Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane 16s
Nat Fyfe can accept 2 games for striking Jordan Lewis. Penalty impacted by previous suspensions & carry over points, keeping ban at 2 games.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane 50s
Daniel Wells charged with both striking & rough conduct separately v Shaun Higgins.Can accept 1 game in total.Penalty impacted by gd record
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane 1m
Brent Harvey has been referred directly to tribunal for misconduct against Liam Picken. He not able to accept an early plea in this matter.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane 1m
Jordan Roughead ($2100), Mark Austin ($1200), Lindsay Thomas ($1200) &Aaron Black ($1200) can each accept sanctions for engaging in a melee
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane 1m
MRP has laid 10 charges from Rd 21. Matthew Stokes and Pearce Hanley can each accept $900 for negligent umpire contact.
Full Statement
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-18/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-21
WOW thats Fyfe Beams SJ Pendles in my mids that all could be out looks like im trading out Beams and Fyfe for Priddis Barlow
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/nat-fyfe-and-daniel-wells-offered-suspensions-by-afl-mrp-brent-harvey-referred-directly-to-tribunal/story-fni5f22o-1227028270771
This week will be one of the ugliest in SC history!
Fyfe, Beams, Ward, Boomer, JPK and Pendles.
I give up.
Haha lol
Also include Bartel as he might not be 100% to play
Welcome to "Donut City"
What was boomers incident? How many weeks is he looking at?
Looking like a nightmare week coming up Fyfe will hurt a lot with all the other outs in the mids and Harvey did not know he was even in trouble ?
Quote from: Hazza09 on August 18, 2014, 04:00:30 PM
Also include Bartel as he might not be 100% to play
Hope he plays or i gotta play Bews if named theres prob only 30 odd pts
Quote from: Spite on August 18, 2014, 04:01:16 PM
What was boomers incident? How many weeks is he looking at?
I`m interested to know as well as this is all it says in the full statement
Brent Harvey, North Melbourne, has been charged with Misconduct against Liam Picken, Western Bulldogs, during the second quarter of the Round 21 match between North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday August 17, 2014
Pendles, Beams, SJ, JPK, Fyfe, Boomer
k.
don't forget Suckling prob wont play either
and Im done lol
I hope Acres plays this week
Quote from: Ricochet on August 18, 2014, 04:06:12 PM
and Im done lol
Me too, Acres is my only hope to avoid a donut.
this is why you can't take supercoach too seriously! 4 players out this week for me, i'll need a miracle to win
Yeah I'm hoping on Acres too lads.. This is ridiculous.
With Boomer looking like missing too, I may be forced to play either of Gunston/Chad which isn't the worst thing
From a source- Boomer's incident is being mentioned in the same sentence as Brian Lake's a few weeks ago.
Also, Acres didn't even play for Sandringham last week, so forget about him.
I'm sitting 15th, and have JPK, Fyfe, Beams, Harvey, Ward (TBC) and Pendles (likely to play), with Cameron, and Pavlich covering them all. Looking at at least 2-3 donuts.
Also hearing that Stevie's foot is much worse than first thought.
At least for people with him (I've given up caring), Bartel should come back from his corkie.
Hmm with Fyfe a confirmed 2 weeker I can get Priddis Sloane combo.. If JPK is out Ill move Wingard to M8 and play Ambrose or Cameron at F6..don't trust Shenton.
wow this is going to cause chaos all over :(
Quote from: GoLions16 on August 18, 2014, 04:02:47 PM
Pendles, Beams, SJ, JPK, Fyfe, Boomer
k.
and Callan Ward,
was ranked 234 last week, my centreline will consist of Selwood and ummmmm luke mcdonald
Ward is a calf I've heard, wouldn't be too surprised if he misses the rest of the year to be honest.
You know what has brought all this on - the hundreds of "finish my midfield" threads that started about 5 weeks ago. The SC gods hate that sort of talk. You ain't finished until you're finished with.
Quote from: _wato on August 18, 2014, 04:18:45 PM
Ward is a calf I've heard, wouldn't be too surprised if he misses the rest of the year to be honest.
Yep think he's gone plus Beams plus Fyfe unless he can get it reduced and Boomer to it looks like , Stevie J doubtful JPK unlikley Pendles not a certainty Suckling did I miss anyone ?
I was watching the North game... Very very surprised Harvey is in there
Wtf did he do lol, was absolutely no talk during/after the game on it
Quote from: shaker on August 18, 2014, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: _wato on August 18, 2014, 04:18:45 PM
Ward is a calf I've heard, wouldn't be too surprised if he misses the rest of the year to be honest.
Yep think he's gone plus Beams plus Fyfe unless he can get it reduced and Boomer to it looks like , Stevie J doubtful JPK unlikley Pendles not a certainty Suckling did I miss anyone ?
Cloke & maybe Bartel. I wonder who wins the donut contest this week. I have 2 guaranteed and will be sweating on Pendles & Bartel.
Quote from: caluuum on August 18, 2014, 04:33:00 PM
I was watching the North game... Very very surprised Harvey is in there
Wtf did he do lol, was absolutely no talk during/after the game on it
Yeah same mate, I'm very suspicious about it.. Someone said it could have the ramifications that Brian Lake's suspension did?
Think the worrying factor also is that the MRP didn't even look at it, and he's been sent straight to the tribunal, ugh
Dam fyfe! Was hoping for only one week! Need ZOB to play and only one of Pendles/JPK to get up to avoid a donut.
Beams > Priddis
Fyfe > Barlow
Ward > Sloane next week
All I could find on Boomer..
NORTH Melbourne could be without two gun midfielders for Saturday's clash with Adelaide after Daniel Wells was offered a one-match suspension by the Match Review Panel and an incident involving Brent Harvey was referred straight to the Tribunal.
The MRP cited Harvey with misconduct after a non-broadcast camera captured the veteran slamming Western Bulldogs tagger Liam Picken into the turf.
Harvey then struck Picken with a forearm to the throat.
The incident was viewed to be serious enough to warrant an adjudication from the Tribunal.
Quote from: Bully on August 18, 2014, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: shaker on August 18, 2014, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: _wato on August 18, 2014, 04:18:45 PM
Ward is a calf I've heard, wouldn't be too surprised if he misses the rest of the year to be honest.
Yep think he's gone plus Beams plus Fyfe unless he can get it reduced and Boomer to it looks like , Stevie J doubtful JPK unlikley Pendles not a certainty Suckling did I miss anyone ?
Cloke & maybe Bartel. I wonder who wins the donut contest this week. I have 2 guaranteed and will be sweating on Pendles & Bartel.
Think you are ok with Bartel
Still can't believe this shizen haha
I'll have no zeros if..
Trade Beams and Fyfe.
Bartel and Pendles get named.
DPP honeychurch and parker to cover JPK.
Bench honeychurch and c.cameron on.
Also need Impy to get named to cover Boomer.
Chances of all this going to plan? 2.3% 8) haha
Good luck all.
Hahaha flower this, thank god for EPL.
Its cricket season now isnt it?
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-18/boomer-booked
Video of the Harvey incident
Doesn't look good
Fyfe just making sure he didn't poll the most votes. How lad is the afl now?
Yeah looks pretty average
Boomer gone for 2-3 I think
Flower u Boomer- I had a feeling i should have gotten Gray when I had the choice between the 2.
He has not only outscored Boomer - now Boomer may cost me my league games too. Just when I thought OK - I've got 2 trades I can cover Fyfe and Beams..
now i remember why i stopped playing cash league after last year.... THIS IS WHY!!
So I've got 3 of my 10 mids playing this week, and no trades left
LOL! That's all I can do!
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on August 18, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
So I've got 3 of my 10 mids playing this week, and no trades left
LOL! That's all I can do!
Raging Favourite for the "W"? :P
Worst case scenario, I've got six premium mids out. Best case scenario not much better. I would take Hartung and Honeychurch playing in a heartbeat! I will be stuck with one trade left after using two this week. Wish I could use the third!
