One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on May 16, 2005, 02:35:24 PM
-
(http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5008145,00.jpg)
Has Razor got anything to worry about?
Nice incriminating photo there from the Hun ::)
-
Razor, mate - its jab jab hook.
I reakon he'd be lucky to get off.
-
My guess he'll be offered a week.
Gawnnnnnnnnn
-
Lesson of the day for C. Cloke:
When you rough up young and smaller blokes (Tambling in the Wiz Cup, Deledio on Sunday) you might do alright. When you rough up blokes as big who've been around a bit longer you get it back, with interest.
Best stick to being a hero who knocks around the little blokes to avoid it coming to tears.
-
Speaking of Razor, he was interviewd after the game on Sport 927 by Howard Kotton about the incident and the win against the Pies.
http://sport927.com.au/gateway/Daily_Audio/Sound%20Grabs/RH_160505.asx
-
Hall cops 2 matches
afl.com.au
Hall received the heaviest penalty for his off-the-ball clash with Collingwood's Cameron Cloke, which appeared to be only minor.
But that was because it was assessed as reckless (two points), low impact (one point), behind play (two points) and high contact (two points), which equates to a level three offence of 325 points - which would reduce to a two-match ban if Hall pleaded guilty and received the points discount.
The loss of the much-improved Hall would be a big blow for the in-form Tigers as he has performed splendidly at centre-half-back this season and would have been the prime candidate to stand Brisbane powerhouse Jonathan Brown and Melbourne strongman Brad Miller in the next two weeks.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=203085
:(
-
he should of knocked out the prick...anyway RFC should appeal and get back to 1 week!
-
This is a joke, with Hall getting 2 weeks.
Correct me if i am wrong but he doesnt have any priors.
Hargrave from Bulldogs has priors and he only cops 1 week.
It just doesnt make sense
-
Judd offered a week.
What is going on? :banghead
Really disgustng system.
-
Judd offered a week.
What is going on? :banghead
Really disgustng system.
The tribunal are a disgrace. Ray Hall hit Cloke no harder than you would knock on a door (similar action).
Meanwhile Judd nearly caves Baker's head in and gets a week wtf?
-
Judd offered a week.
What is going on? :banghead
Really disgustng system.
The tribunal are a disgrace. Ray Hall hit Cloke no harder than you would knock on a door (similar action).
Meanwhile Judd nearly caves Baker's head in and gets a week wtf?
JOKE :banghead
-
Correct me if i am wrong but he doesnt have any priors.
Razor was rubbed out for a week in the VFL earlier this year for striking. That would have gone against him you would think although the tribunal said "He has no applicable good or bad record".
Round 1 - Tuesday 5th April, 2005
Ray Hall - Coburg Tigers Football Club
Guilty of Striking - 1 match suspension
I was expecting a week at the most going on other penalties handed out. Especially as allegedly Cameron Cloke was already concussed before the incident with Razor yet was allowed to came back onto the ground. Paul Gough from afl.com.au said on club corner that cynically he thought it was a good ploy by the Pies to allow Cameron Cloke's brother Travis who is a better kick to take the free.
I wonder if we'll appeal as if we lost the appeal Razor would miss 3 weeks :-\.
-
its total bs
that cloke joke instigated it all, and should not have been on teh bround as he suffered concussion earlier
that hit was basically a slap in th eface and he fell like a baby!!
also im pretty upset at the boys because when the 2 peroxide cloke joke fasg ganged ip on deledio, no one wwent to help him
-
Isn't that negligent of Collingwood to allow Cameron Cloke to remain on the field if he is still feeling the effects of concussion?
-
Isn't that negligent of Collingwood to allow Cameron Cloke to remain on the field if he is still feeling the effects of concussion?
once apon a time yes, but now they do these silly concussion tests and if tehy know there name and who their coach is they are allowed back on
-
Good on ya Razor.....I say stuff the Clokes. It must of been a doozy if the prick was off for the rest of the game.
-
Place expletives on dotted line.
