MRP round six - Gia Charged

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bornadog
    WOOF Clubhouse Leader
    • Jan 2007
    • 66700

    MRP round six - Gia Charged

    Western Bulldogs, has been charged with a Level One Engaging in Rough Conduct Offence (125 demerit points, one-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Patrick Dangerfield, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round Six match between the Western Bulldogs and the Adelaide Crows, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday April 27, 2014.

    In summary, due to a six-year good record, he can accept a reprimand and 70.31 demerit points towards his future record with an early plea.

    Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One Offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing six-year good record, reducing the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 70.31 demerit points towards his future record.
    FFC: Established 1883

    Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
  • LostDoggy
    WOOF Member
    • Jan 2007
    • 8307

    #2
    Re: MRP round six - Gia Charged

    Can he take an early guilty and not get the reduced penalties? I'm sure he'd rather (suspended) to (omitted) next to his name this week.

    Comment

    • LostDoggy
      WOOF Member
      • Jan 2007
      • 8307

      #3
      Re: MRP round six - Gia Charged

      Originally posted by Murphy Contradicts Law
      Can he take an early guilty and not get the reduced penalties? I'm sure he'd rather (suspended) to (omitted) next to his name this week.
      He has an existing six-year good record, reducing the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record.
      He would only have 93.75 and be right to play even if he challenged it and lost.

      Comment

      • bulldogtragic
        The List Manager
        • Jan 2007
        • 34289

        #4
        Re: MRP round six - Gia Charged

        I thought it was a fair hit, on the upper side of 'fair' to be fair.

        A little more deliberate than Gia's hit on Kosi back in the day, but just as innocent.
        Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023

        Comment

        • Hotdog60
          Bulldog Team of the Century
          • Aug 2009
          • 5904

          #5
          Re: MRP round six - Gia Charged

          Originally posted by bulldogtragic
          I thought it was a fair hit, on the upper side of 'fair' to be fair.

          A little more deliberate than Gia's hit on Kosi back in the day, but just as innocent.
          Agreed, the only thing that you could pick on was the distance from the ball. Other wise the perfect bump.
          Don't piss off old people
          The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...

          Comment

          • soupman
            Bulldog Team of the Century
            • Nov 2007
            • 5113

            #6
            Re: MRP round six - Gia Charged

            What an absolute joke. Gia has been hit with the exact same points and charge as Glass's hit on Wingard last week.

            This despite him being all tucked in, Dangerfield being metres from the ball (although he could be construed as not reasonably expecting contact), it was actually a solid gentle bump and it got him completely in the body. Ridiculous. If Dangerfield didn't get hurt, which was bad luck more than recklessness on Gia's part, they wouldn't even care.
            I should leave it alone but you're not right

            Comment

            Working...