I wouldn't wish injury on anyone, but...
is it SO wrong to hope for a bout of one week gastro for the PODs in my cash league opponent's team? Only chance I have to win...
Fyfe to contest his 2 match ban at the tribunal.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-19/twogame-ban-for-fyfe
Quote from: ben_020285 on August 19, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
Fyfe to contest his 2 match ban at the tribunal.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-19/twogame-ban-for-fyfe
In a sense, it would suck if he manages to argue his way down to 1 match. For me at least. You'd basically have to hang on to him for the SC GF but then that means I have to trade someone else out for an upgrade so I get a worse player... at the moment Fyfe and Beams out with 350k to spend lets me get anyone I want, hello Priddis and Barlow. But if I hang on to Fyfe, it becomes Beams and M.Crouch out for worse options - one of whom will then be wasted riding the pine when Fyfe comes back...
Well high and low impact which it certainly looked like must be contesting the intentional part ?
Quote from: shaker on August 19, 2014, 12:24:49 PM
Well high and low impact which it certainly looked like must be contesting the intentional part ?
I think they're contesting high vs body as Lewis raises his arm as Fyfe makes contact, so Lewis in a sense deflected it into his own head. Hard case to argue as the MRP has basically take the stance that the "attacking" player is responsible for where the strike lands but it definitely looks as though the intent wasn't to whack him in the head.
Don't think he can get off 2 weeks. Only risks 50ish carry-over points doing it so no harm done.
Quote from: batt on August 19, 2014, 01:21:01 PM
Don't think he can get off 2 weeks. Only risks 50ish carry-over points doing it so no harm done.
TBH in a just world I reckon he has a fair case for 1 week, intentional body contact and incidental head contact BUT the way the MRP have been ruling these things I think he'll stay at 2 and they're just rolling the dice because as you say nothing to lose. Kinda indicates the state of the system though if they're having a crack because who knows what the tribunal will say. If the interpretation of the rules was clear and consistent tribunals should only end up sitting for direct referrals and the odd dispute once in a blue moon.
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 19, 2014, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: batt on August 19, 2014, 01:21:01 PM
Don't think he can get off 2 weeks. Only risks 50ish carry-over points doing it so no harm done.
TBH in a just world I reckon he has a fair case for 1 week, intentional body contact and incidental head contact BUT the way the MRP have been ruling these things I think he'll stay at 2 and they're just rolling the dice because as you say nothing to lose. Kinda indicates the state of the system though if they're having a crack because who knows what the tribunal will say. If the interpretation of the rules was clear and consistent tribunals should only end up sitting for direct referrals and the odd dispute once in a blue moon.
If he and harvey get off.... Oh the rejoice!!!!
I think Fyfe should go for Trial By Combat.
He seems to be good at it ::)
Boomer got rub out for 3 weeks
3 weeks for Boomer
North Melbourne @NorthKangaroos 3m
Brent Harvey has been given a three-week suspension, with 341 points in total #NMFC
by by finals
by by career
Quote from: CFC 1979 on August 19, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
by by finals
by by career
Will be playing in the semi-final.
maybe .. maybe not
gotta get over them bombers first
When will the AFL take a stance and start punishing scraggers that make it a miserable time for the good players to the point where they flip out and do something stupid, it happens too often. Those who retaliate always get the rough end of the pineapple, while the good for nothing no talent spuds that pinch and scrag all game get nothing.
By the sounds of things Boomer's people will appeal.
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:14:38 PM
When will the AFL take a stance and start punishing scraggers that make it a miserable time for the good players to the point where they flip out and do something stupid, it happens too often. Those who retaliate always get the rough end of the pineapple, while the good for nothing no talent spuds that pinch and scrag all game get nothing.
100% agree.
If they face away from the ball in a marking contest and make contact - free kick.
Just apply that to around stoppages.
