Tarrant cops 2 weeks

[daicos4ever]

Originally posted by Magpie Miracle


ahhh, the Daicos/Mags way - if more than 1 person argues with you, they must be the same person! laughable you guys are.

Fantastic comeback there

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by Magpie Miracle


ahhh, the Daicos/Mags way - if more than 1 person argues with you, they must be the same person! laughable you guys are.

Troll Troll

I know who you are troll.

 

[Macca19]

STILL waiting for Rohans version of what Tarrant did

 

[bulldogs1]

Hey, DR, now you know why I posted on the Doggies board and got confused. Somewhere in this thread are details of the actual charge and tribunal comments, but they're buried amongst all the petty name-calling.

Originally posted by Dry Rot
Geez, i just logged on to find out what happened to Tarrant, and instead find the whackiest thread I can remember.

 

[mandy]

Originally posted by Slax
coming from you Mandy5 thanks surprising you're always involved in any innane thread.

Who the f uck are you????

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by Macca19
STILL waiting for Rohans version of what Tarrant did

Not that it will do much.

Happend at 50 meter line, half forward line of AFL members, city end. For memory Collingwood had the ball on the wing, Tarrant making lead is shepherded by Graham, Graham falls over with no malice by Tarrant.

Free kick is given to Hawthorn on the wing.

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by Rohan_


Not that it will do much.

Happend at 50 meter line, half forward line of AFL members, city end. For memory Collingwood had the ball on the wing, Tarrant making lead is shepherded by Graham, Graham falls over with no malice by Tarrant.

Free kick is given to Hawthorn on the wing.

Tarrants version is that he was screening Graham who was Davis' opponent, and it was Davis on the lead.

I'm not implying anything, just stating that most eyewitness accounts turn out to be inaccurate (including umpires).

 

[Magpie Miracle]

Originally posted by mandy5


Who the f uck are you????

can't you just shut that potty mouth of yours up Mandy?

 

[PiesPremiers3]

Originally posted by Port01


Tarrants version is that he was screening Graham who was Davis' opponent, and it was Davis on the lead.

I'm not implying anything, just stating that most eyewitness accounts turn out to be inaccurate (including umpires).

So, with a lack of eveidence, he should have got off!
The same way as phillip Matera did after round 2, "lack of evidence" besides the fact Lockyer left the field on a stretcher. What a joke....

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by Port01


Tarrants version is that he was screening Graham who was Davis' opponent, and it was Davis on the lead.

I'm not implying anything, just stating that most eyewitness accounts turn out to be inaccurate (including umpires).

But that is how botched it is.

He didnt lift his arm or elbow. it is more of a case of player a running into player b.