holland gets two

[daniel f]

brodie holland has received a measly 2 weeks,what a joke

[Glenn]

Not surprising, a blantant cheap shot and it get two weeks...Hmmm if it was a Swans player who was there they would be gone for at least 4 weeks.

Hopefully in a few weeks when Brodie will be back at the tribunal after another cheap shot they give hime a longer holiday

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by Glenn
Hmmm if it was a Swans player who was there they would be gone for at least 4 weeks.


Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

And just what does the AFL tribunal have to do with the free kick count from the weekend????

BTW the reason we got so many free kicks is because Collingwood didn't play by the rules and were given free kicks against them.

I didn't know Collingwood have to end up with the same amount of free kicks as the other team

[penga]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

a push in the back is still exactly that!

[ugg]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

Yes you did, we only had 10. Brodie's a lucky boy, but I think he should watch out on the field from now on, no one is going to trust him and probably wouldn't mind giving a few back to him.

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by penga
a push in the back is still exactly that!


And getting caught with the ball, not disposing of it correctly and with prior opportunity is exactly that..

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

Just because Collingwood can't play within the rules. Also the team that is home to the new Libba , with Holland

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by Glenn
play within the rules.

That's what the timekeeper said to himself on Saturday Night to help him sleep.

[desredandwhite]

Hey JN, the tribunal results have nothing to do with the other issues you're talking about. If you want to go on about it, I suggest you find a Collingwood board to do it in. This IS a Swans-biased forum, what did you expect?

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Hey JN, the tribunal results have nothing to do with the other issues you're talking about. If you want to go on about it, I suggest you find a Collingwood board to do it in. This IS a Swans-biased forum, what did you expect?


On that basis why can't you get over Brodie?

[gossipcom]

The fact that he was reported when playing against one of our players for an incident which was not reported on the night is probably why we are still talking about it.

I have to agree though 2 weeks for that incident is lame - imo Willo is very lucky he didn't end up with a fractured cheekbone or at least a back injury from the other incident.

[TheMase]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
And getting caught with the ball, not disposing of it correctly and with prior opportunity is exactly that..

I didn't see Sydney get many free kicks for Collingwood holding hte ball. So what is your point? The umpires were consistant on their ruling on the night. There were few paid to either team, and they let it go.

The free kicks to us were high tackles and push in the backs.
I think you actually miunderstand the game. We had more of the ball, we lost the game. We did nothing with the footy, you were efficient.At the end of the day that is it.

We were first to the ball, we just did nothing with it. Protect the man in front, number one rule in umpiring...

[gossipcom]

Apparently someone on one of the newsgroups said on the footage they showed on tv tonight they showed Willo hitting Holland first, anyone see this footage?

Also quick question, has Willo ever been suspended in his AFL career? I was doing some research on this but couldn't find any info out :(

Pies put blame on Williams (http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,7075937-23210,00.html)

Holland gets two, Dockers in clear
August 26, 2003

COLLINGWOODS'S Brodie Holland escaped with a two-week suspension for an off-ball strike on Sydney's Paul Williams while Fremantle also enjoyed good fortune at the AFL Tribunal tonight.

Docker Paul Medhurst was cleared of kicking Essendon's Danny Jacobs, while fellow Freo forward Jeff Farmer will also be available for the important match with West Coast after scrutiny of his clash with Bomber Andrew Welsh came to nothing.

Holland will miss Friday night's vital game against Essendon and also Collingwood's first final, but could be considered fortunate as he was widely expected to get at least three weeks.

It was a solid punch to the face of Williams ? who was looking away at the time ? some 50 metres off the ball and was the Magpie's second striking charge this season.

However Collingwood tried to portray Williams as the villain.

The club's advocate chose not to confront the Swans midfielder with the accusations when he was being questioned, but afterwards claimed Williams had struck Holland first with a 'jumper punch' to the face.

"It was only because Paul Williams has got his back to the camera that he is not sitting alongside Brodie Holland tonight," advocate Sean Carroll said.

Holland relied heavily on that argument, pleading guilty under provocation.

"I was stunned, I was shocked, I got a blow to the mouth and jaw and in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said.

"I'm not proud of what I did but I didn't hurt the player and it was nothing too untoward.

"I am embarrassed about what I did, I don't usually do that on the footy field."

The tribunal found Holland's retaliation was "out of all proportion to what preceded it", but did take account of character evidence by Pies coach Mick Malthouse and the guilty plea in invoking the lenient sentence.

The Medhurst case hinged on a conflict between the umpire's evidence that the Docker delivered a "short, sharp swing of the leg", and that of both players that there was incidental contact made as the forward tried to regain his footing.

"When I tried to get up there was contact to Danny Jacobs' legs, both of them, but it was purely and simply trying to get to my feet," Medhurst said.

"I've never layed down and crudely kicked someone."

Jacobs testified that "I don't think he kicked me at all, I think he was trying to get up, it was accidental contact".

