-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Jack Riewoldt [Merged]
- Thread starter MOTiger
- Start date
mad_tiggy911 said:
Yep. We're their cow. Gestapo Gil's goons love squeezing the tits and watch $$$$ come out.
“The AFL's legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson QC, said the action of Riewoldt pushing the arm of an immobilised Fritsch backwards should be deemed as "unsportsmanlike" conduct.
“
Yes the look was unsportsmanlike, but Jeff is describing an action caused by the Melbourne player, not Jack.
I wonder if Richmond tried to reject the unsportsmanlike label rather than reject the action being caused by Jack. Two different things.
Oh well, Jack’s reputation is more important than some coffee money, he comes out of it looking better to most I think.
“
Yes the look was unsportsmanlike, but Jeff is describing an action caused by the Melbourne player, not Jack.
I wonder if Richmond tried to reject the unsportsmanlike label rather than reject the action being caused by Jack. Two different things.
Oh well, Jack’s reputation is more important than some coffee money, he comes out of it looking better to most I think.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
jb03 said:
x2.
Cousin Nick insinuated that Jack is a real tight arse, and would have been very upset at losing 2% of his match payment.
jb03 said:
In his 13th season and with an unblemished record, I can understand that he saw a charge of “misconduct” as a bit of an affront. The AFL’s comments at the Tribunal continued that theme. He could easily have been let off with a warning given the MRP didn’t hand down any penalty for a string of incidents over the years that were a “bad look” but did no damage. But once charged, I didn’t expect him to win an appeal.
caesar said:
Looks as though the two options were on the table according to below but they gambled on the short term option, (nervous times):
Hardwick was comfortable with his medical department’s decision to opt against surgery for Riewoldt’s PCL knee injury.
“With rehab, he’ll be able to get back probably just after the bye because I think with surgery if you have that it’s probably end-of-season stuff,” Hardwick said.
jb03 said:
Nothing in it. I still can't believe it was cited. If anything Jack restrained himself and prevented injury to the opponent. Pocket money for the AFL, it's getting a bit like speeding fines doing 64km down steep hills where the cameras always seem to be parked.
lukeanddad said:
Well the league always cr@ps on about duty of care. Reiwoldt had Fritsch in a vulnerable position and restrained himself to prevent any injury. Fritsch never cried in pain, or had any ill-effects, and no one remonstrated with Reiwoldt. If anything the league should be giving Reiwoldt $1500 for upholding the AFL law of duty of care.
