Fozzie offered one week

[giant]

If he fails, the 225 points stand & he gets 2 matches instead of 1? Correct?

[Sanecow]

Yep, so it's win-win really.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by giant
If he fails, the 225 points stand & he gets 2 matches instead of 1? Correct?

Correct. The discount is applied for copping to an early plea. No guilty plea = no discount!

[giant]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Yep, so it's win-win really.

Well, you certainly wouldn't say that's definitely not a negative.

[satchmopugdog]

Originally posted by Mike_B
If an umpire has seen it and reported it and if there is no video footage to review, the tribunal will typically side with the umpires version of events.

My ex was an umpie and he was famous for reporting players....he won the sheriff's badge regularly . In fact once he reported a whole team and they ended up walking off. He was escorted from the ground by police.

He had to rely on the tribunal taking his word against the player and they usually did.

[Claret]

Fozzie's first up tonight (there are 5 cases being heard).

First bounce at 5pm.

[hammo]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
My ex was an umpie and he was famous for reporting players....he won the sheriff's badge regularly . In fact once he reported a whole team and they ended up walking off. He was escorted from the ground by police.

A real badge of honour

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Originally posted by giant
Not if his team had lost the game (which given he plays for the Swans & it's a NAB Cup we can assume will happen). In that case, he'll miss the first round of the normal H&A. If he's team had won, then yes the penalty would apply to the next NAB Cup game.

That seems utterly idiotic to me. They're making the NAB cup appear important, when all players know it's not.

[Old Royboy]

I wonder if Fozzie is going to deny the offense or try for a Bazza style downgrade.
I reckon he will struggle with the former, even though it will be the word of one or two fine upstanding footballing citizens against a snivelling wormtongued maggot.
I'm not sure what degree of downgrade will be necessary, but if say the severity of contact was reduced from moderate to light would that be enough to get him off? ASAIK the Richmond player didn't blink, but Bazza's moderate contact had Goose out for the count in 2005.

[liz]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
I wonder if Fozzie is going to deny the offense or try for a Bazza style downgrade.

He can't rely on a challenge on the "in play" / "behind the play" distinction. Whatever happened, it was clearly behind the play, given that the ball had passed Fossie and was travelling in the opposite direction towards the Richmond goal.

I also think the "in play" / "behind the play" differential has been watered down this season anyway.

Challenging the severity of the contact is going to be very difficult with no video evidence.

His best route would seem to be arguing it was negligent rather than reckless, but without having seen what actually happened, I have no idea how strong a case he might have.

[Nico]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
My ex was an umpie and he was famous for reporting players....he won the sheriff's badge regularly . In fact once he reported a whole team and they ended up walking off. He was escorted from the ground by police.

He had to rely on the tribunal taking his word against the player and they usually did.

So I take it you are a female. Have you let your guard down?Will you be rushed with proposals from admiring male RWO'ers?

How can you report a whole team? He must be one angry little man, only assuming little cause he is an ump.

So when he wanted to make a point at home did he pull the whistle out?

[Nico]

Originally posted by liz
He can't rely on a challenge on the "in play" / "behind the play" distinction. Whatever happened, it was clearly behind the play, given that the ball had passed Fossie and was travelling in the opposite direction towards the Richmond goal.

I also think the "in play" / "behind the play" differential has been watered down this season anyway.

Challenging the severity of the contact is going to be very difficult with no video evidence.

His best route would seem to be arguing it was negligent rather than reckless, but without having seen what actually happened, I have no idea how strong a case he might have.

The in play/behind play distinction has been given the lemonade this season. So BBBH under the new rule would have been done like a dinner.