Quote from: tor01doc on August 19, 2014, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:14:38 PM
When will the AFL take a stance and start punishing scraggers that make it a miserable time for the good players to the point where they flip out and do something stupid, it happens too often. Those who retaliate always get the rough end of the pineapple, while the good for nothing no talent spuds that pinch and scrag all game get nothing.
100% agree.
If they face away from the ball in a marking contest and make contact - free kick.
Just apply that to around stoppages.
It makes my blood boil doc, not just from a fantasy perspective either. A legend like Boomer who plays footy the way it is intended has to tolerate a parasite jockey riding his back all day, frustrating the living daylights out of him. We all just want to see the best players going round playing great footy.
Nathan Schmook: Jury won't need to deliberate.
Fyfe is guilty and will miss two games with 76.5 carryover points.
Story soon on AFL.com.au
Thanks folks.
Fyfe fails 2 it is
(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/06/10/1226661/398227-ryan-crowley.jpg)
You talkin to me
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
Agree about what's been said about taggers playing face on auto free kick but players like Boomer and Stevie J have got to stop overreacting and getting rubbed out , you don't see Gaz , Pendles and other good mids doing crap like that .
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
In what way? Lewis wasn't "running with" Fyfe ???
A good 10-12 players at least get tagged each week but are able to control themselves, Harvey and Fyfe should not be praised for being cowards and cheap shotting their opponenets
So...how is the umpiring of this great game going?... :'(
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 19, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
In what way? Lewis wasn't "running with" Fyfe ???
Langford?
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 08:15:03 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 19, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
In what way? Lewis wasn't "running with" Fyfe ???
Langford?
So because Langford is tagging Fyfe he lashes out and strikes Lewis ???
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 19, 2014, 08:19:43 PM
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 08:15:03 PM
Quote from: Rusty00 on August 19, 2014, 07:48:27 PM
Quote from: Ramus on August 19, 2014, 07:37:22 PM
Fyfe another victim of a "run with" player.
In what way? Lewis wasn't "running with" Fyfe ???
Langford?
So because Langford is tagging Fyfe he lashes out and strikes Lewis ???
he lashed out at both LAngford and Lewis......
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on August 19, 2014, 07:49:07 PM
A good 10-12 players at least get tagged each week but are able to control themselves, Harvey and Fyfe should not be praised for being cowards and cheap shotting their opponenets
I am in an agreeable mood tonight.
Quote from: CFC 1979 on August 19, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
by by finals
by by career
you too can get a membership @ North for 2015 season to watch boomer play his 400th, he's already signed.
On the bright side, at least I have plenty of loophole options this week.
Freo challenging Fyfe's 2 weeks again tomorrow night.
Quote from: shaker on August 20, 2014, 07:44:20 PM
Freo challenging Fyfe's 2 weeks again tomorrow night.
Yeah can someone explain how it went down to me? I was following Schmook's live chat and it seemed like it didn't even go to the jury, the chair just said "nah mate you're done" and threw the book at him? From the vision I've seen I reckon Fyfe's defense is spot on, the intentional contact was body level, not head level... Did I miss something?
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 20, 2014, 08:17:40 PMYeah can someone explain how it went down to me? I was following Schmook's live chat and it seemed like it didn't even go to the jury, the chair just said "nah mate you're done" and threw the book at him? From the vision I've seen I reckon Fyfe's defense is spot on, the intentional contact was body level, not head level... Did I miss something?
Fyfe's camp asked for the hit to be graded as follows:
-reckless if high contact
-intentional if body contact
I'm fairly sure it was thrown out because Fyfe's camp admitted the hit was intentional, therefore the chair said "if you admit to hitting intentionally, we can't grade it any other way, no matter where you intended to hit them" and therefore threw it out.
To me, that seems pretty common-sensical. If you intend to hit someone, you should be accountable for wherever you hit them. I find it ludicrous that a player could get off by saying their intent was not to hit them in the head, and therefore it should not be graded as intentional contact. That is entirely subjective and would set a precedent for other players to contest their charges in a similar way.
I will be extremely disappointed in the MRP if he wins the appeal.
