Farmer Cops 6

[taraba]

Yes,
And Petts too.

Excellent ;D

Whoops, I meant to modify the post but ended up quoting it instead :-[

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Should have got 10 the first time, then 20 for the failed appeal.

Agreed. Our is the softest code on this offence. Would've got 10 in NRL.

I'd have to agree with this sentiment. To think that if he had plead guilty he would have only copped a 4 game suspension for an INTENTIONAL eye gouge is ludicrous. That is an absolute dog act and way outside the boundaries of what could be considered acceptable behaviour in our game. The fact that he ended up with 6 after his club stupidly* decided to appeal it despite the damning evidence is still way too light for such an offence IMO. In this case we should take a leaf out the NRL's book where he would have had at least 10 weeks on the side line for such an act.

Just my 2c

* It could be debated whether it was stupid to appeal or not. After some of the hilarious exploits of the tribunal last season (ie. the D. Kerr low blow) he may have ended up with a reprimand! It seemed that anyone who challenged the match review committee's findings ended up with a reduced sentence, completely removing the 'bonus' of getting a reduced sentence for not challenging the charge. Although a bit too early to tell, I hope we may see a tougher tribunal system this season. I for one like the idea of fixed penalties and reduced tribunal hearings....whether the current system is the right one is very much debatable.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Should have got 10 the first time, then 20 for the failed appeal.

Agreed. Our is the softest code on this offence. Would've got 10 in NRL.

To think that if he had plead guilty he would have only copped a 4 game suspension for an INTENTIONAL eye gouge is ludicrous. That is an absolute dog act and way outside the boundaries of what could be considered acceptable behaviour in our game. The fact that he ended up with 6 after his club stupidly* decided to appeal it despite the damning evidence is still way too light for such an offence IMO. In this case we should take a leaf out the NRL's book where he would have had at least 10 weeks on the side line for such an act.

Just my 2c

Have to agree with all of this.
In the NRL, St George's Steve Linnane got 22 weeks in the 80s for a gouging charge.

It's amazing that a guy with a record as long as Farmer has basically been slapped on the wrist for an offence as serious as this.
Eye gouging is about as low as it gets and when you consider the penalities of 2/3 weeks that are handed out regularly to players for unintentional contact etc. 6 weeks for this just defies belief.
Soft effort by the tribunal in this case.

 

[feisty tige]

I wonder if he grows his nails for the season.

Maybe there should be a Netball rule (seeing as we are getting to the point of no contact) cut the nails before you get onto the court ground.


:nailbiting ;D

 

[nitrotiger]

! reckon he should have a crack at that reiki thing....wouldnt hurt.......
and learn humility and take up a life of celibacy and meditation...........

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

Farmer is a terrific small forward but he's a lowlife dirty scumbag.He's been getting away with niggling sh!t for years.
Good to see the AFLs had enough of his feral behavior on the park.
Just deserts and his rubbish is finally in the spotlight.

I'll give you a kiss at Gustigers next BBQ for that ToO :-*

 

[Belly]

I agree whole heartedly with Farmer's suspension and agree with the previous posts on this forum.

But Johnson's...

It sets a very dangerous precedent given his prior history. The AFL got this one very wrong and it appears they are once again being over zealous in making a point before the season has started. Trust me six weeks into the season, a similar incident will happen and there will be no parity with the punishment handed out to Johnson. If that were the case, I'd be more than dirty if it was Richmond player that got injured as a result...

If the AFL are serious about wishing to maintain parity with their penalties, then give every club the right to appeal THE PENALTY not the decision.