AFL lift Stafford suspension

[Tiger in a Tube]

from www.puntroad.com/content
======================
The AFL has written to the Richmond Football Club saying it will lift the current suspension on ruckman Greg Stafford if he agrees to wear protective gear whilst on the field.

AFL Deputy Strategic Manager for Special Letters to Footy Clubs Gil McCoy, didn't hold a press conference to explain the letter. Instead he said down a dodgy phone line "Look, we don't hold anything against Greg. He's a good ruckman and provides leadership around a club that needs it. We want Greg to play, but we don't want anyone else to find themselves at the wrong end of his elbows or knees. This isn't a case of protecting Greg from himself, but rather others from his extremities."

Richmond Football Club Sponsorship Manger Eugene Wantanabe chose to look on this as a positive development for his department. "I'm not that concerned. Clearly, we need Greg playing in the ruck so we can get Otto down at full forward. From my perspective, I can get big sponsorship deals out of this. Wiltshire Knives have expressed interest as has the great Indian restaurant in East Melbourne Ganguly's."

 

[evo]

Hahhaah

I honestly think Staffords "reputation" got him the 3 weeks.The incident was an accident IMO and it was unfortunate that Blake was injured so badly.

 

[Tiger in a Tube]

evo,

agree. . . .that and he nearly broke the guys back.

I reckon that he put in just a a bit too much, didn't quite pull out enough.

 

[tiger_10_grr]

I'm a great advocate for Staff, but i have to agree that his previous visits to the tribunal went against him, along with the fact that Blake's injury was severe, however, i can't see how the contact made by staff cracked the Blake's lower back, Staff's knees whent into his what I thought was kidney area.

As for wearing of items to protect others from knees ....... i'd like to see all the Tiges wearing rib protectors next time we play the Kangaroos to save themselves from David "The Knee" King.

 

[Tenacious Tiges]

I'm with Evo on this one. Very very easy to say you should of done this and you should of done that. God he was chasing the player with the ball. Clumsy yes, intentional no and if the reason for suspension is that he's injured the guy then what about Lynch and Wakelin's face. Cough, cough.... consistency.... cough, cough.

And lastly how can Staff's record of previous tribunal appearances be used as evidence if he was found NOT guilty. It is not an issue. I think he has only been suspended twice previously once in '96 which the AFL said he was past the use by date and the last one was about '01 for striking. So how does his reputation precede him. Crap!!

One week absoulte max, but what's done is done.

 

[seven]

If I was stafford I'll be telling the Afl they can shove the idea! Why should he be singles out?

 

[Tiger in a Tube]

Uhm seven, it's a joke. I do them a fair bit.

And for tiger _10_grr, this is a piece we did on countering Mr King's Unique "sliding in to packs" style

http://www.puntroad.com/content/index.php?topgroupid=999999999&groupid=18&subgroupid=&contentid=90

 

[seven]

Uhm seven, it's a joke. I do them a fair bit.

And for tiger _10_grr, this is a piece we did on countering Mr King's Unique "sliding in to packs" style

http://www.puntroad.com/content/index.php?topgroupid=999999999&groupid=18&subgroupid=&contentid=90

Sorry, I'll admit I'm a bit slow.

 

[CanbTiger]

I agree there was zero evidence from the video to suggest Staff did anything deliberately or even recklessly.

He fell over the player and the Tribunal expects him to flip himself miraculously so there's no contact ???

Humph!