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 20, 2014, 08:17:40 PM
Quote from: shaker on August 20, 2014, 07:44:20 PM
Freo challenging Fyfe's 2 weeks again tomorrow night.
Yeah can someone explain how it went down to me? I was following Schmook's live chat and it seemed like it didn't even go to the jury, the chair just said "nah mate you're done" and threw the book at him? From the vision I've seen I reckon Fyfe's defense is spot on, the intentional contact was body level, not head level... Did I miss something?
Promising and much needed, 1 week is acceptable.
Quote from: batt on August 20, 2014, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 20, 2014, 08:17:40 PMYeah can someone explain how it went down to me? I was following Schmook's live chat and it seemed like it didn't even go to the jury, the chair just said "nah mate you're done" and threw the book at him? From the vision I've seen I reckon Fyfe's defense is spot on, the intentional contact was body level, not head level... Did I miss something?
Fyfe's camp asked for the hit to be graded as follows:
-reckless if high contact
-intentional if body contact
I'm fairly sure it was thrown out because Fyfe's camp admitted the hit was intentional, therefore the chair said "if you admit to hitting intentionally, we can't grade it any other way, no matter where you intended to hit them" and therefore threw it out.
To me, that seems pretty common-sensical. If you intend to hit someone, you should be accountable for wherever you hit them. I find it ludicrous that a player could get off by saying their intent was not to hit them in the head, and therefore it should not be graded as intentional contact. That is entirely subjective and would set a precedent for other players to contest their charges in a similar way.
I will be extremely disappointed in the MRP if he wins the appeal.
Haha I'm almost completely the opposite, I'll be disappointed if it doesn't get downgraded to one week. I accept the logic of if you intend to hit then you're responsible for where it lands but isn't it a bit like murder vs manslaughter (disclaimer: not a lawyer) - if you set out to kill someone and plan it so then yep fair play you're done for murder. But if you set out to teach them a lesson and injure them, but they die as a result, it's manslaughter... the end result was the same but the intention was different. In this case the defense is not that Fyfe wasn't trying to hit him, he's admitting that, but it was Lewis' actions that caused the hit to be high. So the strike was intended to cause body contact, it was not an intentional head strike. Otherwise where would you draw the line, there's heaps of niggle off the ball with shoulders and pushing, if someone ducks their head into a shove is that also then a 2 week offense? The duck-er has created that situation, even if the duck-ee intended to shove in the first place...
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 20, 2014, 08:40:30 PM
Otherwise where would you draw the line, there's heaps of niggle off the ball with shoulders and pushing, if someone ducks their head into a shove is that also then a 2 week offense? The duck-er has created that situation, even if the duck-ee intended to shove in the first place...
As you can probably guess I disagree lol. If a player shoves another player with enough force that the MRP have to look at it, then of course they should get weeks. Don't want a suspension? Don't shove someone so hard (mind you, it'd take a lot of force for the MRP to look at a shove). I don't believe the MRP would ever give leverage to the perpetrator.
Sounds familiar?
QuoteBart: OK, but on my way, I'm going to be doing this: (starts waving arms and walking towards her) If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Lisa: OK, then I'm going to start kicking air like this. (kicks) And if any part of you should fill that air, it's your own fault.
(they walk towards each other, and start fighting)
Yeah fair enough though the bart/lisa thing is a bit oversimplified no? The MRP are basically squashing any time someone touches the general head region of another player so if you go back to my hypothetical duck/shove and apply the same logic as was applied to Fyfe, it's two weeks again. Fyfe's hit on Lewis did nothing, so there wasn't a lot of force in it, certainly no more than what you'd see from a defender on a FF after they score :P He's not saying he should get off, just that the grading wasn't right for the circumstances. I guess I just think the circumstances need to be looked at holistically, the system of "intentional or not" + "body or head" + "sufficient force or not" makes it far too black and white when these incidents rarely are. Part of me agrees in the sense that you don't want to create a situation where violence is accepted as part of the game like ice hockey, but if this is a two week offense then most weeks pretty much everyone should be copping a reprimand or 1 week for intentional body contact based off the general niggle...
