressure in their defence. We just need to keep it away from their forwards & make it easier for LRT & Teddy to defend when it does find it's way down there.

Then we can rest up for two weeks.

Quite simple really for a team that sat on top of the ladder for nearly the entire second half of the season.

Go Bloods!

 

[GotTheGoodes]

All the more reasons why we should just smash them fair & square!
If we bring out the intensity we showed against the Hawks in the first one & a half Qs, then we'll beat them by 50 points plus because they won't be able to cope with that pressure in their defence. We just need to keep it away from their forwards & make it easier for LRT & Teddy to defend when it does find it's way down there.

Then we can rest up for two weeks.

Quite simple really for a team that sat on top of the ladder for nearly the entire second half of the season.

Go Bloods!

You make it sound so easy........ Go Bloods!

 

[GotTheGoodes]

As has been mentioned already numerous times, it could be argued that Chappy is very very lucky to have gotten off given he drew blood from Benny. And Stevie J getting a week for an obviously intentional hit off the ball followed by some stupid theatrics only Stevie J thinks he can get away with......

But while we sit over here thinking "Jeez they're lucky they didn't get more" (e.g. Chappy 1 week etc).... They are not happy down at the Cattery.... http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8527434

I almost laughed then realised they were actually dead set serious!

EDIT: I particularly liked the bit that went: "Balme also said Johnson's Sydney opponent Dan Hannebery had contributed to the incident that resulted in the Cats star being suspended for rough conduct." ... Excuse me? Dan was running, watching the ball (in the distance) and Stevie J stood in his path, braced himself then hit him with such force he found it hard to stand up directly after. You don't expect to have to be aware of people sniping you off the ball 24/7 Balme you fu**in ning nong.... Or wait, maybe you do if you play Stevie J or Old McDonald. Ridiculous comment.

 

[kidkenobi]

As has been mentioned already numerous times, it could be argued that Chappy is very very lucky to have gotten off given he drew blood from Benny. And Stevie J getting a week for an obviously intentional hit off the ball followed by some stupid theatrics only Stevie J thinks he can get away with......

But while we sit over here thinking "Jeez they're lucky they didn't get more" (e.g. Chappy 1 week etc).... They are not happy down at the Cattery.... http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8527434

I almost laughed then realised they were actually dead set serious!

You must have dead set pissed yourself listening to the Swans defence of Grundy then!

 

[bungee]

You must have dead set pissed yourself listening to the Swans defence of Grundy then!

Stevie J is a weak as piss whiney pratt with more chins than a Chinese phonebook. Chapman deserved a couple of weeks and was lucky McGlynn didn't take him out. Grundy barely touched Potsy but Geelong seem to be the darlings of the MRP

Just some thoughts to take back to your own board and discuss among yourselves.

 

[TripleB]

You must have dead set pissed yourself listening to the Swans defence of Grundy then!

Grundy just pleaded that the force was not sufficient to warrant a report, nothing more, nothing less.

Your forgetting this is the same panel that thought Will Minson didnt stomp on Keiran Jack and Gary Rohan snapped his own leg in half, so anything could have happened...

 

[MF]

Yeah, I had a laugh at their comments. Apparently Hanneberry was partly to blame because he should have been aware that he was going to be illegally bumped 30 metres away from the ball.

He's very lucky that the AFL didn't take a harsher view of him "helping" Haneberry up from the ground by trying to jerk his shoulder out of it's socket.

 

[Tedeski]

Having a crack at Hanners is poor form. Geelong have a history of doing this & it is just sheer arrogance.
Just as the Swans did for Grundy, Balme should have advised Johnson to challenge at the tribunual. That is what the system is there for.
That way they could have brought up that Hanners acted & he too would have been forced to admit that he acted............................yeah right!

Geelong need to get real with life in the AFL because I think that with the great success that they have had on field, off the field they are beginning to believe that they should be untouchable when it comes to these matters.
It was very, very clear from the start of Saturday's game that Scott had instructed his players to touch us up physically at any opportunity (fair enough I say). It happened all over the ground so with that in your face style come the odd over stepping of the mark.

Balme is saying that Hanners had NO RIGHT to be in a position to be knocked over by Johnson. The MRP have said all year that any player on the field should never expect to be taken out when not in play.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Balme would be having a sook.

Geelong had their chance to challenge all charges but chose not to because they knew he was wrong. We did with Grundy & failed but we tried.
Blaming Hanners was just deflecting the blame from an undisciplined Johnson that should have known better the week before the finals.

But I guess ALL Geelong players are just untouchable from within too hey?

 

[GotTheGoodes]

You must have dead set pissed yourself listening to the Swans defence of Grundy then!

He had the ability to go in there and argue his case and his defence was what he could argue it on. Nothing more. I actually agree with his 1 week, if anythign else then for stupidity. However, Grundy (like Pods) took it on the chin and manned up and didn't come out looking like a sore loser rubbishing the decision and blaming Pods for putting his chin in the line of Grundys elbow now did he?

