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?

I think he is working just so hard to get to the right spot the by the time he does make it he is a little knackered. He needs a chop out from some of the flankers to provide some other options. Too many times it is left to him to put in those long hard leads.

Disappointing for Dawes. Can't win the brownlow now.

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.

He's only going to serve one week. You blokes who want to take it to the tribunal must want him to serve the whole two, because that's the only outcome that will come of challenging.

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

OK macintossa, I gotta ask, who is "tight bottie" ?

He's only going to serve one week. You blokes who want to take it to the tribunal must want him to serve the whole two, because that's the only outcome that will come of challenging.

Look, I don't doubt that what he did was poor form and deserved to be admonished.

Conversely, you blokes who want to lay down and continue to accept the glaring disparities in judgement will only result in further farce by the MRP.

Simply, this should be the push by not only MFC, but every club in the league.

Pick your battles wisely.

There is a difference between having principle and being antagonistic for the sake of it.

Look, I don't doubt that what he did was poor form and deserved to be admonished.

Conversely, you blokes who want to lay down and continue to accept the glaring disparities in judgement will only result in further farce by the MRP.

Simply, this should be the push by not only MFC, but every club in the league.

Recognising that you will fight a losing battle is not laying down, it's being pragmatic.

What will your reaction be if the club fights it and the one week becomes two? You might say "well done MFC, at least you tried to fight on principle". I would be absolutely livid and would curse the club for making such an obviously stupid decision.

I'll put my trust in Roos & co. If they decide to challenge before 11am today, then so be it and I'll back them. If not, we push on.

A bad ruling is a bad ruling. I can't believe some of the posts here. It was never more than a one week down to a reprimand incident at the most. Plenty of similar ones have received even less.. Have a look at the ruling. He has no carry over points or bad record. They judged it as a action worthy of two weeks before the early plea and that is a joke.

Also can't quite understand why people are looking at the fixture to decide if we fight it. We are not going to make the finals and I know you all would like to beat Collingwood on QB but perhaps that's not the thing highest on the clubs priority list.

Put the fixture aside. I don't want my club to accept a crap ruling because it's convenient.

Pretty disappointed.

We copped it.

OK macintossa, I gotta ask, who is "tight bottie" ?

My vote is for Titan_Uranus, I prefer the single entendre of "tight bottie" (as a Nick) actually.

Pretty disappointed.

We copped it.

Well done MFC for making the right decision. The risk of lengthening the penalty of our structurally most important player far outweighed the benefits of an in-principle challenge.

FMFD.

This MRP system is one big circus.

Let's hope Gill makes sorting this rubbish out a priority.

Accept the week and move on,a stupid,selfish act!

Dawes wants to be a leader?

Not as annoying as some of the stupid comments. Exhibit A

The only argument that could be made is over impact. Not sure how the Richmond medical read. To me it looked innocuous and worthy of low impact.

Yes it is silly he got weeks (and remember he got 2 weeks, which gets cut to one by accepting the MRP decision). But the right move to not challenge it. If you disagree think Queens Birthday 65,000 people. Beautiful sunny day. And no Dawes.

Dawes will now be cherry ripe and angry when he comes out to to play the team that effectively said he was not up to it.

For mine the major flaw in the system is the penalty applied for challenging a decision at the tribunal. Whilst i agree in principle that there should be some disincentive to not go before the tribunal (people should not forget the tribunal was schmozzel and super inconsistent, not to mention expensive) there should be scope to say well find you guilty but keep the original penalty in place.

Right decision. Dawes playing in QB is a must.

Was probably worth a week too tbh.

Not as annoying as some of the stupid comments. Exhibit A

If you think that's the way a leader should act then i'm stoked for you!!!

He had an off day,dropping marks,had little impact but you don't let yourself get frustrated and suspended,it's now penalised the team,we are down a key forward next game.

We do you think the club hasn't challenged it?

Like I said,stupid,selfish act!!!

OK macintossa, I gotta ask, who is "tight bottie" ?

My vote is for Titan_Uranus, I prefer the single entendre of "tight bottie" (as a Nick) actually.

correct

Well done MFC for making the right decision. The risk of lengthening the penalty of our structurally most important player far outweighed the benefits of an in-principle challenge.

strongly agree

Not as annoying as some of the stupid comments. Exhibit A

Jack 7 is under the illusion this is an impartial forum. It is not.

Jack 7 is under the illusion this is an impartial forum. It is not.

There are lots of [censored] on this forum RTG - just work around them - if possible

Jack 7 is under the illusion this is an impartial forum. It is not.

Does that make it a partial forum, RtG?

Does that make it a partial forum, RtG?

i'm partial to a red !!!

Does that make it a partial forum, RtG? :

You know, R & B, I tried to come up with an answer to your question even if it is probably rhetorical. I'll get back to you.