TOPIC:

JB wrote: I can't beleive the latest crap from the MRP. Ballantyne straight to tribunal. Franklin not mentioned. I don't believe Franklin should have been sighted, but what was the difference between the two. I can't figure out how they arrive at the decisions they make, there is no rhyme or reason. The game is called GayFL by the Kiwis, they are dead right its as camp as a row of tents.

Spot on JB, faaaarken ridiculous putting him up for what was one of the best bone jarring bumps you will ever see from side on. If it was front on then completely different story. They might as well make them wear padding and head gear next year.

What is remarkable about the Ballantyne and Franklin incidents is EVEN Gerard Whateley thinks both decisions were incorrect and given his love for Geelong and as a consequence his dislike for the Dockers is particularly illuminating.

?

What did Whatley say Swan, ?

I cant stand him but it is absolutely appauling that Ballantyne is even getting looked at. It was the perfect hip and shoulder, and I couldnt see anywhere where he hit him in the head. Plus Ballantyne is a fucking midget so to hit someone in the head they either need to be a midget too or they have to be bending down or on the ground

He said that the Ballantyne bump was within the rules and should not have been referred to the tribunal and that Franklin did what is against the rules and should have been graded and his penalty shold be based on that grading.

Gives the best point of view on this issue.

www.foxsports.com.au/video?v=a-tale-of-two-bumps_1226948814544

swan42 wrote: He said that the Ballantyne bump was within the rules and should not have been referred to the tribunal and that Franklin did what is against the rules and should have been graded and his penalty shold be based on that grading.

From what I have read of the indicident the difference was purely the impact on the victim , the crows players blacked out for a short while, the GC player didnt, thats what I have heard that the MRP went on to split the two.

Not shooting the messenger in you; the cynics amongst us might suggest that the point of distinction that was used was the surnames of the players.

To further support the assertion that it is a joke was the complete lack of replays of the incident during the game. Given the propensity of those televising the matches to play, ad nauseum, any incident involving Ballantyne or Crowley, the lack of replays speaks volumes

if Ballantyne goes it will make a mockery of the Goodes on Selwood incident where Goodes left the ground, made high contact after the ball had been moved on from the immediate area, knocked Selwood arse up but wasn't cited.