Lloyd incident set for review

[ScottH]

Lloyd incident set for review (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/15/1116095853358.html) The DH has to go. How many times can you hit opponents recklessly and late and not get suspeneded???

[Dave]

Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire:

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/05/15/1116095853355.html

That $20000 sure is the gift that keeps on giving. :mad:

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Dave
Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire:

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/05/15/1116095853355.html

That $20000 sure is the gift that keeps on giving. :mad: Twice this year , the umps have helped them,.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Dave
Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire:

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/05/15/1116095853355.html

That is just abysmal!! :frown :mad:

[prenda]

Originally posted by ScottH
Lloyd incident set for review (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2005/05/15/1116095853358.html) The DH has to go. How many times can you hit opponents recklessly and late and not get suspeneded???

reckless is and understatement.this guy has to look at his style,one day he is going injure some one badly.

[Dave]

Originally posted by prenda
one day he is going injure some one badly.

Or mess his hair up :p

[ScottH]

Originally posted by prenda
reckless is and understatement.this guy has to look at his style,one day he is going injure some one badly. Remember Thurgood, Rnd 2 or 3???

[Mike_B]

Well, he's gotten off scott-free again. Gehrig cleared too. Lade has received a reprimand (70.3 pts) and Judd offered a one-match ban.

Full details here (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=203088).

[liz]

I've been prepared to give the new system a go, even after Jolly (and arguably Maxfield) appeared slightly harshly dealt with.

But this week's assessments are a joke and indicate that there are darlings of the competition that are judged by different rules.

Now I know we want to see the best players out there, not sitting on the sidelines, but how Judd's actions can be assessed as negligent and in play is beyond me. He and Baker were a fair way away from where the umpire was about to bounce the ball. How can that be 'in-play'. And surely to throw your elbow back with some force (and obviously knowing that your opponent is behind you) can be anything less than reckless is also hard to understand.

As for Lloyd, compare the likelihood of his action causing damage to his opponent with that of Gehrig's actions a fortnight ago. One was never going to cause any injury yet the other could have been very very nasty had Lloyd connected a little higher. Surely the whole point of suspensions is to deter players from actions that could cause injury to an opponent?

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Mike_B
Well, he's gotten off scott-free again. Gehrig cleared too. Lade has received a reprimand (70.3 pts) and Judd offered a one-match ban.

Full details here (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=203088). I resent that comment, I may be cheap but I'm not free!!!

The thing with the Judd incident, it was probably a culmination of being held onto continually thoughout the game and the frustration of the umpires inability, to pay him a free kick, for the infringemnt. The umpires should cop a week for being so useless.


As for Llloyd, he will kill someone and still get only a reprimand for being reckless. Similar to Hird/Wakelin, when Hird tried to break his spine. And as Liz said, Gehrig gets a week for a love tap.

[giant]

This is surely (part of) the point. The reason we have three umpires is purportedly to stop this sort of nonsense and he was clearly being held. Spectators got to see the Judds not the Bakers.

Judd should cop it sweet for a reckless (not negligent) action but qns should be asked of the umpires as to why they let it get to this situation.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by giant
This is surely (part of) the point. The reason we have three umpires is purportedly to stop this sort of nonsense and he was clearly being held. Spectators got to see the Judds not the Bakers.

Judd should cop it sweet for a reckless (not negligent) action but qns should be asked of the umpires as to why they let it get to this situation. Big White Stick!!!!

[dread and might]

just when i thought i couldn't despise them anymore:mad: