Rocca could get a match

[understudy]

he got 125 points but with the 25% discount for an early guilty plea he is free to play

tribunal is completely ****ed!

Disgraceful isnt it, should have been thrown out completely !

 

[tribey]

Jeez.

Chris Grant should get his 1997 Brownlow back if that wasn't worth a week.

 

[tribey]

Like Geelong resting half theirs on Sunday when they played Port?

Well said.

If only Bartel, Ling, Selwood, Couch, Bairstow, Hocking, Stoneham, Newman, Jackson and Polly were all out there. Result would've been very different.

 

[ThePeckers]

What a joke, If Rocca doesn't even get a week, Rielly should get a lolly pop for being reported.

Gwad its rigged.

 

[Gets!]

What a joke, If Rocca doesn't even get a week, Rielly should get a lolly pop for being reported.

Gwad its rigged.

hahahaha made me laugh

 

[ShearMagic9]

He plays for Collingwood.

Nuff said

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

This tribunal is an absolute disgrace. How can that not get at least 1 game.

 

[NSWCROW]

Was there ever ANY doubt ??

 

[crowman_23]

Really doesn't surprise me. I thoughtwith his record he would get at leat one match. Doesn't matter though, just makes the game that little bit harder. If we want to go anywhere in September this game shouldn't stop us.

 

[ams4crows]

if he palyed for anyone else he would have got a week we all knew he was gonna get off! does it really matter? Rutten will cain him anyway!

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

Im glad it got thrown out, that shouldnt of been worth a week.

 

[beartoo]

Glad he's playing. IMO he is a problem for them against us. They target him, Rutten runs off him.

 

[- PC -]

For a tackle?

Obviously I saw a different thing and took it to be the report

Just saw the real report and wtf. Lucky boy

 

[smoovy]

At the end of the day you have to look at how the match revue panel grade the incident.

They said it was negligent, low impact and high. For striking this gives demerit points of 80, which is less than a match. However as he had prior convictions, this was increased by 25%, plus he had 20 points carried over. This took it to 120 points, which is a 1 match suspension. However, if he pleads guilty he gets a 25% reduction which takes it back to 90 points, which is less than a match.

Unless you disagree with negligent, low impact or high (which I don't think you can), then the match revue panel are restricted by the system that is in place.

 

[Crowked]

Well said.

If only Bartel, Ling, Selwood, Couch, Bairstow, Hocking, Stoneham, Newman, Jackson and Polly were all out there. Result would've been very different.

Ling, King and Selwood were the ones I was refering to. Bartel was the only one genuinely unavailable.

I was taking the piss in response to a stupid comment, and yes the result could have been very different. They clearly didnt play their best team.

Just a question, why do you always jump to the defense of knobhead Port supporters making stupid comments here on our board?

 

[tribey]

Just a question, why do you always jump to the defense of knobhead Port supporters making stupid comments here on our board?

Do I? Why do so many people jump at shadows? Please cite examples or zip up.

It was a wider critique in general, turbs. I've seen so many excuses made for Geelong in the past day or two it's ridiculous - they've had a settled side for much of the year without so much as a misclipped toenail, yet they suddenly cop a couple of injuries, get beaten (stll an unexpected upset) and everyone, including neutrals, are there to throw asterisks at them.

 

[Jars458]

Well said.

If only Bartel, Ling, Selwood, Couch, Bairstow, Hocking, Stoneham, Newman, Jackson and Polly were all out there. Result would've been very different.

Disingenious there DT.

Bartel Ling and Selwood, would have made a big difference on Sunday I am pretty sure.

Nevertheless a great win for Port, who would be very chuffed with their season so far, other than being our biatches.

 

[Jars458]

Do I? Why do so many people jump at shadows? Please cite examples or zip up.

It was a wider critique in general, turbs. I've seen so many excuses made for Geelong in the past day or two it's ridiculous - they've had a settled side for much of the year without so much as a misclipped toenail, yet they suddenly cop a couple of injuries, get beaten (stll an unexpected upset) and everyone, including neutrals, are there to throw asterisks at them.

Port have had a similar run with only peripheral players coming in and out, once Warren came back.

I would compare Ling Sellwood and Bartel to our problems last year with Roo McLeod and Burton being injured at the pointy end.

L

 

[tribey]

Disingenious there DT.

Bartel Ling and Selwood, would have made a big difference on Sunday I am pretty sure.

Nevertheless a great win for Port, who would be very chuffed with their season so far, other than being our biatches.

See above.

Of course Bartel, Ling and Selwood would've made a difference, but then a fully fit Tredrea might've kicked 4 or 5 instead of just the 2 as well.

Could also argue that Wakelin not doing his hammy when he did (12-13 minutes to go in Q4) would've resulted in a much stronger defensive effort and thus a 4-5 goal win instead of the cliffhanger it became.

Then there's the ultimate coulda/shoulda/woulda injuries argument - Adelaide. Hentschel, Ricciuto, Biglands, Bode, Bassett, etc.

That's footy isn't it? Just cannot stand doucheturbans like Wallsy and some of the BF population so eager to catch the Cats when they fall.

 

[Crowked]

Do I? Why do so many people jump at shadows? Please cite examples or zip up.

It was a wider critique in general, turbs. I've seen so many excuses made for Geelong in the past day or two it's ridiculous - they've had a settled side for much of the year without so much as a misclipped toenail, yet they suddenly cop a couple of injuries, get beaten (stll an unexpected upset) and everyone, including neutrals, are there to throw asterisks at them.

I'm not going to bother looking for examples. I have just noticed over time that you do it. I'll zip up, but do me a favour and pull your head in when the conversation doesnt concern you. They can respond for them selves you know. I asume their grown ups.

I'm not making any excuses for Geelong. I really couldnt care less. Port had a good win. Again I dont really care.

What i did was let the dude know they have benifitted from their opposition resting players, just as he suggested we would this week.

 

[tribey]

I'm not going to bother looking for examples. I have just noticed over time that you do it. I'll zip up, but do me a favour and pull your head in when the conversation doesnt concern you.

No.

They can respond for them selves you know. I asume their grown ups.

You're the one who assumed I was defending anyone. I merely responded to your comments and your comments alone.

I'm not making any excuses for Geelong. I really couldnt care less. Port had a good win. Again I dont really care.

Okay?

What i did was let the dude know they have benifitted from their opposition resting players, just as he suggested we would this week.

I didn't even read what he said.

Sure some context would have been helpful, but hey.

 

[Crowked]

I didn't even read what he said.

Sure some context would have been helpful, but hey.

That explains a lot. Guess I gave you too much credit, hey?

 

[tribey]

That explains a lot. Guess I gave you too much credit, hey?

Urgh - do you really want to do this? Need some thinking music or?

Disengage gracefully.

 

[Crowked]

Urgh - do you really want to do this? Need some thinking music or?

Disengage gracefully.

Mate I have my own children to play with. Consider me disengaged.

 

[tribey]

Mate I have my own children to play with. Consider me disengaged.

I'm not your mate, pedarist.

Just kidding LOL.