Tribunal

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Can someone explain to me, how if the tribunal or sitting panel found moloney guilty of contact that his penalty is only 2 weeks compared with picketts 6. Both did the exactly same incident, running at someone with there head over the ball, except one person ended in hospital and rulled out for a couple of games whereas the other bloke played the next week.

Where is the consistency!

― jsa, Monday, 11 April 2005 23:51 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to know why Melbourne got two soft free kicks that led to goals but Maloney's reportable offence wasn't even deemed worthy of a free kick? When play resumed it was in Melbourne's forward line (where it was all night mind you) and they got another sausage roll.

BTW, it was also the maggots fault we kicked 18 points LOL.

regards,

REB

― Rik E Boy (Rik E Boy), Tuesday, 12 April 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

I still cant understand how Simon Black got 3 **&*)@#^$&^ weeks when he's got a clean record. Compared to Brown's 5 Pickett's 6 and they both have stinking records.

― Lucy Lion (Lucy Lion), Tuesday, 12 April 2005 08:22 (twenty years ago)

I still cant understand how Simon Black got 3 **&*)@#^$&^ weeks when he's got a clean record.

Two words, Lucy, GRAND FINAL.

― chrisso (chrisso), Tuesday, 12 April 2005 09:52 (twenty years ago)

Just a slight correction Lucy, pickett has only been suspended once in 8 years, unlike brown who has been suspended 4 times in 1 year. But hey never let the facts get in the way of a good story!!!!!

Again i ask how did moloney only get 2?? is it bias against non-vic sides??

― jsa, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

I don't know how Moloney got two? Yes the contact was high (I've only seen the incident replayed once) - I thought it was just a footy collision where a guy put his head down over the ball, running into a pack, and ends up being in the wrong place at the wrong time and came away unconscious... I didn't think it was malicious or intentional (keep in mind, I've seen the incident once from one angle on the news)

― Bennö (Bennö), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 00:43 (twenty years ago)

Nup benno he lined him up and bartel is lucky he partly slipped.

But the issue is the tribunal found him guilty, so i cant understand how it can be worth 4 weeks less when the bloke ends in hospital and wont play for a couple. all we want is consistency,

How did campo only get 1 week for a forearm, yet rawlings gets 3,

― jsa, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 01:18 (twenty years ago)

I thought the aim was to protect the guy with his head over the ball. Bartel himself copped two weeks for running into a Freo player (in the wet mind you) and not being able to get out of the way..Maloney was trying to apply a hip and shoulder to a bloke with his head down and as such Geelong should have received a free kick but we are not flavour of the month so TS it seems.

regards,

REB

― Rik E Boy (Rik E Boy), Wednesday, 13 April 2005 01:46 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.