Medhurst claimed to have never been reported previously playing football from the age of six.

AAP

[Nico]

I can't believe such a lenient sentence.

The reason more cameras were introduced to cover the whole ground was to catch dogs like Holland from belting players behind play. So why is it when it produces the desired result of catching a gutless no talent individual like Holland king hiiting someone do they go soft on him.

If it was round 1 would we have seen a much harsher penalty?

Does it have to be that a player gets a severe injury from such an action before a "real" penalty is handed out.

[gossipcom]

The AFL Report (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=115718) - Willo did testify after all <g>

Holland's guilty plea earns two-match ban
7:04:14 PM Tue 26 August, 2003
Samantha Lane
afl.com.au
Collingwood?s Brodie Holland will miss one final, after receiving a two-match suspension for striking Sydney?s Paul Williams to the face.

The Magpie tagger, who was an emergency throughout his side?s 2002 finals campaign and has never played in a final, will now wait anxiously as his side attempts to claim a top four spot and qualify to play in the second week in September. It that case, he would also have to reclaim his position in the side.



Holland pleaded guilty to the video charge, laid by umpire Matthew James following Saturday night?s match at Telstra Stadium, but claimed his blow was a retaliation to a strike the Sydney player had dealt him.

It is the third time in six seasons that Holland, 23, has been found guilty of striking, and the second occasion this year.

Collingwood mounted an extensive case, which the tribunal panel deliberated over for about ten minutes, and argued Holland?s obvious strike was an automatic reaction to the unwarranted attention from Williams.

The video evidence of the incident showed Holland making contact with Williams with a swinging right arm, in what tribunal chairman Brian Collis, QC, described as an ?off the ball? incident.

?We find that the reaction was an intentional and forceful blow, and although the contact may have been glancing, it was out of proportion to what preceded it,? Collis said.

Collingwood played an extended, edited video package of the confrontation and enhanced the vision of Williams? alleged initial strike. However Holland?s player advocate Sean Carroll did not question the Sydney player about his supposedly provoking strike.

Umpire James told the tribunal he saw blood on Holland?s lip at the quarter time break, when he warned the Magpie against making high contact with Williams? neck region.

Holland said he felt ashamed of the incident but that he had been aggrieved by Williams? contact.

?I got a blow to the jaw and in an instant reaction I threw my arm back then.?

?Even after the incident I thought I probably shouldn?t have done that. But I didn?t hurt the player and it was nothing too untoward,? he said.

?I?m embarrassed about what I did and that?s not usually how I play the game.?

Collingwood coach Michael Malthouse provided a character reference for the former Fremantle player, and said he was ?shocked and dismayed? by the media?s portrayal of Holland in the lead-up to the case.

?This man is playing for his life skills as much as his football skills.?

?I would hate to think that a young man?s progress in finals is halted by a rash action,? Malthouse said.

Williams told the tribunal he could not recall the incident, but felt no ill-effects after the match.

?I felt some contact and it was enough to fall to the ground and then I got up and remonstrated,? he said via-a video link-up.

Holland was suspended for two matches in 1998 after striking Sydney?s Daryn Cresswell, and missed round two this year after receiving a one-match ban for striking Greg Stafford.

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by gossipcom

"I was stunned, I was shocked, I got a blow to the mouth and jaw and in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said.

Wouldn't this mean that if he hit PW with a normal immediate reflex/instinctive action, he would have contacted his face front on, not side on when PW was practically walking away ?

Brodie must still be a bit on the slow side. It must have been a case of the old delayed reaction :rolleyes: .

Karma Brodie, karma ...

[SWANSBEST]

How could anyone believe a wanker like Holland who was caught in a public place pulling his pud . He has no credibility whatsoever . Holland is nothing but a king hit merchant who is very lucky to escape a sentence of at least 4 weeks.

Unfortunately , the site is losing it's appeal with the continued presence of the mental midgets from Collingwood and a few trolling individuals from other clubs.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by gossipcom
Collingwood?s Brodie Holland will miss one final, after receiving a two-match suspension for striking Sydney?s Paul Williams to the face....

Holland was suspended for two matches in 1998 after striking Sydney?s Daryn Cresswell...

and missed round two this year after receiving a one-match ban for striking Greg Stafford.

I know Stafford no longer plays for Sydney, but Holland REALLY hates the Swans, doesnt he!

[j s]

He seems to have a thing about Swans players. All his sispension have been for striking either current (Willo and Cressa) or past (Stafford) Swans players.

[liz]

LOL - he may or may not have been retaliating, but as Ruda points out, it certainly wasn't an instinctive reaction unless he has the reaction time of a snail.

Wonder if he has something against Swans / ex Swans players, given the three players he's been suspended for striking. Did we reject him at some time when he had his heart set on playing for us?

[TheHood]

I thought the sentence was rather lite. I reckon he should have been tried in QLD with say Tony Abbott organising the funding, Brodie might have been back for Rd 22 2004.

