Tarrant cops 2 weeks

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bucks
you twit... i was refering to Tarrants/McLoeds tribunal record..

You twit, that's not what THEY were considering. They were considering the players record, not just whether they'd been suspended before or not.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Rohan_


Sabs,

I know why macca argues with you so much.

No idea, is Matera aborignal or south american?

Nice to see you addressed my post.
Ill take that you agree
Sabre:1
Rohan:0

 

[jefffff34]

Originally posted by that twat Magpie Miracle

Hoggy, I reported you already. Leave it alone.

Yeah well I reported you twice you clown!

 

[Magpie Miracle]

Originally posted by Bucks
its clearly a conspiracy against collingwood... i think the AFL is trying to pay eddie back for his verbal stoush against the AFL.

I agree. I can't wait till Eddie shoves it up them all on the Footy Show this week.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rohan_
Norm Smith doesnt mean you are a fairer player. Afterall Rhys Jones won one.

Given he won two, only the second player to do so, combined with the club B&F and 149 games without suspension it's an indication of his reputation as a ball player.

Inferring that Tarrants playing record is as good as McLeod's is sophistry.

If you are going to fish, get you're facts right.

You'd do well to take your own medicine you SKOB choker.

 

[Macca19]

Still waiting for you to tell us all what you saw Rohan

 

[Captain Random]

Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN
Im sorry,
I fail to understand...

Lockyer is out cold and stretechered off due to Matera.
Matera is cleared due to lack of video evidence!

And Tarrant is given 2 weeks with NO video evidence....


WHAT THE?!?!??!?!

Was there umpire evidence of Matera striking Lockyer?

 

[Smokin]

Originally posted by gPhonque


No. Why ask me that when i stated that the players statements should be ignored if "video evidence suggests otherwise"?



No.

To combat that, they should make sure that players are 100% sure of what they are saying in their statements, and if video evidence pops up that showed they were lying, then give them a week.

Perhaps players would be more wary when it comes to making statements like the ones you mentioned above, but at least we'd be more likely to see an end to decisions like these, which are based on the what the umpire thinks he saw, and nothing else.

What if the umpire was wrong?

They've been known to be wrong occasionally...... [/B]

You said:

"I believe the other players opinions on any tribunal incident should never be ignored. They are the ones playing the game - they are the ones in the best position to judge whether there was something in it."

The players did give evidence - but when the stories are conflicting, then holes in the argument or in hay's case an admission of not actually seeing the argument, how can they be "in the best position'?

"The only time they should be ignored is if video evidence suggests otherwise. "

Or when they are proven to be sticking up for fellow players - ie my post on this case.

"But suspending a guy for 2 weeks purely on the "evidence" of the umpires word is ridiculous. Especially when the opposition players say there was nothing in it. "

But the players were proven to be unreliable.

Heck, Ive played a fair bit of footy - yes I got to a level where games were taped, but in junior footy every tribunal hearing was based on opinions of players, umpires, coaches etc - often they were conflicting.

Umpires are like Police - the system must look at them when all else fails. If they dont, they system has a problem.

How did the VFL tribunal operate before TV? Throw every case out because there was conflicting evidence?

In a court of law most of the time there is conflicting evidence. It is the role of the disinterested, independent arbitrator to get to the bottom of it. Yes, in theory the umpires are the disinterested, indepdendent arbitrators on game day and obviously during a game they represent the law making body of our game.

Of course their evidence must be weighed heavily.

How could it not?

 

[Magpie Miracle]

Originally posted by Hoggy
Originally posted by that twat Hoggy the g-bo


Yeah well I reported you twice you clown!

bwhahahah, I'm sure the mods will be pleased with your uncalled for reports. LOL hAHAHAHHAHHA


BTW, I've reported 4 of your posts now....keep them coming

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Macca19
Still waiting for you to tell us all what you saw Rohan

I'm still wondering what his reference to Essendon has to do with it.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Magpie Miracle



bwhahahah, I'm sure the mods will be pleased with your uncalled for reports. LOL hAHAHAHHAHHA


BTW, I've reported 4 of your posts now....keep them coming

So your the one clogging up the moderators emails with pointless reports.

 

[Port01]

Well, a whole bunch of people here have said they saw the incident, but not one of you has actually posted what you saw.

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by Dave


Given he won two, only the second player to do so, combined with the club B&F and 149 games without suspension it's an indication of his reputation as a ball player.

Inferring that Tarrants playing record is as good as McLeod's is sophistry.



You'd do well to take your own medicine you SKOB choker.

Skob Choker aye?

Norm Smiths don't effect a player going to a tribunal. They look at how clean the player has been in his career, regardless if he played 50 games or 150 games.

As far as McCloed and Tarrant are concerned they were both equal before they fronted as they had clean records. The fact that he has done so and so and played more games is regardless.

If I am a skob choker, what are you?

 

[jefffff34]

Originally quoted by you know who

bwhahahah, I'm sure the mods will be pleased with your uncalled for reports. LOL hAHAHAHHAHHA

Oh so I suppose you calling Mandy a bloke is acceptable but me not being able to defend her is not you twat. OK report that. I called you a twat. Oh no! Get a life!

 

[mandy]

Originally posted by sabre_ac


So your the one clogging up the moderators emails with pointless reports.

No. That would be me.

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by Port01
Well, a whole bunch of people here have said they saw the incident, but not one of you has actually posted what you saw.

There all Neil Kerley's.

 

[Bucks]

Originally posted by Dave


You twit, that's not what THEY were considering. They were considering the players record, not just whether they'd been suspended before or not.

OMG what are you... stoned????

so are u saying if a player who has not won a 'medal' or if the player is not in the top 3 does this mean that the player has no chance of getting off???

ohh geez.. Tarrant has not won a Norm Smith.. lets just give him another week cause he aint as good as McLoed!

