Why the rubbishy report and Hall gets off lightly?

[legendtofski]

I don't understand why we get rubbishy reports..Last week it was Stevo, this week T-Bird and Bazza Hall gets 7 weeks for nearly killing someone.

I reckon it's Dimisitrious pumping the 'national' game and punishing us for the Pratt thing.

Disgusting.

 

[a1118374]

your an idiot mate. at game pace anything can look bad, esp. if in peripheral vision or from a distance for the ump. thats why they are reviewed later....and thrown out

 

[blues4flag]

Get over it - the MRP had a look at 22 reports on the weekend. Umpires don't have the benefit of looking at the replay, hence they will make errors in judgement. Nothing came of the reports, so don't know what your issue is?

 

[Sublime]

DUHHHHHHHHHHH

Whether its a big incident (Hall) or a small incident (Thornton) it still has to get put up for review if it looks like there might have been something in it. The game moves quickly and its better to have someone put on report and let off by the MRP, rather than let something go that deserved to be rubbed out.

 

[as0l0]

system works.

 

[WalkerTexasRanger]

system works.

Except Riewoldt is protected when Selwood wasn't

 

[SA Blueblood]

I don't understand why we get rubbishy reports..Last week it was Stevo, this week T-Bird and Bazza Hall gets 7 weeks for nearly killing someone.

I reckon it's Dimisitrious pumping the 'national' game and punishing us for the Pratt thing.

Disgusting.

How many weeks did stevo get? None.
How many weeks did thornton get? None.
What's the f @rking problem? None.
Lay off the drugs champ, their not doing you any favours.

 

[a1118374]

Except Riewoldt is protected when Selwood wasn't

hes so protected its not worth posting is it? Its a given

 

[Blah Blah Blue]

I don't understand why we get rubbishy reports..Last week it was Stevo, this week T-Bird and Bazza Hall gets 7 weeks for nearly killing someone.

I reckon it's Dimisitrious pumping the 'national' game and punishing us for the Pratt thing.

Disgusting.

How old are you? If you are 6 or 7 then that explains a number of your posts.
If you are any older, well ... yikes just send shudders down my spine.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Except Riewoldt is protected when Selwood wasn't

Well one allegedly said he slept with his opponents young daughter while the other referred to Lovett's domestic violence record. One is fiction, one is factual.

If Riewoldt had said, that he was going to bash Lovett's missus or had bashed Lovett's missus, then it might be viewed differently.

I just think that they are different types of sledges. Selwood's alleged sledge was abhorrent to Headland whereas Riewoldt's sledge would surely be less abhorrent to Lovett since it has a basis in fact.

The AFL would be very wary of censuring someone for being truthful I would think.

 

[Blues_Man]

Except Riewoldt is protected when Selwood wasn't

Carolyn Wilson is that you ???

 

[WalkerTexasRanger]

Well one allegedly said he slept with his opponents young daughter while the other referred to Lovett's domestic violence record. One is fiction, one is factual.

If Riewoldt had said, that he was going to bash Lovett's missus or had bashed Lovett's missus, then it might be viewed differently.

I just think that they are different types of sledges. Selwood's alleged sledge was abhorrent to Headland whereas Riewoldt's sledge would surely be less abhorrent to Lovett since it has a basis in fact.

The AFL would be very wary of censuring someone for being truthful I would think.

Interesting argument, but I don't think truth has anything to do with it...I think the reaction of Lovett and Essendon to the sledge was the main reason why it did not go any further.

FWIW Selwood said the tatoo looked like someone he had slept with, clearly mistaken and not knowing it was Headland's daughter and probably assuming it was his wife. Selwood was clearly in the wrong, not defedning that, but I doubt that the AFL policy can maintain a distinction based on the 'truth' of the sledge. Otherwise nothing offensive enough to warrant reprimand could be said to players like Didak .

Yes I am Caro...are you Hutchy?

 

[Charbzilla]

I don't understand

...exactly...

 

[nsj91]

I don't understand why we get rubbishy reports..Last week it was Stevo, this week T-Bird and Bazza Hall gets 7 weeks for nearly killing someone.

I reckon it's Dimisitrious pumping the 'national' game and punishing us for the Pratt thing.

Disgusting.

Hally got off lightly? lol 7 weeks is the harshest penalty I've seen in a long while. Certainly haven't been many bigger than that in my time.

I'm not really worried about the ribbishy reports because nothing comes of them.. I'm just glad they don't give automatic 50m penalties with reports anymore.

There is one thing that concerns me however. There has been plenty of talk about giving umpires the power to send players off in order to keep up with other codes.

Now, if an umpire gets a report wrong there is no harm done.. but if they send someone off incorrectly it could be disastrous. As someone mentioned.. umpires don't have access to replays so I just hope this power isn't given to them.

 

[nutcase888]

i think the tribunal as a whole is alot softer than what it was 5 years ago. maybe its b/c of the new system but the penalties don't seem to be as hharsh. i definetly can't see any bias towards Carlton. FWIW i think they could have delivered a stronger message re Barry Hall. I also thought that Maxwell was very lucky to just get the one week. But b/c of HAll that incident didn't get much media attention i don't think.