[gossipcom]

Lmao!

Actually the reason I was more surprised with the fact he only got two weeks was because it was his second offense of the season. He'd already been outed for one match at the beginning of the season for a similiar offense - you'd think the judiciary would realise this - but nope.

[TheHood]

IMO it was his second offence for the game! Thighs my buttocks, I mean arse!

[gossipcom]

Originally posted by TheHood
IMO it was his second offence for the game! Thighs my buttocks, I mean arse!

lol wasn't it his 3rd offence in the game?

From what Willo was saying to his teammates after the match, he copped one in the first quarter (which caused the umpires to talk to Cressa and Willo after that qtr I noticed) then he coped the smash in the head (2 weeks worth) plus the knees.

They definitely was tussling with each other all throughout the night, which Holland took a little bit further than allowed.

Nadine

[penga]

Originally posted by TheHood
IMO it was his second offence for the game! Thighs my buttocks, I mean arse!

it was thighs, i was showing my dad the incidents as reported on the couch and slowed down the footage and holland's knees actually glance willo and it is his thighs that hit him

however two weeks is lame! imagine if bazza did that, he'd get about 10!

the tribunal is a joke!

[gossipcom]

This saga gets even better.

Channel Nine news just said that even the Pies thought he'd get 4 weeks but used the evidence that Williams provoked him (the footage they showed was Williams pulling at Holland's jersey) which subsequently caused the suspension to be lighter.

They're also considering legal action against HS for publishing that article about Holland being a dirty player and targeting players, etc.

[dawson]

Where was the mystery star character witness?

Scott Camporeale

Then, maybe the fiend would have got what he deserved.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
That's what the timekeeper said to himself on Saturday Night to help him sleep.

Don't you know that the Swans have no say in the timekeepers, nor do we provide the timeclock?????

The AFL appoints the timekeepers and Channel 10 (or whatever network is covering the match) provides the timeclock.

In anycase I hardly see what this has to do with Holland hitting Willo when Willo wasn't looking and now thats not only against the rules (and no free kick was paid for it surprise surprise), but it is also classed as assult.

So Holland should count himself very lucky he got 2 weeks because if he broke Willo's jaw, not only would he of got more, he would of found himself in court

[dawson]

Maybe they were fearful of his father going on the Footy Show like David Cloke did last year and that is why it was so light.

[gossipcom]

Originally posted by robbieando
So Holland should count himself very lucky he got 2 weeks because if he broke Willo's jaw, not only would he of got more, he would of found himself in court

If he had broken Willo's jaw he wouldn't have only had to answer to the judiciary, etc but also all the angry Swans fans :mad:

[robbieando]

Originally posted by gossipcom
They're also considering legal action against HS for publishing that article about Holland being a dirty player and targeting players, etc.

I would like to know on what grounds???? Holland was already known as a dirty player before he was reported, so it can hardly damage his repretation and I thought the use of taggers is to target a player.

Eddie think he and Collingwood are above the law and if the law doesn't excist he'll make it up.

[liz]

Originally posted by gossipcom

They're also considering legal action against HS for publishing that article about Holland being a dirty player and targeting players, etc.

LOL

Maybe the Swans should consider legal action against the Magpies for their blotting of Williams' character by insinuating that it was really all his fault. This is what The Age has to say

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663794022.html

some selective quotes

"Holland pinned part of the blame on Williams, saying he was hit first and that he retaliated. The videotape did not support this version of events and, surprisingly, it was not put to Williams, who appeared by teleconference."

"This was the apparent contradiction in the verdict. In his finding, Collis virtually rejected the notion that Williams had been the provocateur, adding that Holland's response was "out of all proportion to what preceded it".

"Oddly enough, the most damning evidence against Holland was presented by his advocate. It was a tape provided by Channel Ten that followed the pair as they made their way around the ground after the incident occurred. It showed Holland mouthing off, goading and annoying Williams in the precise manner that gives taggers a dirty reputation."

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by dawson
Maybe they were fearful of his father going on the Footy Show like David Cloke did last year and that is why it was so light.

How true . I felt embarrassed for Jason Cloke that night .

I think everyone involved, was sorry David Cloke got a guernsey on the Footy Show . Even though he's played the game himself, he reminds me of the Saturday morning, monster father from the local under 7's .

But wow, what a MULLET !

[SWANSBEST]

Magpies' slick defence key to Holland's lenient penalty

August 27, 2003
COLLINGWOOD have learned to present tribunal defences in the manner the club's president Eddie McGuire dresses ? suavely, meticulously.

As a result Brodie Holland will miss just two matches for striking Sydney's Paul Williams some 50 metres off the ball.

Holland pleaded guilty to striking Williams to the face with a well-aimed right jab. It was his third striking conviction in just 70 games of AFL football and his second this season. He will miss Friday's match against Essendon and only one game of the finals campaign.

Holland said that he had been provoked by Williams.