-----------------
--------------------
-----------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
-
also im pretty upset at the boys because when the 2 peroxide cloke joke fasg ganged ip on deledio, no one wwent to help him
I noticed that too X. Not sure whether the game was going on at the time and they were all concentrating on where the footy was, but you woulda thought someone might have gone over.
-
The biggest thing that went against Ray was the fact it was behind the play (about 100 metres from the ball) and that Cloke missed Ray completely when he was swinging his arm like a madman ;D
I thought he'd get 1 week but I am surprised with 2.
Just read on BF that the Tiges have accepted the penalty which is probably a good thing. The Tribunal could at their discreation increase the penalty
-
This is an explaination from Weaver about how Ray Hall's charge was graded
=====================
1. Minimal contact (1 point)
2. Behind play (2 points)
3. High Contact (2 points)
4. Reckless (2 points)
What exactly are we meant to appeal. It is already down as minimal contact. Could maybe get Reckless down to negligent but it won't help much, still two weeks worth of points.
Hall was 325 points, minus 25% deduction = 244 points. A two week ban.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171045
-
I can't argue with the grading which determined the 2 weeks. The thing that worries me in this instance is that it was basically an act of self defence, which doesn't appear to be taken into consideration. Cloke was backing into Hall with the intention of elbowing him with considerable force. The umpire who gave the free was watching closely because Cloke tried a few times and I think that is why he made no report. Surely the review panel would talk to the umpire.
The only non-reportable action I can think of that Hall could have taken would have been to either run away or let Cloke elbow him. Very tough on Ray.
-
Going by the tribunal summary file on the AFL website if we could have got the Reckless charge down to negligent then the penalty would have been reduced the demerit points 325 to 225 (3 weeks down to 2) but I guess you then miss out on the 25% discount for an early plea so as Weaver said it still ends up as 2 weeks :P. I presume we needed the tribunal to say the contact was negligent originally for us to then take the early plea to knock it down to 1 week.
CONDUCT - IMPACT - LOCATION - CONTACT - ACTIVATION POINTS - LEVEL - DEMERIT POINTS
RECKLESS - LOW - BEHIND PLAY - HIGH - 7 - 3 - 325
NEGLIGENT - LOW - BEHIND PLAY - HIGH - 6 - 2 - 225
http://afl.com.au/cp2/c2/webi/article/183697aa.pdf
I can't argue with the grading which determined the 2 weeks. The thing that worries me in this instance is that it was basically an act of self defence, which doesn't appear to be taken into consideration. Cloke was backing into Hall with the intention of elbowing him with considerable force. The umpire who gave the free was watching closely because Cloke tried a few times and I think that is why he made no report. Surely the review panel would talk to the umpire.
The only non-reportable action I can think of that Hall could have taken would have been to either run away or let Cloke elbow him. Very tough on Ray.
The tribunal doesn't appear to care about provocation unless the its extreme:
MITIGATION
In determining a Level to be given to a Reportable Offence, the Match Review Panel will not take into account any provocation or whether a Player was acting in self-defence. Ordinarily those are matters which would be relevant to any sanction to be imposed and while the Tribunal will generally apply the Level classification of the Match Review Panel, there is power in Player Rule 23.7.1 for the Tribunal to substitute another classification, if it is appropriate in all the circumstances to do so. Extreme provocation as an example, may amount to an exceptional and compelling circumstance which would make it inappropriate or unreasonable for the Tribunal to apply the classification of the Match Review Panel, if sufficient and credible evidence of extreme provocation was adduced before the Tribunal.
-
Do the players give evidence any more or is it just set penalties.
I don't get it and i definitely don't like it, because we were after a fair system, and this ain't fair.
I don't like a system where it's either black or white and no in between ???
-
Agree Moi. Even worse when it's black and white. ;)
Thanks for the info MT (the walking encyclopedia) ;D
I'd be interested to know what would cut it as "extreme provocation".
-
Agree Moi. Even worse when it's black and white.
Absolutely. Ray should have been given a medal lol