Tweet
brodie holland has received a measly 2 weeks,what a joke
-
daniel f -
Not surprising, a blantant cheap shot and it get two weeks...Hmmm if it was a Swans player who was there they would be gone for at least 4 weeks.
Hopefully in a few weeks when Brodie will be back at the tribunal after another cheap shot they give hime a longer holidayPremiers 09,18,33,05
"You Irish Twit", Quote attributed to a RWO member who shall remain nameless.
-
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...Originally posted by Glenn
Hmmm if it was a Swans player who was there they would be gone for at least 4 weeks.
Comment
-
And just what does the AFL tribunal have to do with the free kick count from the weekend????Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...
BTW the reason we got so many free kicks is because Collingwood didn't play by the rules and were given free kicks against them.
I didn't know Collingwood have to end up with the same amount of free kicks as the other teamOnce was, now elsewhereComment
-
a push in the back is still exactly that!Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...C'mon Chels!Comment
-
Yes you did, we only had 10. Brodie's a lucky boy, but I think he should watch out on the field from now on, no one is going to trust him and probably wouldn't mind giving a few back to him.Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...Comment
-
Originally posted by penga
a push in the back is still exactly that!
And getting caught with the ball, not disposing of it correctly and with prior opportunity is exactly that..Comment
-
Just because Collingwood can't play within the rules. Also the team that is home to the new Libba , with HollandOriginally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...Premiers 09,18,33,05
"You Irish Twit", Quote attributed to a RWO member who shall remain nameless.Comment
-
That's what the timekeeper said to himself on Saturday Night to help him sleep.Originally posted by Glenn
play within the rules.Comment
-
Hey JN, the tribunal results have nothing to do with the other issues you're talking about. If you want to go on about it, I suggest you find a Collingwood board to do it in. This IS a Swans-biased forum, what did you expect?
177th Senior AFL Match - Round 4, 2009 - Sydney vs Carlton, SCG. This is obviously out of date. I suppose I'll update it once I could be bothered sitting down with the fixture and working it out....
Des' WeblogComment
-
Originally posted by desredandwhite
Hey JN, the tribunal results have nothing to do with the other issues you're talking about. If you want to go on about it, I suggest you find a Collingwood board to do it in. This IS a Swans-biased forum, what did you expect?
On that basis why can't you get over Brodie?Comment
-
The fact that he was reported when playing against one of our players for an incident which was not reported on the night is probably why we are still talking about it.
I have to agree though 2 weeks for that incident is lame - imo Willo is very lucky he didn't end up with a fractured cheekbone or at least a back injury from the other incident.Comment
-
I didn't see Sydney get many free kicks for Collingwood holding hte ball. So what is your point? The umpires were consistant on their ruling on the night. There were few paid to either team, and they let it go.Originally posted by Jason Nevins
And getting caught with the ball, not disposing of it correctly and with prior opportunity is exactly that..
The free kicks to us were high tackles and push in the backs.
I think you actually miunderstand the game. We had more of the ball, we lost the game. We did nothing with the footy, you were efficient.At the end of the day that is it.
We were first to the ball, we just did nothing with it. Protect the man in front, number one rule in umpiring...Comment
-
Apparently someone on one of the newsgroups said on the footage they showed on tv tonight they showed Willo hitting Holland first, anyone see this footage?
Also quick question, has Willo ever been suspended in his AFL career? I was doing some research on this but couldn't find any info out
Pies put blame on Williams
Holland gets two, Dockers in clear
August 26, 2003
COLLINGWOODS'S Brodie Holland escaped with a two-week suspension for an off-ball strike on Sydney's Paul Williams while Fremantle also enjoyed good fortune at the AFL Tribunal tonight.
Docker Paul Medhurst was cleared of kicking Essendon's Danny Jacobs, while fellow Freo forward Jeff Farmer will also be available for the important match with West Coast after scrutiny of his clash with Bomber Andrew Welsh came to nothing.
Holland will miss Friday night's vital game against Essendon and also Collingwood's first final, but could be considered fortunate as he was widely expected to get at least three weeks.
It was a solid punch to the face of Williams ? who was looking away at the time ? some 50 metres off the ball and was the Magpie's second striking charge this season.
However Collingwood tried to portray Williams as the villain.
The club's advocate chose not to confront the Swans midfielder with the accusations when he was being questioned, but afterwards claimed Williams had struck Holland first with a 'jumper punch' to the face.
"It was only because Paul Williams has got his back to the camera that he is not sitting alongside Brodie Holland tonight," advocate Sean Carroll said.
Holland relied heavily on that argument, pleading guilty under provocation.
"I was stunned, I was shocked, I got a blow to the mouth and jaw and in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said.
"I'm not proud of what I did but I didn't hurt the player and it was nothing too untoward.
"I am embarrassed about what I did, I don't usually do that on the footy field."
The tribunal found Holland's retaliation was "out of all proportion to what preceded it", but did take account of character evidence by Pies coach Mick Malthouse and the guilty plea in invoking the lenient sentence.
The Medhurst case hinged on a conflict between the umpire's evidence that the Docker delivered a "short, sharp swing of the leg", and that of both players that there was incidental contact made as the forward tried to regain his footing.
"When I tried to get up there was contact to Danny Jacobs' legs, both of them, but it was purely and simply trying to get to my feet," Medhurst said.
"I've never layed down and crudely kicked someone."
Jacobs testified that "I don't think he kicked me at all, I think he was trying to get up, it was accidental contact".
Medhurst claimed to have never been reported previously playing football from the age of six.
AAPLast edited by gossipcom; 26 August 2003, 09:08 PM.Comment
-
I can't believe such a lenient sentence.
The reason more cameras were introduced to cover the whole ground was to catch dogs like Holland from belting players behind play. So why is it when it produces the desired result of catching a gutless no talent individual like Holland king hiiting someone do they go soft on him.
If it was round 1 would we have seen a much harsher penalty?
Does it have to be that a player gets a severe injury from such an action before a "real" penalty is handed out.Comment
Comment