|
Post by Farthing on Feb 15, 2006 16:33:46 GMT 10
with all the chants we yell at him he will be wishing he didnt play
|
|
|
Post by Ursus on Feb 15, 2006 17:40:43 GMT 10
Massive loss of credibility to FFA disciplinary process. What a crock of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Farthing on Feb 15, 2006 17:46:23 GMT 10
I bet it would have been a totally diffrent story if it was during the season and not a finals game
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Feb 15, 2006 18:18:09 GMT 10
Shit house! Poor desicision
|
|
|
Post by pipray on Feb 15, 2006 18:40:03 GMT 10
Not happy Jan!
|
|
|
Post by MrCelery on Feb 15, 2006 18:51:13 GMT 10
We saw it 'live' and know the truth. Spineless decision. I don't think it will hurt us though, as it will spur us on, and anyway, Reddy is a very average keeper at best.
|
|
|
Post by forzamariners on Feb 15, 2006 19:00:59 GMT 10
Yeah i bet the lads will be quaking in their boots at having to play the might of reddy ;D
|
|
|
Post by LeedsMariner#4 on Feb 15, 2006 19:05:15 GMT 10
all seems to be a load of crap, they site him and then found him not guilty!!
|
|
razza
Local league player
Posts: 144
|
Post by razza on Feb 15, 2006 19:12:00 GMT 10
Postivies: We get to abuse the shite out of him. And everyone time we do this it looks like he is gonna cry and he always fumbles so if we keep giving him crap he'll gift us a goal. He'll get sent off on Friday for time wasting when we're their losing but he actually thinks their losing.
Negatives: We don't get the 40 year old fat keeper
|
|
|
Post by DJ on Feb 15, 2006 19:24:13 GMT 10
Bad decision and he should have been punished in some way as it sets a bad example for the future.
However, we have beaten them twice this season and scored 5 goals in 3 games past him. We can do it again. COME ON MARINERS
|
|
|
Post by marinermum on Feb 15, 2006 19:53:52 GMT 10
FFA decision shit. The;y have no balls or conviction to get rid of foul play
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 15, 2006 20:16:24 GMT 10
er... the case has to be proven, rather than the other way around. if there wasn't enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contact was deliberate, then... not guilty...
he's going to cop such a bucketing.
|
|
|
Post by gialloblu on Feb 15, 2006 20:53:38 GMT 10
I can't see how the video would have been inconclusive. I was half tanked when I saw it live last Friday and could clearly see him stop, stomp, and walk forward. It'd be even clearer on video.
What a crock of shit
|
|
Trogdor
State League player
TOOL ...Greatest band ever!
Posts: 212
|
Post by Trogdor on Feb 15, 2006 20:56:16 GMT 10
meh...it be more fun when our boys put a few past him
|
|
|
Post by pom pom on Feb 15, 2006 21:20:49 GMT 10
it was clear it was no accident cause if it was he would of stopped to see if he had hurt him.. oh hang on, no he wouldnt cause hes a scummer and thats what scummers do
|
|
|
Post by omni on Feb 15, 2006 21:37:15 GMT 10
Dibo: How can you say no proof, they cited him to start with so there was plenty there.
Worst decision ever, the thug will break someone's leg on Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by glen006 on Feb 15, 2006 21:42:42 GMT 10
I saw the vision and it was highly conclusive as I pointed out in a previous thread, deliberate and callous, there were shakes of heads all round in the FFA office tonight, I found it very hard to hold it together interviewing him
|
|
|
Post by omni on Feb 15, 2006 21:49:00 GMT 10
What were the reasons for the decision?
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Feb 15, 2006 21:58:38 GMT 10
making the case stick is the hard bit. i still think the decision is shit, don't get me wrong, and more to the point i think the FFA is seriously in error, but the reasoning will be that while contact is undeniable, the intent to harm is still a matter for debate. not much debate by my book, but a good enough lawyer...
|
|
|
Post by omni on Feb 15, 2006 22:03:49 GMT 10
So how much did it cost to use Barry Hall's lawyer (another finals thug)
|
|