His player advocate Sean Carroll said Collingwood were surprised that Williams himself was not before the tribunal so dastardly were his actions in Saturday's match at Sydney's Telstra Stadium.

The club tendered enhanced video evidence of the incident which showed Williams make some contact to Holland's face before the Collingwood tagger let rip with his right.

The video also showed Holland constantly harass Williams from the moment he was ordered to play on the Sydney midfielder by coach Mick Malthouse.

In handing down the sentence, tribunal chairman Brian Collis said: "We find (Holland's action) an intentional, forceful blow out of all proportion to what had proceeded it."

Holland told the tribunal that he picked up Williams on the instruction from Malthouse.

"Williams hit me in the mouth. I was stunned, I was shocked. I threw my arm straight back at him." It all happened in less than half a second, reckoned his advocate Carroll.

The video shows Williams fall to the ground, get to his feet again to remonstrate with his opponent. Of this Holland said: "He hit me again in the mouth. I was shocked again."

Malthouse gave character evidence on Holland's behalf. The coach traced the player's career from a promising Tasmanian junior to failed Fremantle forward. It was at this stage Collingwood traded to pick him up.

Holland missed the club's finals campaign last year because he was of little influence on the field, Malthouse said. The coach said it was agreed at the start of the season that Holland would have to change his style of play altogether if he was to make something of his life at Collingwood.

"Brodie came to me. He said he really needed to do something with his life," Malthouse said.

So he became an accountable midfielder and has chased best players in the opposition ever since.

Malthouse put it nicely. Players who fail at their second club usually fall out of the system. "He changed his life. He was at the crossroads of his life skills as well as the crossroads of his football skills."

Holland told the tribunal he regretted the incident deeply.

"I'm embarrassed about what I did. I don't usually do that on the football field."

His record ? three striking convictions in 70 games ? might suggest otherwise.

However, in their deliberation on the penalty the tribunal noted that Williams was not injured nor stressed and was able to remonstrate with Holland once he got to his feet. Collis said Williams probably only fell to the ground in the first place because of surprise.

Collingwood had asked the tribunal to be aware that any penalty around finals time was severe. Collis countered that the tribunal does not set the football calendar.

Holland is a very lucky little tagger. He struck Williams when the ball was, according to field umpire Matthew James, 50 metres away. And while the video offered by Collingwood showed Williams make contact, there was no clear evidence of the manner or the force.

The tribunal thought long and hard on the penalty. Two weeks seems very lenient for Holland, who has a record and fast right hand.

Last year on the eve of the grand final Collingwood appealed a tribunal decision that ruled defender Jason Cloke out of the premiership match. That may have worried the tribunal last night.

The Magpies had run a slick, effective defence. They asked only a few questions of Williams when they had the chance. Only after the Sydney player was told he could leave the hearing did both player advocate and Holland accuse him of being the provocateur. Williams had no chance to defend himself.

The first case of the night saw Fremantle forward Paul Medhurst cleared of a charge of kicking. But not before reporting umpire Brett Allen lay on the ground to demonstrate what he had seen.

He suggested that Medhurst, who had been bumped to the ground, had kicked Essendon's Danny Jacob's right calf with his left leg. Had Jacob's calf been a football, Allen suggested, it might have gone as far as 20 metres.

Medhurst also took to the floor in front of the tribunal members and demonstrated how contact was incidental and only occurred because he was flipping back to his feet.'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7077847%255E12270,00.html

[TheHood]

It infuriated me that they hid behind the unwritten "player code" and then when Willo was suspended, sunk the slipper into him.

"I was provoked". boo hoo. I mean who was the tagger here?

[Glenn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gossipcom
[B]Apparently someone on one of the newsgroups said on the footage they showed on tv tonight they showed Willo hitting Holland first, anyone see this footage?

Also quick question, has Willo ever been suspended in his AFL career? I was doing some research on this but couldn't find any info out :(

Pies put blame on Williams (http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,7075937-23210,00.html)

Holland gets two, Dockers in clear
August 26, 2003

COLLINGWOODS'S Brodie Holland escaped with a two-week suspension for an off-ball strike on Sydney's Paul Williams while Fremantle also enjoyed good fortune at the AFL Tribunal tonight.

Docker Paul Medhurst was cleared of kicking Essendon's Danny Jacobs, while fellow Freo forward Jeff Farmer will also be available for the important match with West Coast after scrutiny of his clash with Bomber Andrew Welsh came to nothing.

Holland will miss Friday night's vital game against Essendon and also Collingwood's first final, but could be considered fortunate as he was widely expected to get at least three weeks.

It was a solid punch to the face of Williams ? who was looking away at the time ? some 50 metres off the ball and was the Magpie's second striking charge this season.

However Collingwood tried to portray Williams as the villain.

The club's advocate chose not to confront the Swans midfielder with the accusations when he was being questioned, but afterwards claimed Williams had struck Holland first with a 'jumper punch' to the face.

