Beezlebub, I'm rapidly becoming a conspiracy theorist in relation to these clowns.

its a bit like speed cameras. We all know there are quotas.etc...then they run out the "justification rhetoric"

AFL....mrp ...same rubbish

Now there are genuinely reportable offences, which amazingly go un-noticed but this idea of there must be something every Monday night reeks of agenda

Agree. At last some rational sense. Where do these trolls like Beelzy baby and tight bottie come from?

Agree as well. And for those who advocate "fly the flag, don't take MRC crap, new Melbourne blah,blah, blah", do you really think the Tribunal will say "Oh, a Jeez, Melbourne's appealing. They must be serious. We'll overturn it"?

Fantasyland.

Hopefully Dawes will think twice before whacking somebody in the head well after the ball left the scene.

It's like the scene at the start of 'Flying High' where the grandmother gets frisked as she goes through security and behind her a bloke strolls past carrying a bazooka and numchuckers.

5 min penalty...far too much sense

Interesting take Beelzebub - I hadn't thought of taking an (ice) hockey approach to punishment.

What I was getting at was that each set 'suspendable' offence had a specific number-of-games suspension attached to it. Suspend the action, not the outcome.

Interesting take Beelzebub - I hadn't thought of taking an (ice) hockey approach to punishment.

What I was getting at was that each set 'suspendable' offence had a specific number-of-games suspension attached to it. Suspend the action, not the outcome.

I understood

Beezlebub, I'm rapidly becoming a conspiracy theorist in relation to these clowns.

always room on the bus

If the ridiculousness of these outcomes is ever going to change, it ain't gonna happen through lying down and copping it sweet.

Appeal the bloody thing.

If the ridiculousness of these outcomes is ever going to change, it ain't gonna happen through lying down and copping it sweet.

Appeal the bloody thing.

mate Viney just got off as the second successful appeal in 15 outings, he won't get off and it will cost us QB which would suck hard. The statement of on appeal is not the same as the viney incident either, that was all about the nature of the game itself and a kid being punished for playing with some balls.. this was a clumsy, probably somewhat intentional indiscretion

mate Viney just got off as the second successful appeal in 15 outings, he won't get off and it will cost us QB which would suck hard. The statement of on appeal is not the same as the viney incident either, that was all about the nature of the game itself and a kid being punished for playing with some balls.. this was a clumsy, probably somewhat intentional indiscretion

But it wasn't worth two weeks. It was only worth one at the most and should've been downgraded to a reprimand.

Stop bending over.

But it wasn't worth two weeks. It was only worth one at the most and should've been downgraded to a reprimand.

Stop bending over.

we didnt bend over for Viney but as I said this is different

gotta pick your battles

Not being across the rules fully where do we stand on taking it before the tribunal on getting it downgraded to low impact and what is the difference in it being negligent as opposed to reckless ?

we didnt bend over for Viney but as I said this is different

gotta pick your battles

I'll be surprised if it's not challenged.

Copping two weeks for that is farcical.

Not being across the rules fully where do we stand on taking it before the tribunal on getting it downgraded to low impact and what is the difference in it being negligent as opposed to reckless ?

Don't know nothin about it but ifnhe has carryover points it don't make much difference?

I don't know why people keep saying appeal it. First step is to not accept guilt and the week and go to the tribunal. If the decision is upheld he cops the full 2 weeks. Then we could appeal. In any case this not bend over rubbish is piffle. We need him against collingwood. It would be stupid to risk the extra week. Fortunately the club has stopped doing stupid things. Take the hit send move on.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by binman

I don't know why people keep saying appeal it. First step is to not accept guilt and the week and go to the tribunal. If the session is upheld he cops the fill 3 weeks. Then we could appeal. In any csdr this not bend over rubbish is piffle. We need him against collingwood. It would be stupid to risk the extra week. Fortunately the club has stopped doing stupid things. Take the hit send move on.

agreed. I reckon the club would have been chuffed to get to keep him for QB, personally. As I said before the hearing I have a sneaking suspicion that the AFL knows Dawes @ QB with the way we are going is worth some gate money and general marketing value and that's why he only got one week. Again, there is no important principle to be argued here as there was for viney. As many have said, let him have a rest, miss a game we will surely lose, and be ripe for QB. The smart move.

it was stupid thing to do but no reason to challenge and have him miss 2

will be a big test to see how the firward line goes in his absence

We are a football club, not a financial institution.

Rather than asking what the risk of appealing is we should be asking what is the risk of not appealing. The reason the MRP does not make stupid rulings against the stronger clubs is that they know the club will hold them to account. If our club does not agree with the ruling (reckless, medium impact) then we have no choice but to appeal it. If we appeal and lose then Dawes gets two weeks but if we win, not only is Dawes available v Port Adelaide in Alice Springs (which I think is a really important game), but we send a clear message to the MRP that we wont stand for their rubbish.

I don't know why people keep saying appeal it. First step is to not accept guilt and the week and go to the tribunal. If the decision is upheld he cops the full 2 weeks. Then we could appeal. In any case this not bend over rubbish is piffle. We need him against collingwood. It would be stupid to risk the extra week. Fortunately the club has stopped doing stupid things. Take the hit send move on.

That's a word I'd not heard for a long time

"Piffle"

Love it.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by McQueen

We should fight this, it's a ridiculous decision, and I'd be pretty confident that he'd get off. Yes it was stupid, and he's probably guilty, but this was not medium impact. Glass demolished someone earlier in the year and got low impact. Fight it MFC.

We should fight this, it's a ridiculous decision, and I'd be pretty confident that he'd get off. Yes it was stupid, and he's probably guilty, but this was not medium impact. Glass demolished someone earlier in the year and got low impact. Fight it MFC.

Deledio elbowed someone in the head intentionally during a stoppage and got nothing. It's totally bizarre.

I hope that if we do appeal, the fact that we just did so with Viney won't make them more likely to throw our appeal out. In an ideal world it shouldn't, but this is the AFL so you never know.

cant believe people are complaining about Dawes getting 1 week

we are lucky he didn't get 2 weeks

It was reckless and with force, he clearly purposely smashed Rance in the face to cause harm

And i loved every second of it

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by hogans_heroes

Watched the replay again last night (Slightly off topic) I notice how many marks Dawes dropped

He appears to have hard hands! If he had caught some of them he would have kicked a few goals

Should he wear a glove ah la his ex mate Cloake?

Can training fix this problem?

It was no worse than what deledio got off for, and certainly not medium impact

It was no worse than what deledio got off for, and certainly not medium impact

Richmonds medical report has stitched us up folks.