Jolly reported and the result

[Barry Schneider]

For ball ups around the ground I think our best bet is to have LRT wrestle with the WC ruck and for one of our blokes to come over the top.Jude does it now and then.Goodes could do it as well.
That might neutralise the their ruck advantage a little.
If we bring up our half forwards to the contest I can't see us kicking any goals.
We need O'Keefe to be a linkman not a pseudo midfielder otherwise Hall will not see the ball and if by accident it does get down to him he will have to contend with multiple opponents.
I realise most people think this could be a massacre but I am looking to forward to this game.I think all the pent up frustration in the team might just find an outlet in this game.Here's hoping.

[ScottH]

Jolly to contest charge

[Bart]

Originally posted by ScottH
Jolly to contest charge

I don't think this is a wise decision. Looked bad to me at the time.

I expect to lose this weekend. Would rather have him back the following week.

[Snowy]

Fair comment Bart but some of those exonerated in the past few weeks have been lucky, ditto Hamill to gets his overturned so you never know.

[punter257]

i reckon it was bloody soft considering some of the dees that got off last week. i think he'll get off and be right for this week to dominate cox (hopefully)

[mikesmi]

not a lot in it, the tribunal is still a joke

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Bart
I don't think this is a wise decision. Looked bad to me at the time.

I expect to lose this weekend. Would rather have him back the following week.

I saw it on TV tonight. a bit weak to get rubbed out for something so innoculous, I reckon.

We play a body contact sport for crying out loud. I reckon the AFL is turning footy into a joke these days.

I'd have given a free kick against Jolly and been done with it.

JF

[DST]

Will also point out that so far all players who have contested (that's not including the ones who went straight to the tribunal) and have lost have ended up with the same length of suspension as they would have got if they accepted it.

So based on that and with Ball likely to return next week, I reckon it is a well calculated risk:

Jolly get off entirely (unlikely)

Jolly gets the week suspension upheld (likely)

Jolly get the two weeks suspension (unlikely based on previous results)

DST

[ScottH]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
I saw it on TV tonight. a bit weak to get rubbed out for something so innoculous, I reckon.

We play a body contact sport for crying out loud. I reckon the AFL is turning footy into a joke these days.

I'd have given a free kick against Jolly and been done with it.

JF

It didn't look as bad on tonight as it did on Saturday. (wheres the fingers crossed smilie????)

[footyhead]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG


We play a body contact sport for crying out loud. I reckon the AFL is turning footy into a joke these days.


JF

I concur. I can honestly say that with the AFL tweaking so many rules and taking so much of the hardness out of the game(fair enough they had to do something about the dirty snipers of yesteryear, but thats gone now), that I care for footy about half as much as I used to. Go to half as many games as I used to(I used to make a point of visiting every ground if I could within one season), and I now spend far greater percentage of my time and money on alternatives to footy.
All because they have ruined the tenuous beauty of the game with their politicaly correct judgment on the hardness of the game, and their miriad of rules and interpretation of rules to impliment the perverse vision of a game that is not really theirs to alter in the first place.

[Nico]

I know each case is supposed to be taken on it's merits but Jolly lifted his knee which is so common these days in ruck contests, But rarely do they get pinged for dropping the knees when coming into an onground contest/pack.

Fair dinkum I have always thought that the "pin up boys" has their own rules but this week takes the cake.

Neitz gets off for his long run in (better than Lillee) then slide on our player. No case to answer. His team mate Moloney would be feeling agrieved for copping 2.

Hird - I have watched this a few times now and it gets worse every time. It was very late and violent almost to the point of whiplash. I wonder if Wakelin had sustained an injury what might have been the verdict. He was found GUILTY but reprimanded. What because of his good record or because he is James Hird.

A violent act is a violent act and should not be seen in any other light regardless of record. I don't know if Jolly has been reported. If he hasn't then perhaps they should bring up the leniency of the Hird act based on the "pretty boy factor".

It stinks for mine.

On Fevola he should cop the bleedin' book. I think Barry went for 5 for his eye gouge. He should get the same. What about poor old Dunks?

[liz]

Originally posted by DST
Will also point out that so far all players who have contested (that's not including the ones who went straight to the tribunal) and have lost have ended up with the same length of suspension as they would have got if they accepted it.

So based on that and with Ball likely to return next week, I reckon it is a well calculated risk:

Jolly get off entirely (unlikely)

Jolly gets the week suspension upheld (likely)

Jolly get the two weeks suspension (unlikely based on previous results)

DST

As I understand it, the only way that Jolly will come away with a one match suspension now that he has decided to fight it is if he gets one of the elements downgraded. Otherwise the number of points remains the same - they are fixed - and he loses the discount for an early plea.

Three of the four elements are already at the lowest level - ie low impact, in-play and body (not head) contact. So he will need to convince the tribunal that his actions were not intentional but merely reckless or negligent.

Either 'reckless' or 'negligent' would bring the level of offence down to a level 1 (from a level 2) which for a rough conduct charge equates to 125 activation points compared to the 225 he currently faces.

I see that Fevola's grappling at the face of a Docker has been graded as reckless only, compared to Jolly's intentional.

[ScottH]

How the hell does Hird get a reprimand, for an action that could have done (and most probably has) some serious spinal damage, yet Jolly has to face the tribunal for pushing his knee towards a guy who didn't even wince when they collided?????

I am seriously confused about this tribunal.

[j s]

Originally posted by ScottH
How the hell does Hird get a reprimand, for an action that could have done (and most probably has) some serious spinal damage, yet Jolly has to face the tribunal for pushing his knee towards a guy who didn't even wince when they collided?????

I am seriously confused about this tribunal.

I can tell you 20,000 reasons why

[ScottH]

Originally posted by j s
I can tell you 20,000 reasons why

Hmmm. Makes you wonder doesn't it!!