One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on July 20, 2004, 08:48:47 AM

Title: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: WilliamPowell on July 20, 2004, 08:48:47 AM
I was watching the rubgy league on Saturday night and saw the much publicised "king hit" by the Storm's Danny Williams on the West Tigers's O'Neill.

Last night for the first time I saw vision of Freo's Farmer kneeing the Adelaide player's (whos name escapes me) head.

Both acts were cowardly IMO but which is worse?

Williams for getting up and chasing the Wests player and decking him or Farmer who appears to look up and see who's watching and then kneeing the bloke while he was on the ground and breaking his eye socket.

Williams will probably get 15-20 weeks.

I reckon Farmer deserves to get 12-16 weeks. But with our tribunal who knows  :-\ he'll probably only get 4 >:(
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: Tiger Spirit on July 20, 2004, 10:45:50 AM
Haven't seen the Williams one WP, but the Farmer one doesn't look good.  I expect probably between 4-6 weeks.

Only because I don't think Farmer's intention was to do that sort of damage.  Maybe just to let him know he was around.

Doesn't change the fact that it was reckless, unnecessary and undisciplined though.
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: mightytiges on July 20, 2004, 02:22:17 PM
I'm the opposite to TS. I haven't see the Farmer incident but have seen the RL one which was shocking. A cowardly and thuggish act.

As for what the AFL tribunal will do - Who knows! Stafford copped 3 weeks for falling on a player in the act of play (that is not premeditated unlike Farmer) whereas others who did the exact same thing have received a lesser sentence and some have gotten off  ::). 
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: JohnF on July 20, 2004, 04:27:09 PM
As always, the penalty will be worse when a player gets injured. If the other bloke didn't get injured Farmer would have been looking at something like 3-5 weeks. Now he's probably going to be looking at 6-10.

I've seen way bigger c**t acts on the footy field, so I hope the tribunal don't crucify him. 8 weeks is penalty enough IMO.
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: JohnF on July 20, 2004, 07:31:35 PM
WTF? Farmer cleared?
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: mightytiges on July 20, 2004, 11:56:38 PM
Yeah he got off. Unbelievable!  :gobdrop
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: julzqld on July 21, 2004, 07:44:31 AM
Accidental my foot >:( >:(
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: om21 on July 21, 2004, 10:08:07 AM
Stunned that Farmer got off.....

I would say that Farmer's was worse because the dog got him on the ground when he was helpless. At least Williams had the balls to deck him face to face....
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: WilliamPowell on July 21, 2004, 10:19:08 AM
 :banghead :banghead

How are supporters supposed to have respect for the "process" when there are so many inconsistencies ???

Ok - if they say it wasn't deliberate and therefore an accident but what about reckless?

I was listening to Bondy on 3AW who is usually spot on with his interpretations of the tribunal findings and I took his advice and stayed up last night to watch talking footy to see as much of the vision as possible but I am sorry Bondy you are wrong. It was a reckless and dangerous act and he should be punished for it. As for Farmer - to be interviewed afterwards and to not even or be able to name the player his knee contacted with is as disgraceful as the act itself. Stafford got 4 weeks for kneeing that they said that was an accident but reckless, this case was similar in so many ways.

Did the tribunal not take into consideration that the Doherty is going to miss 3-4 weeks (with an eye socket I wouldn't be surprised if it is longer)?

There is absolutely no way Farmer should have been cleared.

The tribunal is a disgrace, joke and IMO has lost the respect of the vast majority of footy fans.
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: WilliamPowell on July 21, 2004, 10:26:48 AM
At least Williams had the balls to deck him face to face....

I think that should say back to face  ;)
Title: Re: NRL's William -v- Freo's Farmer which is worse?
Post by: Tiger Spirit on July 22, 2004, 04:23:46 PM
Ok - if they say it wasn't deliberate and therefore an accident but what about reckless?

I don’t know if it makes a difference how they word the charge WP, but I think Farmer was on a charge of “misconduct”, so would it have made any difference if the charge contained the term “reckless act”?

It doesn’t seem to matter how you think about this though, he should have got weeks.

I didn’t think his intention was to do that sort of damage, but thought the reason he would get weeks was because it was a reckless act.  I can’t see, no matter which angle you look at it from, how he could get off without a penalty, because it was reckless.

Danny Williams must be regretting the fact that he has to face the NRL judiciary, instead of the AFL tribunal system.  He’d be back playing this weekend, you’d think.  ::) :P