I agree, the main problem is the grading system. Intentional + low impact should not be 4 activation points. Stupid.
The problem is Fyfe's camp can't contest the combination of intentional + low impact because he admitted to it being intentional.
Can't see all the fuss.
He basically king hit Lewis who was looking the other way.
Cheap shot - take your medicine and shut the flower up.
Quote from: tor01doc on August 20, 2014, 10:28:35 PM
Can't see all the fuss.
He basically king hit Lewis who was looking the other way.
Cheap shot - take your medicine and shut the flower up.
Living up to your name Mailman? ;)
Quote from: tor01doc on August 20, 2014, 10:28:35 PM
Can't see all the fuss.
He basically king hit Lewis who was looking the other way.
Cheap shot - take your medicine and shut the flower up.
Not really... Fyfe clearly swings and cops Lewis below the shoulder, and at the same time Lewis swings his arm up and causes Fyfe's arm to then slide into his jaw, it's hardly a case of Fyfe clocking Lewis completely unawares. It's hardly Bazza vs Staker, there was no intent to hit him in the head... Actus reus and mens rea, no? Yet because the hit was A: intentional and B: ended up head high, it's classed as an intentional high strike. I completely agree with the Fyfe defense that if you're judging the intention then the strike is intentionally low, if you're pinging him for high contact then it was reckless high contact.
In April Douglas copped two weeks for a high bump on Ward, which was classed as reckless, high contact and high impact, two weeks. A bump is an intentional action, but he gets off with reckless because he didn't mean to kill Ward in the process - how is this any different? A swinging arm is a deliberate act as much as a bump is, and the intention of a bump is to take out a player, let's be honest. So if Douglas gets two weeks for a hit that took Ward out of the game, how is it fair and consistent to slap Fyfe with the same ban for an incident that arguably had no effect on Lewis' game? 1 week for being a dickhead.
I still reckon it was a 'cheap shot' but I agree with '1 week'.
As for Boomer - I reckon 2 at most.
Is it just impossible to get consistency?
Consistency is always going to be difficult when the grading system is attempting to be black and white, I think the system should change. Look at what was the intent of the action and what was the affect on the player who copped it.
Boomer is tough, his argument if I understand was that he was just trying to get up but Picken was holding his jumper, and the elbow to the throat was just part of trying to get off the deck while Picken held him down... Basically "I wasn't trying to elbow him in the throat, I just happened to push with my elbow on his throat region as leverage to try and stand up". Pretty thin wouldn't you say? Agree Picken was asking for it and probably should have copped something for his role in it... But I reckon Boomer was already sitting around 1 week, possibly 2 for that beautiful suplex alone, the elbow was on top of that. I dunno doc, throats are delicate little things that can't be strengthened, in the very least Boomer needs educating on more effective ways to stand up from the missionary position... :P
Maybe a move to Footscray - play a more doggie style?
Quote from: tor01doc on August 21, 2014, 07:27:43 AM
Maybe a move to Footscray - play a more doggie style?
But he was playing the doggies!
Quote from: nas on August 21, 2014, 08:29:11 AM
Quote from: tor01doc on August 21, 2014, 07:27:43 AM
Maybe a move to Footscray - play a more doggie style?
But he was playing the doggies!
Haha "Whoosh" ::)
Nice one doc ;)
This hearing is as comical as the last.
Fyfe's camp claiming he didn't intend to strike. The chair recall how on Tuesday Fyfe's camp actually stated he intended to strike.
Appeal dismissed, no error of law, 2 weeks Fyfey boy!
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 21, 2014, 07:10:25 PM
Appeal dismissed, no error of law, 2 weeks Fyfey boy!
Maybe they can have one more crack tomorrow night to get him off ::)
Quote from: GCSkiwi on August 21, 2014, 07:10:25 PM
Appeal dismissed, no error of law, 2 weeks Fyfey boy!
Oh well, can't blame us for trying. We're going to seriously miss him against Port