Ted Richards Report

[Banyo Bloods]

This deserves its own thread.

Teddy copped a two week suspension but can reduce to 1 week with an early plea.

I thought the bump might get looked at but surely for once we will challenge this one.

Not sure if he ran past the ball though which would go against him.

 

[RUNVS]

If this is the bump i am thinking about i can't believe he got 2 weeks for that. A few years ago it wouldn't have even been a free kick.

 

[grimlock]

 

[SM]

Considering the Ump is looking right at him and didn't report him, surely that goes in his favour?

Doesn't even look like it gets him high...

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Ridiculous suspension.

 

[Danog]

Ridiculous. Nothing in it. 0 high contact.

 

[mark121]

What a joke no-one should be suspended for that.


It does look like there is a very small amount of contact with the head but only brushes it and doesnt cause the players head to be knocked back at all. From memory the ball is behind Richards at the time of contact between the players but Richards is not moving towards the player and is only bracing for contact.

 

[baja]

It was a great bump from a very fair player. MRP are ruining the game.

 

[CAS79]

Please tell me they are joking.

Straight to the tribunal with this one Teddy.

 

[Maddhew]

I love the Teddy Report, cracks me up all the time

 

[Stevie Ray Swan]

so for what misdemeanor have they said he is actually being suspended for?

 

[Chinners100]

If we fail at the tribunal does that mean teddy will get a two game suspension? If that is the case, I really don't think its worth the risk, we're playing the Hawks in two weeks and we need him for Franklin/Roughhead.

 

[Dangas]

tribunal job

 

[RUNVS]

If we fail at the tribunal does that mean teddy will get a two game suspension? If that is the case, I really don't think its worth the risk, we're playing the Hawks in two weeks and we need him for Franklin/Roughhead.

I was thinking the same thing. We can survive without Richards against Port but i would really worry if we didn't have him when we have to play Hawthorn.

 

[CAS79]

I was thinking the same thing. We can survive without Richards against Port but i would really worry if we didn't have him when we have to play Hawthorn.

Do you really want him to have a bad record/carry over points for that?

The next time this crap happens he will definitely get two weeks and precedent makes his case weaker.

 

[TheMase]

Ridiculous report.

 

[grimlock]

We are contesting the charge, no surprise there.

 

[magic.merkin]

where'd you hear that?

 

[Crackers27]

I thought this was about his articles on the Swans website at first haha

On topic though, rubbish report....although i'd rather see him not contest it so he can come back for Hawthorn

 

[magic.merkin]

he can't miss Hawthorn if they challenge or not.

his good behavior brings him below 2 games even if he loses the early plea discount.

 

[Crackers27]

he can't miss Hawthorn if they challenge or not.

his good behavior brings him below 2 games even if he loses the early plea discount.

Yeah I see that now - I should have looked at Grimlock's post in the Swans v Port thread first haha.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Are we challenging this bullshit report?

 

[MF]

You bet your virgin sphincter we are.

 

[MF]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113488/default.aspx

Richards case is up first and he's just taken the stand.

 

[Dangas]

MRP are funny this week, weird decisions overall