MRP / Trib. Thomas bump

[daics_35]

So if we challange and lose is it 3 weeks, or is the ban 2 weeks with or without a guilty plea.

 

[beez]

2 weeks is definitely the appropriate punishment given his carry over points and bad record. What annoys me about the way the penalties are dished out nowadays is how Lower only gets 1 more and Mcphee's elbow against St Kilda got 1 week less.

We should not be complaining about Thomas' penalty.

 

[Ed D]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122150/default.aspx

COLLINGWOOD midfielder Dale Thomas could be sidelined for the Magpies' qualifying final clash with West Coast in two weeks' time after he was offered a two-match suspension for his high bump on Fremantle's Garrick Ibbotson on Friday night.

Even if Thomas lodges an early guilty plea his poor recent record - he was suspended for one game earlier in the season for striking St Kilda tagger Clint Jones - means he cannot have the ban reduced to one match.

For Thomas to play against the Eagles the Magpies will have to mount a successful challenge at the tribunal.

They have until 11am on Tuesday to decide whether they will accept the penalty or contest it.

 

[Wooljay]

I'm not sure what the process is, but will Daisy get another week if he challenges and fails?

 

[Shade]

yes dont challenge not worth it

 

[daics_35]

I think we will deffs challange it, Eddie on tripple m seemed to think, he didnt hit him in the head. If we arnt risking anything, its worth a try. Hopefully Dawes gives him some tips on how to win at the tribunal.

 

[the distributer]

yes dont challenge not worth it

Challenge, and if it fails injunction time, **** em!!

 

[HFF]

If we are risking a third, it is not worth the challenge.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Thomas' 2 was expected. That wasn't the complaint. I tipeed 3 weeks down to 2 with guilty plea.

But how in the lords name did Lower only get 3?

Should have been MINIMUM 4. Given it is a text book example of the exact incident they've been trying to eradicate.

 

[jesterwester]

Condolences. That is ridiculous. As much as it benefits my club, it doesnt seem right for him to miss a final for that.

 

[Shade]

I think we will deffs challange it, Eddie on tripple m seemed to think, he didnt hit him in the head. If we arnt risking anything, its worth a try. Hopefully Dawes gives him some tips on how to win at the tribunal.

we are if we lose he will get 3 weeks no point
i think

 

[Ed D]

Thomas' 2 was expected. That wasn't the complaint. I tipeed 3 weeks down to 2 with guilty plea.

But how in the lords name did Lower only get 3?

Should have been MINIMUM 4. Given it is a text book example of the exact incident they've been trying to eradicate.

Sounds like Thomas would have been 2 down to 1 if he had no carry over points, and Lower is 4 down to 3 if he pleads guilty.

 

[dubber]

Thomas' 2 was expected. That wasn't the complaint. I tipeed 3 weeks down to 2 with guilty plea.

But how in the lords name did Lower only get 3?

Should have been MINIMUM 4. Given it is a text book example of the exact incident they've been trying to eradicate.

Lower got 4 but with his clean record can take 3 with guilty plea

 

[mattys123]

Has anyone seen the official wording of the report yet?

Every news sourced can be quoted as saying Thomas has been "offered" 2 weeks, which to me implies he has been offered 2, not 3 with a reduction, so it seems as if a challenge is worth a crack anyway.

 

[Ron]

Challenging it is a risky proposition. Sure if we win it's fantastic, but if we lose, we could see Daisy not play until the GF.

Is it worth it? I'm not sure, hopefully the club thinks long and hard about it.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

Can we challenge the Lower decision? He could have broken his neck the scum driven parasite. Absolutely ridiculous that decision.

As for Thomas, not worth challenging if he loses another week, can't just bring him back for the Grand Final, and especially given we could be playing Cats or Hawks in the Prelim, we need all the help we can get

 

[Bradesmaen]

Has anyone seen the official wording of the report yet?

Every news sourced can be quoted as saying Thomas has been "offered" 2 weeks, which to me implies he has been offered 2, not 3 with a reduction, so it seems as if a challenge is worth a crack anyway.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122168/default.aspx

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report available from Fremantle, the incident was assessed a reckless conduct (two points), low impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing poor record of one match suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 10 per cent to 247.50 points. He has also 68.75 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 316.25 points and a three-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 237.19 points and a two-match sanction.

So it would have been 1 match for Thomas with a plea and 3 for Lower, if it had not been for Thomas' earlier indiscretion this year. Which would achieve that fair result everyone was looking for.

 

[TheLip]

From the sound of it there is no risk to challenge as what I read was that he was offered 2 and there is no discount for an early plea. If that is correct they will definitely challenge assuming that the assessment was for high contact. Most observers agree that any high contact was incidental ind inconsequential. That being the case he might still play against West Coast.

 

[mattys123]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122168/default.aspx


So it would have been 1 match for Thomas with a plea and 3 for Lower, if it had not been for Thomas' earlier indiscretion this year. Which would achieve that fair result everyone was looking for.

Thanks mate, so we aren't appealing it, that's pretty clear, not worth the risk.

 

[TheLip]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/122168/default.aspx


So it would have been 1 match for Thomas with a plea and 3 for Lower, if it had not been for Thomas' earlier indiscretion this year. Which would achieve that fair result everyone was looking for.

Not sure too many would agree with that given the potential of Lower's dog act to cause serious injury and the fact that it was intentional high contact. A fair outcome would have been 6-8!

 

[Primetime Pricey]

seriously most of the contact was in his upper chest, yeah he may have caught the barest of his head. I hate where our game is going.
If he caught him flush in the head then i wouldnt have a issue with him getting 3-4 weeks but man seriously. High contact? seriously.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Not sure too many would agree with that given the potential of Lower's dog act to cause serious injury and the fact that it was intentional high contact. A fair outcome would have been 6-8!

And Thomas jumping in the air at a player for no good reason doesn't have the potential to cause serious injury? Need I remind you that Scott Stevens retired this year from concussion related illness.

 

[sirene]

If Collingwood are sure it was NOT high contact AND if challenging will not stretch it out to 3 match ban, wouldn't it be best to challenge?

 

[WakeUpPies]

Not worth the challenge IMO, I don't want us going into a match against Geelong/Hawthorn without Thomas.

Still think we got WCE covered at Melbourne without Thomas.

 

[Ed D]

And Thomas jumping in the air at a player for no good reason doesn't have the potential to cause serious injury? Need I remind you that Scott Stevens retired this year from concussion related illness.

Nothing to do with the Thomas/Lower incidents but didn't Scott Stevens get concussed at training?