One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: WA Tiger on February 20, 2009, 01:09:56 PM
-
Gee the cards always seem to fall the right way for these pricks dont they. While I agree with the decision I believe that if it were the Tigers lets say with a player like Cousins doing the same the decision would have remained.
COLLINGWOOD captain Nick Maxwell's four-match ban for rough conduct has been thrown out by the AFL Appeals Board. It means Maxwell will be able to play in Collingwood's next pre-season match and will not miss any games in either the NAB Cup or home-and-away season.
The appeals board have given no reason for the verdict yet, saying they will publish their verdict in due course.
It is unclear when that will take place.
Maxwell had been cited for a heavy hip and shoulder on West Coast's Patrick McGinnity during their NAB Cup clash two weeks ago, which left the Eagles youngster with a broken jaw.
But the tribunal's decision to find Maxwell guilty on Tuesday night had polarised the AFL, with many suggesting it would spell an end to the hip-and-shoulder in the modern game.
The three-man appeals board listened to one hour and 15 minutes of evidence on Friday, in which Collingwood's advocate Terry Forrest QC argued Maxwell had no reasonable alternative but to make contact with McGinnity.
Maxwell said he was relieved he was free to play, and wished McGinnity well in a recovery it is believed will take a minimum of 12 weeks.
"I feel great that we've been vindicated in this,'' Maxwell said of Collingwood's decision to fight his case.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/sport/afl/story/0,26633,25081846-5016215,00.html
-
Even though he is a SKUNK - The right decision was made and common sense prevails, in this case.
-
Even though he is a SKUNK - The right decision was made and common sense prevails, in this case.
LOL I agree. Now there's no excuse they can use when we beat them next Thursday :thumbsup.
It's a bit of a farce though that it took one and half tribunal hearings before they realised the question they were asking was legally wrong ???.
-
I haven't seen the incident in question, but I'm still sure he should have been suspended
-
I don't know who I hate more, the captain of Collingwood or Adrian Anderson.
They both should be rubbed out for 4 weeks, AA tends to do most of his damage in Feb/Mar, although he set a precedent last year by changing a rule in the middle of the season.
-
I haven't seen the incident in question, but I'm still sure he should have been suspended
Agree, purely because he plays for them!
-
I don't know who I hate more, the captain of Collingwood or Adrian Anderson.
They both should be rubbed out for 4 weeks, AA tends to do most of his damage in Feb/Mar, although he set a precedent last year by changing a rule in the middle of the season.
I'm sure AA will feel the need for another rule change after this case :sleep
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/sixthsense.jpg)
-
lol MT
your getting a little sloppy with your photoshopping again MT if that's yours.. :lol