MRP / Trib. Nankervis Straight To Tribunal
- Thread starter _RT_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 15, 2017
- 22,746
- 87,231
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
play the degoey tape
- Jun 28, 2017
- 1,844
- 7,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
regardless of if he gets 3 or 4
im glad were not contesting it, take your lumps nank
im glad were not contesting it, take your lumps nank
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,449
- 58,008
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
Tovey trying hard to get six instead of 4. 
- Jun 27, 2004
- 16,067
- 15,808
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils
- Moderator
- #157
3 weeks would take that.Tovey trying hard to get six instead of 4.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,784
- 89,019
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
I’m saying 5
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,784
- 89,019
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Richmond Tax
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The whole thing is a farce if he gets any more than De Goey (3 weeks).
May as well punch a bloke in the face which only gets 2.
May as well punch a bloke in the face which only gets 2.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,784
- 89,019
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Richmond Tax and people think it’s not true
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
It's very true.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Smoke and mirrors
- Jun 27, 2004
- 16,067
- 15,808
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tasmania Devils
- Moderator
- #166
Media have it their way he would be sentenced to life (season) 3 weeks nothing more.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Better not be more than 3....
- Jul 8, 2017
- 21,803
- 64,231
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Gonna be 4
4 weeks farq
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You are KIDDING
Don't tell me more than 3
- Oct 29, 2017
- 18,929
- 36,536
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- May 15, 2017
- 22,746
- 87,231
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Dusty
is there some legal reason that our team always just goes for the "they're a good bloke and didn't mean to hit them that hard" argument and not much else? there's loads of technicalities from the guidelines that they can manipulate to their advantage, could do a full proper analysis of the incident, as well as using comparison incidents which someone here found can be considered in some cases, but we just like to say they're good blokes and that's about it? is it not worth the trouble?
Nothing yet
Similar threads