"It was only because Paul Williams has got his back to the camera that he is not sitting alongside Brodie Holland tonight," advocate Sean Carroll said.

Holland relied heavily on that argument, pleading guilty under provocation.

"I was stunned, I was shocked, I got a blow to the mouth and jaw and in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said.

"I'm not proud of what I did but I didn't hurt the player and it was nothing too untoward.

"I am embarrassed about what I did, I don't usually do that on the footy field."

The tribunal found Holland's retaliation was "out of all proportion to what preceded it", but did take account of character evidence by Pies coach Mick Malthouse and the guilty plea in invoking the lenient sentence.


Only saw the Channel 10 footage and just saw Holland striking Willo

[gossipcom]

Originally posted by SWANSBEST
The Magpies had run a slick, effective defence. They asked only a few questions of Williams when they had the chance. Only after the Sydney player was told he could leave the hearing did both player advocate and Holland accuse him of being the provocateur. Williams had no chance to defend himself.

This is what you call playing dirty and Collingwood succeeded big time last night in the judiciary.

I'd love to see us play Collingwood in the 2nd week of the finals so someone can knock Holland's block off <g>

[sharpie]

What is with these Collingwood bastards. First you've got Collis saying that Willo took a fall out of suprise and not due to the force of the hit (standard etiquette at the tribunal to play down the incident). Next you've got Holland laying the entire blame on Willo. So that if it was Willo being accused, Holland would have been crying bloody murder.

Ah, if only Collingwood can finish 5th and lose in the first week of the finals. Then justice would be done.

[dawson]

I'm not sure what you are all worried about.
It is better that Holland returns sooner so real justice will be meted out like it always has been - on the football field.

Like Cain, he is now a marked man - a fugitive. He has created for himself a reputation from which he can not escape.

The jungle drums on the football grape vine have been beating all over the country - all 15 other teams will now be watching out for him.

[Schneidergirl]

2 weeks?

What a joke. How can anyone think that is fair? There was no play anywhere near them. Willow wasn't even looking at him.

It's just dirrrrrty Collingwood play!

[gossipcom]

I promise last article unless Willo himself comes out and talks about the incident :(

Below is a very good article by Martin Blake.
Holland got lucky (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663794022.html)

Holland can consider himself lucky by half
By Martin Blake
August 27 2003

Brodie Holland got lucky.

As it is, Collingwood's pesky midfielder has let himself and his teammates down and will miss not only Friday's crucial match against Essendon but the Magpies' first final.

His reputation has suffered, for the videotape says it all. There is a confrontation with his opponent, Sydney's Paul Williams, some bumping and pushing.

The Swans' onballer looks away for an instant and Holland punches him in the mouth with his right fist. The ball is 50 metres away.

But it could have been much worse for Holland had tribunal chairman Brian Collis and his panel not been in such a charitable mood.

Holland has a record that suggests he has trouble controlling his emotions. In six seasons, this is his third conviction for striking. One of those was in round one of this season. This was a cowardly act and an off-the-ball incident. He could easily have copped four matches, virtually ending his season, so don't expect an appeal from Collingwood.

We've heard about the Magpie Army, but we thought it referred to the supporters. At the tribunal last night, Holland had not only an advocate but four Collingwood heavies to back him. Mick Malthouse was there, speaking eloquently about Holland's efforts to save his career after he had "not made it as a rover". So was Neil Balme, the football operations man, and Mark Kleiman, his offsider, and Eugene Arocca, the club's legal adviser.

They tried everything. Holland pinned part of the blame on Williams, saying he was hit first and that he retaliated. The videotape did not support this version of events and, surprisingly, it was not put to Williams, who appeared by teleconference.

Malthouse told the tribunal he was disgusted with newspaper coverage of the incident, clearly angry about one article in which an unnamed Swan had called Holland "the new Libba", a reference to former Western Bulldog tagger Tony Liberatore.

This was the apparent contradiction in the verdict. In his finding, Collis virtually rejected the notion that Williams had been the provocateur, adding that Holland's response was "out of all proportion to what preceded it".

Holland looked to be headed towards a month on the sidelines, especially when the panel deliberated for 15 minutes over the penalty. But Collis said they took into account the guilty plea, the fact that Williams was not seriously hurt, and the words of Malthouse, who had told them that Holland had "changed his life" in the past year.

Oddly enough, the most damning evidence against Holland was presented by his advocate. It was a tape provided by Channel Ten that followed the pair as they made their way around the ground after the incident occurred. It showed Holland mouthing off, goading and annoying Williams in the precise manner that gives taggers a dirty reputation.

Holland may have turned his career around. But he needs to sort out which direction he is going now.

[snajik]

Not just a wanker thug, but a liar to boot.

[Dave]

Well if we keep calling him "Libba Holland" that will piss both of them (he and Liberatore) off at the same time. You can't get better value than that!

:p

[dawson]

Maybe now, Holland would prefer to be known just for the Windsor Smith ads.

