Listen to 3AW anyway you can - urgent!

[NMWBloods]

Hopefully it's a week, downgraded to reprimand for pleading guilty, so he can play. Everybody's happy!!

[liz]

I've just looked up the activation table and am now quite worried.

If they assess it as intentional, behind play, low impact, body - which they conceivably could - the base number of points is 325 and discounts for an early plea will see him miss 2 weeks.

For him to escape with a reprimand it will need to be assessed as 'in play' and 'reckless'.

The only other alternative is to throw it out altogether but they'd have to assess the impact as negligible.

The "good behaviour" criteria have two legs. If you've been found guilty within 3 years you have amounts added on to your base points. You only start to qualify for the discount if you've been clean for 5. So Baz won't qualify for any good behaviour discount.

[Nico]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Hopefully it's a week, downgraded to reprimand for pleading guilty, so he can play. Everybody's happy!!

Happy and continually punching of the air can be seen by strange people wearing red and white.

[NMWBloods]

I keep wondering about the 'behind play' comment - wasn't he dodging and weaving to get free for a lead? Surely that counts as in play?

Still, as I say, we'll just see what happens. Who knows what he was thinking at the time though!

[gossipcom]

Well both Swans and Weagles have a concern because it looks like the before-the-bounce incident in the match today will also go under the video review committee.

Wonder if the video review committee can just be kind and leave all of it alone for once

[Matt79]

Originally posted by gossipcom
Well both Swans and Weagles have a concern because it looks like the before-the-bounce incident in the match today will also go under the video review committee.

Wonder if the video review committee can just be kind and leave all of it alone for once

Yeah I am certainly happy to call 'fairs fair' and let both Hall's and Gasper's incidents slip through!

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
I've just looked up the activation table and am now quite worried.

But did you see all of the other incidents in the year that were ignored? Add that to the open admission from Peter Schwab that they got the Gehrig incident wrong.

Its open and shut. No vision, no case.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But did you see all of the other incidents in the year that were ignored? Add that to the open admission from Peter Schwab that they got the Gehrig incident wrong.

Its open and shut. No vision, no case.

Hope so, but that presumes logic on the part of the tribunal, which has not been their strong suit!!

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But did you see all of the other incidents in the year that were ignored? Add that to the open admission from Peter Schwab that they got the Gehrig incident wrong.

Its open and shut. No vision, no case.

I agree these are all reasons for optimism.

However, my assessment of the tables that guide the MRC indicate that it will have to be an "all or nothing".

Without an available discount for good behaviour (given that there is a 5 year qualifying period for that), it is hard to see what they could charge him with that would bring a penalty small enough to see him escape with a reprimand (with an early plea discount).

Thus, having read the 'instructions' (something I know men don't like to do ) I reckon they either have to find he has no case to answer or he will miss next week.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
Thus, having read the 'instructions' (something I know men don't like to do )

LOL. Thats what lawyers are for. To dispute the instructions... so why read them?

[undy]

Originally posted by liz

Thus, having read the 'instructions' (something I know men don't like to do ) I reckon they either have to find he has no case to answer or he will miss next week.

Irrelevant - the officials not reading the instructions will be men

[barry]

I would say, that the tribunal has more legal holes than a sieve.
For a start, it now quantitatively measure prior record which was never done in the past. So retrospectively counting all priors, when at the time the offender had no knowlegde of the exact impact later on in his career, seems like weak legal ground..


Anyway, Ch 10 showed Archers punches which werent suspended and they we identical to Halls.

If the system isnt corrupt, Halls playing.

[TheHood]

Should never have done it...yes!

The tap was one of the softest things going and yes he did stay down to save face, because 30 seconds later he and Max are charging at Baz like sex-crazed cave men at a shaved down gorilla trying to get his attention.

If Ricuitto can get a week (originally 3) for clipping a guy's head to concussion and suspected fractured jaw and Baz can get 2 weeks for that tap, then I reckon we've made a mistake following this code of footy.

The tap occures, reprimand or fine is satisfactory, but not 2 weeks. It was milked so I hope Goose confesses to being the dairy queen he was.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by barry
Anyway, Ch 10 showed Archers punches which werent suspended and they we identical to Halls.

Roughly how many of Archer's punches did they show?

[ugg]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Roughly how many of Archer's punches did they show?

At least 2, and Blight comments "Glenn's been a busy boy, hasn't he?"