Tribunal doesn't care if its Michael Jordan or if its Miny Me, the player should be judged on his motives and what ACTUALLY happened and wiether he's a serial offendor or a first timer!

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by M29


I'm still wondering what his reference to Essendon has to do with it.

Likewise!! I didn't bring up Essendon in the intial post ... he brought them up. Jealousy perhaps? Or just realisation of his club's impending doom on Thursday?

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Rohan_


Skob Choker aye?

Norm Smiths don't effect a player going to a tribunal. They look at how clean the player has been in his career, regardless if he played 50 games or 150 games.

As far as McCloed and Tarrant are concerned they were both equal before they fronted as they had clean records. The fact that he has done so and so and played more games is regardless.

If I am a skob choker, what are you?

McLoed in my opinion should have gotten off.
He merely braced himself for impact and its a disgrace that he was done when Matera was not.
McLoed should consider himself hard done by.

Due to tarrants not being on video we cant really say with any certainty wether he should have gotten off or not.
It would have to have been behind play, whitnessed by a umpire these usually result in a suspension.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by Smokin


You said:

"I believe the other players opinions on any tribunal incident should never be ignored. They are the ones playing the game - they are the ones in the best position to judge whether there was something in it."

The players did give evidence - but when the stories are conflicting, then holes in the argument or in hay's case an admission of not actually seeing the argument, how can they be "in the best position'?

"The only time they should be ignored is if video evidence suggests otherwise. "

Or when they are proven to be sticking up for fellow players - ie my post on this case.

"But suspending a guy for 2 weeks purely on the "evidence" of the umpires word is ridiculous. Especially when the opposition players say there was nothing in it. "

But the players were proven to be unreliable.

Heck, Ive played a fair bit of footy - yes I got to a level where games were taped, but in junior footy every tribunal hearing was based on opinions of players, umpires, coaches etc - often they were conflicting.

Umpires are like Police - the system must look at them when all else fails. If they dont, they system has a problem.

How did the VFL tribunal operate before TV? Throw every case out because there was conflicting evidence?

In a court of law most of the time there is conflicting evidence. It is the role of the disinterested, independent arbitrator to get to the bottom of it. Yes, in theory the umpires are the disinterested, indepdendent arbitrators on game day and obviously during a game they represent the law making body of our game.

Of course their evidence must be weighed heavily.

How could it not?

Yep, fair enough.

Perhaps i should have read a little more on it before i decided to have a whinge about the tribunal.

That said, i still think the tribunal is a joke, and has been for as long as i can remember.

And i guess i don't trust the umpires word, especially when you consider the "standard" at which they umpire our game.

If they can't get free kicks correct and consistent on match day, why should we expect that they are 100% correct and consistent when at the tribunal?

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by sabre_ac


McLoed in my opinion should have gotten off.
He merely braced himself for impact and its a disgrace that he was done when Matera was not.
McLoed should consider himself hard done by.

I thought the Matera thing was under investigation again and he could well still be suspended??

Due to tarrants not being on video we cant really say with any certainty wether he should have gotten off or not.

oh but rohan saw it

Usually when someone sees a behind the play incident youd write "oh its crap...all he did was blah blah blah". Not our rohan. He posts he saw it yet doesnt even tell us what he saw!!!

Still waiting Rohan...or are you still trying to think of a story?

 

[RogerC]

Over at the Hawk Headquarters board the incident hasn't rated a mention, which is unusual. A lot of them are far too obsessed with Croad and Lord, or calling for heads to roll, to pay much attention to it, I suppose.

I was going to say that I thought two weeks was a bit harsh, but I can see there's no point. It's already been done to death.

Unless Graham just fell over, something happened. I assume an umpire saw it, which is more than I can say for most of us.

But there's no anti-Collingwood consipracy. Might have to refer to this thread the next time the old Hawthorn-fans-are-whingers comments pop up.

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by Macca19


I thought the Matera thing was under investigation again and he could well still be suspended??



oh but rohan saw it

Usually when someone sees a behind the play incident youd write "oh its crap...all he did was blah blah blah". Not our rohan. He posts he saw it yet doesnt even tell us what he saw!!!

Still waiting Rohan...or are you still trying to think of a story?

Chances are matera will cop a over the top suspension for the umpire incident to make up for the lockyer one.

Regardless of wether he saw it or not.
Behind the play means it was in the process of going for hte ball or playing the game, it was totally against the player.
Why are you collingwood supporters crying foul over this.
Behind the play
Umpire the cheif whitness
He was gone for sure

I think your getting a little over excited, not even this much fuss came about over the matera incident and that was caught on camera.

 

[jefffff34]

ALL RIGHT! IT WAS A HIP AND SHOULDER BEHIND PLAY NO WHERE NEAR THE HEAD NOTHING MORE! BTW MAGPIE MIRACLE YOU'RE DONE 4 TIMES AS WELL!

 

[sabre_ac]

Originally posted by RogerC
Over at the Hawk Headquarters board the incident hasn't rated a mention, which is unusual. A lot of them are far too obsessed with Croad and Lord, or calling for heads to roll, to pay much attention to it, I suppose.

I was going to say that I thought two weeks was a bit harsh, but I can see there's no point. It's already been done to death.

Unless Graham just fell over, something happened. I assume an umpire saw it, which is more than I can say for most of us.

But there's no anti-Collingwood consipracy. Might have to refer to this thread the next time the old Hawthorn-fans-are-whingers comments pop up.

Could you do be a favour and give me a link for this "hawk headquaters"
I would be interested to see the croad comments.

(Its ok Im not going to troll)