TOPIC:

ROYAL 2019 wrote: Very fair assessment Cardy, my personal view is no harm to the player so I would think a warning or one week is heaps. You bring up some good points Cardy about the attitudes of some in the WAFL and they exist at every club.

Spot on guys, that was 2 weeks every day of the week, glad to see WP went into bat for Kody but I would have left it alone.

Just like I said after the Wulff report, if the player gets up and plays on then a free kick is enough.

After Cardy told me what time it occurred I looked at it and I think that is one of the softest hits I have seen get a suspension. If Bennell wasn't a as big as a piece of wet lettuce he wouldn't have been knocked off his feet.

The original offer was one week (plus the grand final loading, which took it to two). So it would have been only one week if it happened during the season.
The tribunal then decided it was worth three weeks (plus an added week for the grand final loading), which took it to four weeks.
I think West Perth's irritation stems from the fact that the review panel has given reasonably soft penalties all year. There's nothing wrong with that. But the review panel and the tribunal should be consistent.
In my opinion, the Manning incident should attract two weeks during the season and three for a grand final. However, that is not the precedent the review panel set. there were many similar incidents this year which received a reprimand or just one week.
The tribunal will be a major topic of discussion over the summer. At the moment, there are three categories which determine penalty (contact - high, body etc, impact - severe, high, medium, low, intent - intentional, reckless, negligent). Some of the clubs want an extra category to be added - extent of injury to the victim.

waflover wrote: The original offer was one week (plus the grand final loading, which took it to two). So it would have been only one week if it happened during the season.
The tribunal then decided it was worth three weeks (plus an added week for the grand final loading), which took it to four weeks.
I think West Perth's irritation stems from the fact that the review panel has given reasonably soft penalties all year. There's nothing wrong with that. But the review panel and the tribunal should be consistent.
In my opinion, the Manning incident should attract two weeks during the season and three for a grand final. However, that is not the precedent the review panel set. there were many similar incidents this year which received a reprimand or just one week.
The tribunal will be a major topic of discussion over the summer. At the moment, there are three categories which determine penalty (contact - high, body etc, impact - severe, high, medium, low, intent - intentional, reckless, negligent). Some of the clubs want an extra category to be added - extent of injury to the victim.

The tribunal should be suspended for the shambles of a sympathy reprimand they gave Wulff in the Prelim because he was retiring, he now looks like playing on, they are made to look bigger dicks than they currently are !!!

Shit I hope the Feral arsehole doesnt come to WP when they dump him!!!

When it comes to competency and consistency the WAFC and its tribunal are the antithesis of same. I did not see the incident so I cannat talk to the incident and the length of the suspesion. But what I can do is highlight the treatment dished out to Travis Casserly who received a suspension 18 months more than anyone else found guilty of the same breach anywhere in the world.

Like the WAFC, the tribunal is answerable to no-one.

swan42 wrote: When it comes to competency and consistency the WAFC and its tribunal are the antithesis of same. I did not see the incident so I cannat talk to the incident and the length of the suspesion. But what I can do is highlight the treatment dished out to Travis Casserly who received a suspension 18 months more than anyone else found guilty of the same breach anywhere in the world.

Like the WAFC, the tribunal is answerable to no-one.

Yeh mate they sucked the life out of Casserlys career and branded him amongst the true drug cheats likes of Codswalloper from East Perth,Essendon FC and co etc etc

yea, and I believe all casserly did was take some cold & flue pills. BTW cardy, don't forget devon is coaching the boys and he was bigger nutter than wulfy. my paraplegic mate was done for drug use during the Para Olympics. he was tested after a game of basketball, he was done for using WD40. anyway im not here to bitch, off to get another bottle.
i would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

There are the one-eyed clubmen, the uninformed, the educated, the narcissistic and the patronizing, the constructive writers and a variety of decent theorists
And further to this …
1. Tackle/Bump; The act in question was not a ‘Tackle’ – it was a ‘Bump’, this is not hair-splitting, it is a fact that the two actions are obviously different . A player’s back is not his shoulder – Manning hit Bennell with the back of his shoulder blade (Kody was twisting away at the time, not even looking at him) …Bennells head was ‘not’ hit – this was also borne out by the 1st tribunal hearing and the 3rd and then by Bennell.
2. The WAFL commission remains a source of elitism & autocrats, ill-conceived and abandoned of fair decisions consistent with precedent (much like the AFL)
2(a) Casserlys penalty was an absolute disgrace of ludicrous proportions – The questions remains ‘WHY’
3. Reading play; Thankfully there are players such as Kody Manning who are able to read a play from 20 meters; because other players are unable to do so why is it seen by individuals as an unreasonable attempt, I too have watched this part of the DVD several times now and I see a player endeavouring to prevent the ball moving forward – Believe me- If Manning wanted Bennell out – he would have been OUT.
4. Anger - I would have thought that an ANGRY player would ‘go on’ with a malicious act, would continue to press an opponent’s buttons, Manning scarcely ever does this, he practically always gets up and walks or moves away, he is always in control – just Hard!! When Manning is hit/bumped or tackled, he does the same, gets up and moves on...
5. Hindsight - Yes WP should have taken the first number of weeks given – But I am guessing with the inconsistency of the tribunal through the year and then with EP’s Wulff’s receiving of two (2) reprimands it seemed worth the challenge …
6. If Manning’s name was KERR this would not have seen the light of day, AFL gets a ride…
7. Injury; If any player playing WAFL (AFL) Football fears injury – ‘stop playing’ – this is a contact sport. Not filled with malevolent intent but a CONTACT SPORT! Being trivial enough to bring this aspect to this act and then by omission to the game is simplistic and unreasonable

The WAFL tribunal rules and Regs are the same as the AFL – the only difference is the ‘W’ in front – I guess with big brothers inability to get precedent correct in its own tribunal findings and the million $ spent on the inability to do so – what hope does our begging-redheaded-bucktoothed-freckled-cockeyed child in the WAFL have of doing any better?? I’m guessing the W stands for WEAK!!

1 week is fair enough. Loading made it 2.
Had to be rated more serious than Wulffs reprimand as it was late and he left the ground in making contact.

Time to move on.