Remove this Banner Ad

stokes report

  • Thread starter Thread starter geeza
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Haven’t seen the incident but sounds a bit similar to the Bartel one in the wet of a few years ago. They need to stamp it out, very dangerous play, shame a young kid with a good record is the victim.
 
diablo14 said:
just wait till one of your fellas gets a month long holiday for something as soft as that
Click to expand...

Be waiting a while for a Melbourne player to contest a ball like that. This was a team who had to trade for a player to make them look tough remember.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

JUBJUB said:
Not a lot in it.

Will the video pick up Lonie's elbow to Mackie's guts ?
Colbert on the boundary said Michael Wilson had a hissy fit at an AFL official when he came off [about 3rd or 4th qtr] because he claims GFC trainers got in his way of attempting a 9 pointer.The replay clearly showed why those trainers were there.Mackie gave away a free to Wilson about 55 out and as they were both getting up Lonie came in between them and picked up the ball and threw his elbow into Mackie's guts.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21327348-12428,00.html
Lonie faces striking charge

MICHELANGELO RUCCI
March 05, 2007 03:15pm
Article from: </IMG>

PORT Adelaide midfielder Nathan Lonie has been charged with striking in Saturday night's NAB Cup quarter-final against Geelong in Darwin.
The AFL video scrutineers sent to Peter Schwab's panel evidence of Lonie thrusting an elbow into the stomach of a Geelong opponent.
With his clean record, Lonie has the option of accepting a reprimand with an early guilty plea.
 
Should have taken an early plea. The tribunal were always going to come down hard on him as they have been going on about this issue all summer. At least it should be the same for everyone else...at least for another 3-4 weeks :rolleyes:

I will be angry however if Farmer ends up with only a 4-6 week suspension if Stokesy copped 4.

Anyone know how many games in the regular season he will miss? Does it matter if we make the NAB GF, does it slide down to 2?
 
Sammy D said:
Should have taken an early plea. The tribunal were always going to come down hard on him as they have been going on about this issue all summer. At least it should be the same for everyone else...at least for another 3-4 weeks :rolleyes:

I will be angry however if Farmer ends up with only a 4-6 week suspension if Stokesy cops 4.

Anyone know how many games in the regular season he will miss? Does it matter if we make the NAB GF, does it slide down to 2?
Click to expand...

If we make the GF it will slide down to 2 H&A games missed.

I think the club knew what they were doing. Realistically, by challenging the suspension we were only risking being able to play stokes in the round 2 match against Carlton (all going well this week). Not a big deal IMHO.
 
Well, this'll make it VERY interesting when it happens to a big-name player. Would love to see Hird or Buckley face the tribunal over this. Then we'll see how consistant it is.:thumbsd:
 
Sammy D said:
Should have taken an early plea. The tribunal were always going to come down hard on him as they have been going on about this issue all summer. At least it should be the same for everyone else...at least for another 3-4 weeks :rolleyes:

I will be angry however if Farmer ends up with only a 4-6 week suspension if Stokesy copped 4.

Anyone know how many games in the regular season he will miss? Does it matter if we make the NAB GF, does it slide down to 2?
Click to expand...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight I guess. First time tho, wasn't it for Stokes up at the tribunal? Very harsh I would have thought.

As for the games you miss, I think the tribunal has the power to decide if your games be served only in the regular season (I seem to recall a case like this, can't remember who though), if its deemed to be a more serious incident. Who knows what that means, these days! ;)
 
Four weeks for a first-time accidental offense sounds a bit harsh to me. I guess they want to seem tough but you'd think a little discretion comes into it.

Generalissimo makes some good points also. Perhaps the tribunal are viewing hip and shoulders as harsher than a kick to the head, though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I'ts official.

The AFL are a bunch of stupid pr!cks. Arrogant, inconsistent, disrespectful bullies.

Touching a player's head with your body- sacrilege. Foot's fine though. Contact that potentially could be seen as possibly being dangerous, maybe, that's a lengthy suspension. Contact that actually causes damage is perfectly fine.

The AFL are not to be respected on this issue because they got it wrong. Simple as that.
 
Poor Stokesy... :(

0540929500tk8.jpg


Does this mean he is suspended from the VFL practice games too?
 
Jim Boy said:
There used to be time when you had to have intention behind behind your action, now just any old accident is 'reportable'. Soft ***** are ruining this game
Click to expand...

Yep, crap decision. 1 game, given the conditions I could understand, but 4 is just absolutley ridiculous. How could he have even stopped his momentum in the wet if he'd tried??
16.gif
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

bulletproof said:
Haven’t seen the incident but sounds a bit similar to the Bartel one in the wet of a few years ago. They need to stamp it out, very dangerous play, shame a young kid with a good record is the victim.
Click to expand...

if you didnt see it, you dont know what they should stamp out??

They got it wrong with this one
 
Four weeks is bloody ridiculous!
I think they've got the rules all wrong on this one.
I agree with trying to protect the head, but so many guys are going to be missing a lot of weeks if they keep this strictness up. That sort of bump happens all the time, even in the dry. What on earth was he supposed to do in the wet?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom