Yet another example of our pizzweak club. Most posters appear to agree that Spencer should cop a stretch - fair enough. But how could Spencer being unco/clumsy be compared to a deliberate and malicious whack behind play.

Just imagine the scenario if it was Collingwood player named Spencer. Eddie would be screaming about the injustice of it all and have it on the front page.

Not at Melbourne.

That squealing little [censored] Harvey got more publicity for being "pinched". FMD. How pizz weak is that?

We are a Pizz weak club who will not even defend our players adequately.

The MRP is a joke. While I do agree that Spencer deserves a suspension (more for being careless than malicious), and that Dawes did milk Simpkin's "king hit" for all it was worth, there is no way that the former act was worse than the latter.

King hit? is this what people are calling a "king Hit"... it was a short arm slap that got him on the jaw, under the ear. thats No king hit. a King Hit is a full swing, full power, round arm punch, to an unsuspecting recipient... a real 'Dog Act', & I was the recipient of one, years ago at the SeaQuarium carpark from an offduty bouncer/boxer, lower esplanade StKilda, in the mid 70's... didn't go down, but I didn't know what was going on...

too much to drink, bang! my mate in the middle of the front seat, tried to get out, & got kicked in the forehead, splitting his forehead open.

lets not rebadge everything.

Yet another example of our pizzweak club. Most posters appear to agree that Spencer should cop a stretch - fair enough. But how could Spencer being unco/clumsy be compared to a deliberate and malicious whack behind play.

Just imagine the scenario if it was Collingwood player named Spencer. Eddie would be screaming about the injustice of it all and have it on the front page.

Not at Melbourne.

That squealing little [censored] Harvey got more publicity for being "pinched". FMD. How pizz weak is that?

We are a Pizz weak club who will not even defend our players adequately.

because the problem with the challenge would mean if it failed it would be 4 weeks and there was going to be no significant decrease on the charge anyway.

it was not a pissweak stance, it was just stupid that spencer didnt go for the ball, it is not all considered the same thing, but the damage that spencer caused and the possible damage he could have caused is far worse than what simpkins little love tap could have done.

if a melbourne player puts their head over the ball, and an opposition player ellects to not go for the ball, holds his ground and turns side on would you be impressed?

Yet another example of our pizzweak club. Most posters appear to agree that Spencer should cop a stretch - fair enough. But how could Spencer being unco/clumsy be compared to a deliberate and malicious whack behind play.

Just imagine the scenario if it was Collingwood player named Spencer. Eddie would be screaming about the injustice of it all and have it on the front page.

Not at Melbourne.

That squealing little [censored] Harvey got more publicity for being "pinched". FMD. How pizz weak is that?

We are a Pizz weak club who will not even defend our players adequately.

I agree, the AFL see us as an easy target.

And as for that serial sniping, serial squealing little prjck, Harvey. He has throughout his career niggled and punched behind the play then pointed (even better than Moloney) to the gullible umpires, often resulting in the retaliatory getting suspended. A truly low life actor

would be interesting to see what penalty a Melb player would get for an off the ball punch to the head of any opposition Key forward.

I remember we had someone rubbed out for an attempted trip while opposition were actually able to trip our players without a free kick

Saw it again on the weekend where a Melb player had legs taken out by a sliding player

umpire did call play on but there was no advantage and therefore no penalty for the trip

We do seem to have a different interpretation applied in many circumstances. My far more knowlegable footy mate tells me it is because we are not attacking the ball but I do not agree maybe its the colour of the jumper

My far more knowlegable footy mate tells me it is because we are not attacking the ball but I do not agree maybe its the colour of the jumper

Maybe it's all crap.

Good to see Bruce Matthews at least pick up on the Simpkin disgrace: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/why-st-kildas-tom-simpkin-should-have-received-more-than-a-two-week-suspension/story-fnii08h4-1226669662544

spencer 3.

simpkin 2.

I don't understand how Spencer could get weeks.

I don't understand how Simpkin only gets 2.

The Absolute Farce League strikes again.

Edited June 26, 201312 yr by Dr. Gonzo

because the problem with the challenge would mean if it failed it would be 4 weeks and there was going to be no significant decrease on the charge anyway.

it was not a pissweak stance, it was just stupid that spencer didnt go for the ball, it is not all considered the same thing, but the damage that spencer caused and the possible damage he could have caused is far worse than what simpkins little love tap could have done.

if a melbourne player puts their head over the ball, and an opposition player ellects to not go for the ball, holds his ground and turns side on would you be impressed?

Didn't have to be a challenge at the tribunal necessarily, just the club coming forward and saying publicly that it did not agree, it was a poor decision etc.

However we can't really be doing things like this when we are relying on the AFL for funding and support, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate it.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-24/mrp-full-statement-round-13

The MRP system is a joke. Simpkin intentionally hits Dawes in the head, and gets two weeks. Embley intentionally drops his knees into a defenceless player on the ground and gets one week. Spencer negligently (i.e. not even recklessly) bumps McEvoy in the head and he gets three weeks.

Why? All incidents were assessed using the medical reports. MRP once again using the effect instead of the cause.

The system is a farce.

Embley's act was the most cowardly and dangerous.. Deliberately and forcibly dropping his knees into a player while the player was on the ground.. then pushed his head into the ground.. Was worth at least four weeks... Bloody inconsistent penalties... No justice in the current system.

Embley's act was the most cowardly and dangerous.. Deliberately and forcibly dropping his knees into a player while the player was on the ground.. then pushed his head into the ground.. Was worth at least four weeks... Bloody inconsistent penalties... No justice in the current system.

I forgot to include Embley's penalty in my prior post - he dropped his knees into a defencless opponent (lying on his back) off the ball then pushes his head forcefully into the ground and only gets 1 week? The whole "competition" is an utter disgrace.

I forgot to include Embley's penalty in my prior post - he dropped his knees into a defencless opponent (lying on his back) off the ball then pushes his head forcefully into the ground and only gets 1 week? The whole "competition" is an utter disgrace.

are you kidding

his own club should suspend him for being a coward:10 weeks

his parents should be ashamed for not teaching their child good life skills

HIS coach who has had many years with him should have worked out he is a coward by now, and dropped him for being so

worsfold should be put on notice that next time he plays a coward and they act that way he will be getting 10 weeks

the time for cowards finished in the 80s

same goes for simpkin:his parents have bred a COWARD 10weeks

contesting is what strong clubs do.
We certainly aren't one of those.
But we are working on it.

contesting is what strong clubs do.

We certainly aren't one of those.

But we are working on it.

How can you contest when you're relying on the AFL for survival? Just one of the drawbacks but one of necessity at this stage.

How can you contest when you're relying on the AFL for survival? Just one of the drawbacks but one of necessity at this stage.

I can't see the link between contesting a MRP ruling and our request for special funding. Taking the case to the tribunal is just a normal operational activity; of course we can still do that.

If Spencer copped 4weeks how many should Jeremy Cameron cop, that was a charge and he should cop 6 weeks for that low act.

If Spencer copped 4weeks how many should Jeremy Cameron cop, that was a charge and he should cop 6 weeks for that low act.

To me Cameron was going for a contested ball. Just like Spencer was. Negligent is the word that comes to mind with both of them.

Cameron got 0.

Zero.

Zilch.

Nothing.

MRP said he had no reasonable alternative.

I'm [censored] livid. Someone explain to me what Spencer's 'reasonable alternative' was?! Meanwhile, Cameron clearly could have gone for the ball instead of the man.

I hate the MRP.

agreed, mrp is a frigign joke.

Lol what about shaun mckernans two weeks elbow to the jaw!? The MRP all need to be shot