by Wedgie » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:22 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by RustyCage » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:28 am
by Wedgie » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:30 am
pafc1870 wrote:The 5RHP team were close when they said 5 or 6 weeks for Jezza! Good to see him get off, although he is no chance for the Mag Medall. If you kick 6 goals and get 30+ possessions in a winning game and still cant get a vote.... maybe he needs to talk to the umpires more!
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by RustyCage » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:35 am
Wedgie wrote:pafc1870 wrote:The 5RHP team were close when they said 5 or 6 weeks for Jezza! Good to see him get off, although he is no chance for the Mag Medall. If you kick 6 goals and get 30+ possessions in a winning game and still cant get a vote.... maybe he needs to talk to the umpires more!
Yeah, from all reports it was much worse than the Sporn or Westhoff incidents, great to see the consitency already creeping out of the tribunal by Rd 2.
by Wedgie » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:36 am
pafc1870 wrote:the tribunal usually are consistant, you are either not guilty and get off, or are guilty and get a reprimand!
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by JK » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:40 am
by MST » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:53 am
Constance_Perm wrote:Happened early last year with the Clarke suspension, tribunal at least provides a bit of humour for the week (unless it's one of your own going up)
by smac » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:57 am
by Jimmy » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:59 am
MST wrote:Constance_Perm wrote:Happened early last year with the Clarke suspension, tribunal at least provides a bit of humour for the week (unless it's one of your own going up)
Or, CP, if your club (Sturt) is coming up against the side the player who got off plays for (Port). With the likely outs from our ruck division this week, we certainly could have done with Jezza enjoying a little holiday.
Boo the tribunal.
by JK » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:18 am
smac wrote:His good record in the sanfl was only 1 season more than Westhoffs - and Westhoff didn't spend last year abusing umpires.
by Booney » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:19 am
by spell_check » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:04 pm
Wedgie wrote:Clayton, found guilty but received a reprimand because of good record.
Wiggins, not guilty but someone who works with the Weed said the news is it was still Wiggo's last game for Westies last week.
by Blacky » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:55 pm
spell_check wrote:Wedgie wrote:Clayton, found guilty but received a reprimand because of good record.
Wiggins, not guilty but someone who works with the Weed said the news is it was still Wiggo's last game for Westies last week.
Apparently because he was found guilty this makes him ineligible for the Magarey.
by Scottdog » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:10 pm
by Wedgie » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:12 pm
Scottdog wrote:Wiggins gets off for Headbutting?Clayton gets a reprimand because of his good record???Well Im pretty sure J.Westhoff has a good clean record and he gets 2 weeks,what a JOKE.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Scottdog » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 pm
by giffo » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:52 pm
by once_were_warriors » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:31 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |