MRP Joke - JZ out for 3-4

[Holz]

JZ given a 4 week suspension (3 if guilty plea)  is a joke, didnt even give away a free kick and shouldn't have got anything. Got the exact same thing as Wellingham and you cant possibly argue that two incidents were the same.


I rarely argue of something like this but having JZ (who everyone knows is one of my favourites) out will hurt us.

[Ziplock]

I think it's pretty ridiculous. Unlike wellingham, ziebell had his eyes on the ball the whole time, and was making a serious attempt for it (he only just dropped the mark). I think that's ridiculous.

[Holz]

I think it's pretty ridiculous. Unlike wellingham, ziebell had his eyes on the ball the whole time, and was making a serious attempt for it (he only just dropped the mark). I think that's ridiculous.

especially with the umpire standing right next to him and than when the carlton players go after JZ, he defends JZ by repatedly saying "he was just going for the fotty"

[Spinking]

Surely will appeal. Probably worth a game, but not 3.

[LF]

Surely will appeal. Probably worth a game, but not 3.

Thought i heard them say on Fox news that they are going to appeal.

[Ziplock]

apparently the MRP have decided you can't jump to take marks anymore.

[pyronerd]

flowered if I can work out the MRP, haven't seen the incident, but from reading on here it sounds that it was far less serious than a couple of incidents that got the same, or lesser, penalties just last week ::)

[Ziplock]

it's on afl.com.au

[pyronerd]

it's on afl.com.au

looking at it I think it's probably worth a week, stuck the hand out to protect himself but caught Joseph high, he should have had sole focus on the ball. But how you can end up with a ruling that keeps him out for the same amount of time as Wellingham (or even Hocking for his shirtfront on Hayes, which only ended up with 2 weeks and IMO should have been 4) beats me

[roo boys!]

It's just ridiculous.

http://www.kangaroos.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4912/newsid/141664/default.aspx

The MRP say he was "looking at the ball" but

“While Ziebell does touch the ball, we didn’t believe that it was a legitimate attempt to go for the footy, to take possession of or to spoil the ball and we thought that that was more a negligent, rough conduct act.”

[Ziplock]

that's such a joke, he clearly tries to catch it... the ball actually lands in his hands, but spills out because of the contact with joseph.

[TheMailman]

With Ziebell's unfortunate recent record it's probably worth a week maybe they could pull some strings together for 2 weeks but it really shouldn't of been 3. Watching the Sydney West Coast games there were at least 3 incidents worse than Ziebell

[Holz]

that's such a joke, he clearly tries to catch it... the ball actually lands in his hands, but spills out because of the contact with joseph.

I know what's actually a legitimate attempt, so if he had of kept the ball would he have got off. For someone not going for the ball he did a good job of getting it

[BoredSaint]

I just had a look at the incident, and although at first thought i thought he was going for the ball, when i looked at it again you can see he has his arm tucked in.

If he was going for the ball, he should have had his arms outstretched.

Probably not worth 4 weeks though. 2 maybe max

[Ziplock]

I thought he had his arm positioned that way to protect the ball from joseph?