Gents, when you resort to the personal slanging match, it is time to get a better argument.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by Maple Demon

If we weren't playing the Pies the following week I'd almost take the risk and appeal.

But it's not worth it. We won't beat Port anyway.

Have you actually watched the incident? If course Roos would defend his player. I think Dawes is a great addition to our side but that act was brutish and unnecessary.

If we weren't playing the Pies the following week I'd almost take the risk and appeal.

But it's not worth it. We won't beat Port anyway.

this is where as a club I seriously think we have to think beyond this..Collingwood would. its a principle with a purpose

yeah yeah I know the stragecic ideal but we are evolving past that.

its has to be " we dont take shlt '

As for the Dawes suspension, I look at the situation as a sort of cost-benefit thing. Bitter, I agree that the fend-off was on the lower end of the on-field footy indiscretion scale.

If the Demons decided to appeal and lost (resulting in Dawes missing QB), I'd be annoyed. I say just take the week.

Have you actually watched the incident? If course Roos would defend his player. I think Dawes is a great addition to our side but that act was brutish and unnecessary.

brutish.....;ooooooooh

god help footy

btw...youre pretty funny

I dont think you should follow footy...might be harmful to your pysche

I think the match review panel may have had that Adelaide player in the back of their minds who suffered broken ribs from a raking spoil from Dawes when making their decision. Dawes is like a grizzly bear swatting bees that get in the way of the honey.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by america de cali

Gents, when you resort to the persinal slanging match, it is time to get a better argument.

It's time to get "spell check" Maple.

Sorry couldn't resist.

I thought we should appeal Jack's suspension as he was merely protecting himself.

What Dawesy did was pretty reckless. 1 week is fine. Take it and have him back raring against the Pies.

It's time to get "spell check" Maple.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Damn smartphone keyboard!

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by Maple Demon

As for the Dawes suspension, I look at the situation as a sort of cost-benefit thing. Bitter, I agree that the fend-off was on the lower end of the on-field footy indiscretion scale.

If the Demons decided to appeal and lost (resulting in Dawes missing QB), I'd be annoyed. I say just take the week.

I do understand this cost -benefit thing as you put it.But I suggest, imho, a bigger picture or grander stance. i.e We wont roll over to this rubbish anymore. Next week , nor the week after are really that important in the next few years but as a stance of saying ...wtf...thats rubbish umpire and we're prepared to back ourselves in..( JUST AS WE ARE ON THE FIELD)

A lot of this is psuedo subliminal.. I admire how the Sqawkers and Filth operate in this regard

This whole 'low impact, high impact, intentional, unintentional blah blah blah' horseshit has lead to minor incidents resulting in suspensions and genuine hits such as Chapmans in Brisbane being ignored. You used to be able to look at an incident and confidently make a prediction either way. Now we have a ridiculous system which appears to have bypassed logic and replaced it with the most facked formula of all time.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by Return to Glory

Damn smartphone keyboard!

its a bugger huh.. mine does it all the time. lol

I thought we should appeal Jack's suspension as he was merely protecting himself.

What Dawesy did was pretty reckless. 1 week is fine. Take it and have him back raring against the Pies.

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

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

Ok, he gets a week but Johnson headbutts a guy then elbows another in a pack for which he doesnt get cited and also gets one. I don't get it.

They're never going to see every one. Like the police and the speed cameras etc

This whole 'low impact, high impact, intentional, unintentional blah blah blah' horseshit has lead to minor incidents resulting in suspensions and genuine hits such as Chapmans in Brisbane being ignored. You used to be able to look at an incident and confidently make a prediction either way. Now we have a ridiculous system which appears to have bypassed logic and replaced it with the most facked formula of all time.

I hear you brother

its become so...umm... supposedly demonstratively equivocal in appropriating a consistent approach to what is, or isn't but its just sunk into a quagmire of sewage.

The fault I sense was supposing you could adjudge things in soe sort of quantifiable way. ...yes that whack was a 4...that one a 7 etc. He fell over as a 8, his jaw broke as a 9......

flawed in concept...comical in delivery

The MRP is like a box of chocolates, u never know what you r gunna get.

They're never going to see every one. Like the police and the speed cameras etc

I saw it on TV 3000 km away. If they are going to pick up everything then do it or keep it as a game where there's a bit of rough and tumble.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by Return to Glory

And don't get me started on speed cameras for facks sake.

The MRP is like a box of chocolates, u never know what you r gunna get.

A disappointing result is the usual outcome.

The MRP is like a box of chocolates, u never know what you r gunna get.

strangely I have to pee

The issue is that they are (usually) trying to punish the outcome (ie. injury level) instead of the action. It should be the other way around. Also, medical reports should play no part in determining if, or for how long, a player gets suspended.

The issue is that they are (usually) trying to punish the outcome (ie. injury level) instead of the action. It should be the other way around. Also, medical reports should play no part in determining if, or for how long, a player gets suspended.

5 min penalty...far too much sense