[Schneidergirl]

This from the SMH

Holland pays price for striking Swan
August 27, 2003



Costly blow: Collingwood's Brodie Holland hits the Swans' Paul Williams.

Collingwood's Brodie Holland was suspended for two matches for an off-the-ball strike on Sydney's Paul Williams while Fremantle enjoyed good fortune at the AFL tribunal last night.

Docker Paul Medhurst was cleared of kicking Essendon's Danny Jacobs, while fellow Freo forward Jeff Farmer will also be available for the important match with West Coast after scrutiny of his clash with Bomber Andrew Welsh came to nothing.

Holland will miss Friday night's vital game against Essendon and also Collingwood's first final. Some observers had predicted he would get three weeks.

Holland let fly with a solid punch to the face of Williams 50 metres off the ball. It was the Magpie's second striking charge this season.

Collingwood tried to portray Williams as the villain. The club's advocate chose not to confront the Swans midfielder with the accusations when he was being questioned, but afterwards said Williams had struck Holland first with a "jumper punch" to the face.

"It was only because Paul Williams has got his back to the camera that he is not sitting alongside Brodie Holland tonight," advocate Sean Carroll said.

Holland relied heavily on that argument, pleading guilty under provocation.

"I was stunned, I was shocked, I got a blow to the mouth and jaw and in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said. "I'm not proud of what I did but I didn't hurt the player and it was nothing too untoward.

"I am embarrassed about what I did, I don't usually do that on the footy field."

The tribunal found Holland's retaliation was "out of all proportion to what preceded it", but did take into account character evidence from Magpies coach Mick Malthouse and the guilty plea in invoking the sentence.

========================

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but neither of them (Holland or Williams) had there back to the camera. Hmmmmm....

[swan_song]

Originally posted by gossipcom
... in an instinctive reaction I threw my arm straight back," Holland said.

Does this mean that as well as being a phylthy little pie ****, he's also a liar...

[Glenn]

Originally posted by swan_song
Does this mean that as well as being a phylthy little pie ****, he's also a liar...

Hmm well seeing there has been no evidence of Willo striking the thug I would say YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheHood]

Did you see how Eddie has declared that the CFC was close to bringing legal action against the HS? I mean seriously, if he had any case or the necessary minerals, he would have. The only reason they didn't is because the HS would have made life hell for them.

I can see the negative articles on CFC for the next 10 years, I mean CFC would win the flag by a point after the siren and the headline would read:

"Collingwood finally break torturous drought with ho hum victory"

Brodie brought this heat on himself, 3 striking suspensions, 2 this year and he is getting complaints gallore from those that he tags.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, the AFL hates Sydney. I must have misread the statistics that said Sydney 14 more free kicks...

OMG! Jason, is that really ALL you can come up with? Why bother wasting your time here if that is all you have? I mean, even your Tony Locket reference in another thread was "5 year old mentality" repertoire

I implore you...

If you require some coaching tips on how to bait and troll, just PM me. Hell, I'll even get my dog to write you some new material to use. It'll be damn better than stale stuff your feeding us at this very moment.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
That's what the timekeeper said to himself on Saturday Night to help him sleep.
"Within the rules"...

And that's what the channel 9 cameramen, filming the last coll v carl game, said after being paid off by Eddie.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
On that basis why can't you get over Brodie?
Jason, why don't you just leave this board, go driving with your buddy Brodie, pull your old fellas out and play soggy biscuit together. I'm sure Brodie can teach you how to play THAT game.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by TheMase
I didn't see Sydney get many free kicks for Collingwood holding hte ball. So what is your point? The umpires were consistant on their ruling on the night. There were few paid to either team, and they let it go.

The free kicks to us were high tackles and push in the backs.
I think you actually miunderstand the game. We had more of the ball, we lost the game. We did nothing with the footy, you were efficient.At the end of the day that is it.

We were first to the ball, we just did nothing with it. Protect the man in front, number one rule in umpiring...
Look Masey, just let Jason be. He's been back to his Black and White la la land where everything he reads is gospel.

I never go to opposition boards, but I bet my bottom dollar that the guys over at Nick's are having a field day with the free kicks non-issue. In fact they are probably all talking so much about it that every opinion spoken about it has become fact. Jason is just "pea-washed" (sic. collingwood term for brainwashed) he can't be helped or reasoned with. Let him be.

/goto Something about Mary...
"Beans and Franks, Beans and Franks"
"He was masturbating. He was masturbating"
/end Something about Mary

[CureTheSane]

Originally posted by snajik
Not just a wanker thug, but a liar to boot.

Well, by the logic of Wobbles supporters, he won't be playing for them next year, as they DEMAND total honesty from their players :D

Personally, I feel that between 2 and 3 weeks was about right, considering 1 or 2 of those would be finals.

By my rule of thumb a suspension of a final, is worth 2 H&A games.
So had it been considered a 5 week (H&A game) offense, then he would have been out for 3.

