View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Northern Pie
We are watching!
Joined: 27 May 2001 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
I mean seriously if an umpire is going to stand there and bounce the ball near the square and then runs into the square well it is his fault if a player bumps him.....same when bouncing close to the boundry....he should be backing to the boundry not the corridor...the player that bumps him should get a free kick for the umpire not giving a plyer a clear path tot he ball!
what is the bet that Wakes gets weeks and the Carlton turd gets off..
Cheers _________________ “NEVER LEAVE, NEVER GIVE UP ON THEM AND ALWAYS BE THERE AT THE END TO CLAP THEM OFF THE GROUND. WE ARE COLLINGWOOD SUPPORTERS SON, EVEN IF THEY BEAT US, WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN THEM”!(my mum) |
|
|
|
|
i_luv_tarkyn!
Dream Big!
Joined: 10 Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
everitt went for a week, riewoldt did the exact same thing if not worse than everitt and it didnt even get brought up at the tribunal.
if wakes goes it is a disgrace!
if the tribunal want to gain credibility then both cases should be dismissed and a new rule be put in place. it is too inconsistent
luv jess _________________ LIVESTRONG |
|
|
|
|
AnthonyC
Joined: 09 Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
Post subject: | |
|
tazza200 wrote: | He should go for 1-2 weeks only because the AFL have to show they are consistant
|
Now that's funny.
If you believe in conspiracy theories, Wakes might as well plead guilty and cop the week. _________________ Go Pies! |
|
|
|
|
Donny
Formerly known as MAGFAN8.
Joined: 04 Aug 2002 Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wakes got 1 week. _________________ Donny.
It's a game. Enjoy it. |
|
|
|
|
STOKA35
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Mount Barker. South Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
if everrit got one week for running into an umpire to me this sets the standard of penalty. also the afl wanted no one to come in cotact with an umpire so to me this means if you accidently run into an umpire you should get minimum of one week than additional games due to the severness of the incident.As my opening post said it is an accident in what wakes done and should have been commonsense but that has'nt happened i think now the reporting peoplel have made the contact with the umpires a confusing one.By this i mean it is ok run into umpires this way but not the other I think a standard should be set if you run into a umpire it should be one week automatic then more ifv deemed delibrate |
|
|
|
|
molloymagic
*Thanks 4 the great memorys Jarrod!**miss ya*
Joined: 07 Sep 2001 Location: Hobart
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well they had to give Wakelin at least 1 cos hey 2 things: we r playing the AFL's favourite team Sydney and 2nd: he's a magpie! but 1 week could have been worse,are they going to appeal??????? _________________ Jarrod Molloy
*'94-03:10 Gr8 yrs*
*169 Games* *'02 V.C*
*2nd in '01 copeland |
|
|
|
|
grims
Joined: 13 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think that if wakelin gets one week, then nick riewolt(sp?) should get a week aswell. It was the same thing, just want some consistency in decisions. |
|
|
|
|
1990BW
Joined: 15 Apr 2003 Location: Wantirna, Melbourne
|
Post subject: AFL numbnuts | |
|
REQUEST:
Dear Mr. AFL Dickhead,
Could you please explain to me the infinite wisdom which lead to your decision to overlook 2 cases of player/umpire contact in round 5. Either they made contact, or they didn't. Or is that a little complex for you?
Thanks,
Some worthless scum supporter.
P.S. Watch the Colbert Footage. |
|
|
|
|
|