Nathan Bock Verdict

[macca23]

My issue is if Bock gets a suspension just before or during finals then he's pretty much got a week already hanging over his head if found guilty and no applicable good record. Like I said earlier, this is why Brodie Holland ended up out for so long. A reprimand might have repurcussions later on, so fight the ones that are worth fighting. In my opinion, this one was definitely worth fighting.

I've maintained all along that there was no case to answer because his eyes never deviated from the ball - a la Pavlich who knuckled a player in the head but was always looking at the ball.

I've seen the replay of it about 6 times since my original comment, and can only say that sensibly the charge had to be contested - had to be, for the good of footy overall.

The fact that the AFC didn't contest it shows just how little faith the club has in the vagaries of the tribunal.

It's like a lucky dip and you just don't know what you'll get.

 

[crow87]

Well, although I think we should have fought it I reckon we erred on the side of caution simply because with our current injuries we could not afford to lose Bock. I mean, we might struggle to get 22 on the park, have to forfeit and hence risk that pesky $20 fine...

 

[Smoooothy]

Go back to TLC you fool.

I'm just disappointed we would accept the reprimand because Bock did nothing wrong. Therefore I find it weak of the club not to challenge it.

time you got a reality check pal..

if your gonna whinge and moan every time our boys do something you don't like then you may as well barrack for someone else..

it's only football, the main thing is he is playing..