bloods - premiers 05 ?

[melb_swan012]

what a great game it was last nite ! i truly cant believe we won that ! especially seeing as the way the swans play we would normally come out and kick 7 points rather then 7 goals like we did. the big questions are though - will barry get reported and suspended (not that it matters cos we can do a dunkley of 96 and get a court injunction if he does !) who would we rather play in the big one (i vote for west coast!) and CAN WE WIN ??????

GO BLOODS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Schneiderman]

Re: bloods - premiers 05 ?

Originally posted by melb_swan012
CAN WE WIN ??????

Of course we can!

I reckon WC should win today... we owe them one.

[punter257]

yes we owe them bigtime and if hally plays.........

ITS YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE DARREN GLASS

[NMWBloods]

Re: bloods - premiers 05 ?

Originally posted by melb_swan012
will barry get reported and suspended (not that it matters cos we can do a dunkley of 96 and get a court injunction if he does !)

That option should be no longer available because of the change in the tribunal system allowing an avenue of appeal.

[nicko18]

For someone who wasn't around in 1996, can someone please explain what happened in the Dunkley incident?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by nicko18
For someone who wasn't around in 1996, can someone please explain what happened in the Dunkley incident?

Basically no right of appeal, Swans said there was an error in the decision making process and claimed that Dunks had been denied natural justice - I think.

[Foreign Legion]

Even though its 10 minutes in - I'd much rather player WC than Adelaide next week.

I will be way more confident if we play WC.

[timbo]

its the reverse of round 22, cept we play the winner.

who cares who we play. weve shouldve beaten both of em away so theres no reason we cant at a neutral ground.

(btw both times barry hall had quiet games)

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Basically no right of appeal, Swans said there was an error in the decision making process and claimed that Dunks had been denied natural justice - I think.

That's about how I recall it. So, to stop it happening again, the AFL introduced the appeal system in which everyone who appeals has their appeal rejected and gets a stiffer penalty. It's far more just.

[melb_swan012]

and wasnt it good to see jimmy hird on brownlow night with a cut and a black eye ! pavich for brownlow 05

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by melb_swan012
and wasnt it good to see jimmy hird on brownlow night with a cut and a black eye !

No...

[Charlie]

The issue in 1996 was that the Swans weren't informed until Wednesday that Dunkley had been cited (when a new camera angle appeared from nowhere). The AFL scheduled the hearing only about 6-7 hours after notifying the Swans: clearly not enough time for them to put a case together.

Since granted an extension by a day would have meant that the Swans would have to conduct a defence (interstate) only two days before the Grand Final, on the night selections had to be made, the Supreme Court gave us an injunction until the next week.

[melb_swan012]

Originally posted by Charlie
The issue in 1996 was that the Swans weren't informed until Wednesday that Dunkley had been cited (when a new camera angle appeared from nowhere). The AFL scheduled the hearing only about 6-7 hours after notifying the Swans: clearly not enough time for them to put a case together.

Since granted an extension by a day would have meant that the Swans would have to conduct a defence (interstate) only two days before the Grand Final, on the night selections had to be made, the Supreme Court gave us an injunction until the next week.

thank u 4 clearing that up charlie didnt really matter anyway since dirty stinking nth melbourne smacked out all our good players in the grand final! i still remember a scummy nth melbourne girl getting kicked out from the bay next to the cheer squad. let that be a lesson to you all- dont drink 2 much this wk and make fools of yourselves !