Willo DID put his fist to Hollands chin, that is clear in the footage, so I guess they maybe took a week or 2 off because of that.

Don't really like that logic though.
If Willo did something wrong, then charge him.
Otherwise, it should be judged as a stand alone incident.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Ruda Wakening
Wouldn't this mean that if he hit PW with a normal immediate reflex/instinctive action, he would have contacted his face front on, not side on when PW was practically walking away ?

Brodie must still be a bit on the slow side. It must have been a case of the old delayed reaction :rolleyes: .

Karma Brodie, karma ...
exactly my thought when I read that comment Ruda. I actually burst out laughing.

2 weeks? meh, it shoulda been 3. But it is finals time. The AFL tribunal is a farce.

[Pink_Lady]

Eddie: For 1 Million- How many weeks will Brodie Holland get?
A. 4 B. 2 C. None or D. 5
Tribunal- I'd like to lock in B. 2 Eddie
Eddie- Final answer? Are you sure? Don't want to change your mind?
T- No, lock it in.
E- Are you sure?
T- Yes, 100%
E- For the million, the question was asked, you answered that Brodie will get 2 weeks....for 1 million....the answer is......C...sorry, but you do leave here with $750,000 anyway. Thanks for playing my game MY WAY...

2 weeks is pathetic....and saying that Willo provocted him is cowardly...love it where he says he was 'embarrased by it', sure you are Brodie, and that's probably why you'll do it again, and again and again.

And another thing- has anyone heard about Eddie spouting off that he was one main reason that there was such a big crowd on Saty night? Well I certainly didn't go for him, and of the 70,000 odd swans supporters, if anyone did decided to brave the cold and rain for Eddie, it was to BOO him and send him on his merry way! :)

[Nico]

Everyone is missing a very relevant fact in this whole issue.

WHERE WAS THE BLOODY THIRD UMPIRE?

Wasn't the main reason they gave for a 3rd umpire to pick up this behind the play stuff. And why not throw in the emergency umpire. What was he doing at the time?

This point has not been raised by anyone in the media.

If they were doing their job Willo would have had a free kick on the goal line, which indeed may have changed the flow of the game.

To say that I am pissed off by this fact is the understatement of the century so far.

[penga]

Originally posted by Nico
WHERE WAS THE BLOODY THIRD UMPIRE?

standing right behind the two looking at the play and not the incident...

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by scurrilous
And that's what the channel 9 cameramen, filming the last coll v carl game, said after being paid off by Eddie.

If you're going to troll champ, at least stick to the facts. The incident you refer to occured in the second quarter.

[Glenn]

Hmmm unless I am missing something there is no mention of what quarter it happend in :confused:

[Norris Lurker]

With this week's astronomical events, is it any wonder the martians have taken over the tribunal again?

[gossipcom]

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore articles but I couldn't resist this one:

Debate rages over Holland (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/27/1061663852067.html)

Debate rages over Holland
August 27, 2003

Sydney coach Paul Roos took a swipe at Collingwood's AFL tribunal tactics as a furore erupted over Magpies tagger Brodie Holland's two-match striking ban.

Roos suggested the media outcry over the leniency of the sentence Holland received for punching Swan Paul Williams in the face was "pretty much spot-on".

Holland's defence advocate Sean Carroll claimed Williams had struck the Collingwood player first with a "jumper punch" to the face, resulting in the lesser sentence.

But the allegation that he provoked the incident was not put to Williams when he gave evidence by video-link to the tribunal.

Roos said Williams' name had been sullied as a result.

"(Williams) went in there in good faith to present his evidence," Roos said.

"It's disappointing he didn't have a chance to at least speak up on his own behalf.

"But I think that's been pretty well documented in the media so I don't think we need to make too much fuss about it."

Williams refused to comment on the incident amid calls the AFL should appeal the leniency of the ban.

But AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson launched a spirited defence of the tribunal over the Holland penalty.

"I don't think there's any contemplation of the AFL appealing," Jackson told Melbourne radio station 3AW.

"We didn't hear the evidence, the tribunal did.

"We've got total confidence in the tribunal and the two-game penalty would stand from our viewpoint.

"Only the people who were at the tribunal actually heard the evidence so it's a case of whether you have confidence in the tribunal and the people who are on it and we absolutely have."

Jackson said he was puzzled by the extent of the public uproar over the Holland decision.

?2003 AAP

[dawson]

Like I said - next time he walks on the field......he will be stretchered off it.

[daniel f]

big head last night on melbourne radio 3aw sports today program accused channel 10 of selective editing,and said that the start of thr williams holland incident had had been cut out during editing,channel ten today said though they were aware of eddies comments there lawyers were still waiting for a copy of the interview and they would then look at what action they would take if any over the comments.this interview happened about 40 mins before the tribunal hearingcollingwoods tactics in this whole incident are just another example of eddie once again thinking he and his club thinking they are above any repurcusions and pretty much make up the rules as they go.isnt it about time someone in the afl set ed straight on this?