 

[kidkenobi]

He had the ability to go in there and argue his case and his defence was what he could argue it on. Nothing more. I actually agree with his 1 week, if anythign else then for stupidity. However, Grundy (like Pods) took it on the chin and manned up and didn't come out looking like a sore loser rubbishing the decision and blaming Pods for putting his chin in the line of Grundys elbow now did he?

Taking it on the chin would have been just accepting the 1 week, not going in with a laughable defence like they did, arguing the following:

• Grundy says he made contact that "slipped through" and hit him on the chest. The only contact, if there was, was incidental.
• Grundy says it was never his intent to strike Podsiadly.
• Grundy says his aim was to openly hand push him, which is what the vision shows.
• Iain Findlay summing up. Chapman one of the most fiery players in comp. If he'd seen Grundy strike Podsiadly's face, he would have reacted.
• Findlay: "We concede that Heath makes contact with Podsiadly, and that his arm goes across his chest."
• If Grundy's action is considered forceful enough, then his representative says it was a reckless action, not intentional.

Let's be honest, Johnson's bump was hardly vicious, I don't think he intended to get him as flush as he did. Without carry over points he would have gotten a reprimand so overall it was probably somewhere near fair enough.

 

[.Shotties.]

Let's be honest, Johnson's bump was hardly vicious, I don't think he intended to get him as flush as he did.

So you say Sydney's defence was laughable?

 

[kidkenobi]

So you say Sydney's defence was laughable?

Yes.

My point is that the hit wasn't particularly hard or anything, and while I'm not blaming Hannebery, because he shouldn't have to be expecting that kind of contact, the fact that he didn't see it coming made the impact seem worse as he didn't have time to brace himself for it.

 

[.Shotties.]

So it's acceptable to claim Johnson didn't mean to hit Hannebery that well despite lowering his shoulder and stepping into him, but Grundy saying he didn't mean to hit Podsiadly on the chin in laughable?

I don't really care about the outcome either way, but what you've said is stupid.

 

[kidkenobi]

So it's acceptable to claim Johnson didn't mean to hit Hannebery that well despite lowering his shoulder and stepping into him, but Grundy saying he didn't mean to hit Podsiadly on the chin in laughable?

I don't really care about the outcome either way, but what you've said is stupid.

I don't think Johnson envisioned Hannebery lying on the ground winded as a result of his bump which is probably why he freaked out and went and picked him up. No doubt he meant to bump him, I just don't think he intended to bump him so 'sweetly'. You don't have to agree with that, but had Geelong taken it to the tribunal they would have been able to put together a much more convincing case than Sydney did for Grundy.

If you read above through the arguments the Swans defence made then yes, they are quite laughable. It was a 'Hail Mary' shot because they had nothing to lose, but the fact the panel deliberated for only a single minute says it all really. I don't really care either, I think both sides are good enough to cover the loss of any single player. Good luck

 

[Riders of Rohan]

Watching the vision for the first time of the hit, Johnson put a fair bit of force into that hit if he was just attempting to block. Pissed myself at the whinging from Balme and co.

Though what really interests me about this is the comments from the MRP chairman on the AFL website stating that when deciding the penalty, they went back and looked at similar instances to decide the verdict. So precedents are allowed when decided the penalty, but not allowed when a player decides to appeal.

The system is broke.

 

[.Shotties.]

You don't have to agree with that, but had Geelong taken it to the tribunal they would have been able to put together a much more convincing case than Sydney did for Grundy.

If they go with your argument it would have been essentially the same. "I intended to do X, but accidently did Y / did it harder than I meant".

 

[Gongswan]

Yes.

My point is that the hit wasn't particularly hard or anything, and while I'm not blaming Hannebery, because he shouldn't have to be expecting that kind of contact, the fact that he didn't see it coming made the impact seem worse as he didn't have time to brace himself for it.

The point was though that Balme DID blame Hanners, which is the most ridiculous thing ever said anywhere, ever

 

[GotTheGoodes]

I don't think Johnson envisioned Hannebery lying on the ground winded as a result of his bump which is probably why he freaked out and went and picked him up. No doubt he meant to bump him, I just don't think he intended to bump him so 'sweetly'. You don't have to agree with that, but had Geelong taken it to the tribunal they would have been able to put together a much more convincing case than Sydney did for Grundy.

If you read above through the arguments the Swans defence made then yes, they are quite laughable. It was a 'Hail Mary' shot because they had nothing to lose, but the fact the panel deliberated for only a single minute says it all really. I don't really care either, I think both sides are good enough to cover the loss of any single player. Good luck

I don't necessarily disagree that Grundy's defence was a "hail mary" and yes quite weak. And again, I agree with the decision. What I was more referring to was the ridiculous comments regarding Hanners being held accountable for getting colected 30m off the ball. Further, Geelong complaining about what most would see as favourable decision regarding Stevie J & Chappy and deflecting the fact they're complaining by trying to bring hanners into it. Stevie J getting 1 week and not challenging for a reason was because, honestly, he could have easily got more. And Chappy getting off for something similar to incidents that have been given time in the past was a let off for the Cats. But somehow, rather than staying content with getting away with it, all we're hearing is complaining. Really lowered my view of the club a little as it makes them look like the spoilt child who demands more like they somehow deserve it when in actual fact they've already been given a good deal.