[snajik]

Don't worry Eddie, it's surely only a matter of time before we rid ourselves of the four competing FTA channels and we are offered the CH 9 view at all times.

Alternatively, you could always become the public face of the four other channels. Why not, after all your ugly fat head is everywhere else I look.

[neored]

Originally posted by TheHood
Did you see how Eddie has declared that the CFC was close to bringing legal action against the HS? I mean seriously, if he had any case or the necessary minerals, he would have. The only reason they didn't is because the HS would have made life hell for them.

I can see the negative articles on CFC for the next 10 years, I mean CFC would win the flag by a point after the siren and the headline would read:

"Collingwood finally break torturous drought with ho hum victory"

Brodie brought this heat on himself, 3 striking suspensions, 2 this year and he is getting complaints gallore from those that he tags. \

How naive can you be?!! Eddie was giving the Hun a plug, it would be an uncomfortable situation for Collingwood to bring legal action against the Hun since their president is an employee of the paper.

[penga]

Originally posted by neored
\

How naive can you be?!! Eddie was giving the Hun a plug, it would be an uncomfortable situation for Collingwood to bring legal action against the Hun since their president is an employee of the paper.

i wasnt aware of that... how bloody typical though... :rolleyes:

[TheHood]

Originally posted by neored
How naive can you be?!! Eddie was giving the Hun a plug, it would be an uncomfortable situation for Collingwood to bring legal action against the Hun since their president is an employee of the paper.

A plug? Why doesn't he give his mouth a go...and in the other hole put a plug?

[neored]

Originally posted by penga
i wasnt aware of that... how bloody typical though... :rolleyes:

he "writes" a column that is supposed to contain news and events, but is instead a bloated and blatant promotional tool for his interests. Still.... it makes great toilet paper..

Here's a rather interesting but lengthy look at McEgo's dual/triple/quadriple interests.

Eddie watch (http://www.crikey.com.au/media/2003/08/28-0002.html)

Here's a little joke from efc bb.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Eddie McGuire: The chicken was provoked into crossing the road, it has been targeted by the media.

Michael Malthouse: We take chickens out of their pens at a very early age and demand that they cross the road... sometimes they dont quite manage it.

[Mel_C]

One thing that has annoyed me about this incident is that it was caught by a camera filming a segment for a childrens show on Channel 10!!

The whole point of introducing trial by video was so that behind the play incidents that weren't seen by umpires would get caught by video. However, in this case there would have been no footage if it weren't for the filming for the kid's program and Holland would have got away with it.

It seems to me that alot of the behind the play incidents this year have NOT been captured on video (i.e. Camporeale and Holland earlier this year). A majority of the video reports have been incidents in clear view of the umpire!!

The 2 week sentence was weak and for him to throw up the defence of provocation when he hit Williams while his head was turned away from him and watching the play was a disgrace. For Eddie to harp on about it and think it is a valid excuse shows what a moron he is. You can bet $1 million if it was a swans player punching a magpie he would take out front and back page ads about it, plus dedicate a 30 minute program on Channel 9.

And finally onto that scragger Libba. When I read that he said that Paul Kelly only played for Paul Kelly and never played for the swans I was FUMING :mad: !!!!! The nerve of that wanker to even suggest that proves was a small small small small man he is. And to say that he isn't a Champion. HELLO!!!!! Where have you been living Libba?? And the only evidence he came up with was the game where we beat them by 15 goals (?). He said that Kelly didn't enjoy the game and he didn't shake his hand at the end. Well maybe he didn't enjoy the game because he had to play on YOU. And did it ever occur to you that because of the type of dirty player that you became, Paul Kelly of all players did not want to shake your hand.

Ok now I got that off my chest :).

[daniel f]

cant believe that on thursday on footy show big head ed was still having a dip at paul williams and the sydney footy club,once again isnt it time for someone at the afl to let dick-ed know that he cant just go around making deragatory comment about players and clubs and not be accountable

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Mel_C

Ok now I got that off my chest :).

Here, here! Nicely vented :)

[TheHood]

I reckon White Line Fever is at its best on Friday nights and this week was no exception.

Steve Price was on fire and did not hold back on CFC or Eddie, he was absolutely hilarious.

Andrew Maher was also revved up re the Holland incident, it really was an entertaining hour.

Did anyone else catch this

BTW, damn Pies won tonight. We just need Freo and Port to stand tall this weekend.

[daniel f]

Originally posted by TheHood
I reckon White Line Fever is at its best on Friday nights and this week was no exception.

Steve Price was on fire and did not hold back on CFC or Eddie, he was absolutely hilarious.

Andrew Maher was also revved up re the Holland incident, it really was an entertaining hour.

Did anyone else catch this

BTW, damn Pies won tonight. We just need Freo and Port to stand tall this weekend. was a very interesting show friday,pity its not on free too air so more people would see the differing views of media commentators,unfortunately some people just take everything eddie and his minions say as gospel