Eels Blogs

Replies

• 

  eels fan forever August 11, 2010 at 7:42pm

  Arghhhhhhhhhh bullshit!!!!!
• 

  My Bob August 11, 2010 at 7:50pm

  Bugger !
  
  But I thought that would be the case, the Judiciary take a strong approach to any contact involving a raised or cocked elbow. He wasn't looking at Prince however it is dangerous to jump with your elbow raised towards the kicker. Otherwise any defender could jump and turn his head but still strike the kicker with a raised elbow, it is unnecessary! and dangerous. If for example Sam Thaiday did this to our number 7 people on this forum would be screaming blue murder.
• 

  Roger Truffle August 11, 2010 at 7:56pm

  I suppose it may be just me, but the judiciary thoroughly mystifies me. There seems no consistent precedent on any charge with which to base a defense and it is clear (despite protestations to the contrary from them) that at any given point in time (usually finals or Origin) they take into account a players importance to his team vs. the position the team is in vs. the point in the season they are at vs. what entertainment value may be lost. It must be an absolute nightmare to decide on what basis you will form your defense or indeed wether or not you should challenge at all. What a crapshoot. We’ll certainly miss him. He is aggressive, passionate and rarely makes an error in defense. He is also in very good form at the moment.
• 

  My Bob August 11, 2010 at 8:16pm

  Tony that is why i specifically used Thaiday as my example. You know that in court a persons prior convictions or accusations can not be aired in determining the accused guilt or innocence. Specifically Ben is a nice bloke and Sam is a thug however the "crime" Ben committed is judged on the evidence presented not your or my perception of him, we would be heavily influenced before looking at the evidence if it was Sam who was charged. After guilt has been determined then a persons priors are taken into account in determining their sentence, this how its done in court and the Judiciary is a quasi court.
  You and I say Ben wouldn't do it intentionally and Broncos Fans would say that of Sam, we all come to judge with our biases, thats why the court/judiciary try to make a judgement based purely on the evidence.
  Unfortunately for Ben the video looked bad and 2 weeks is about right. If Sam had been found guilty on the same charge he may have received 3- 4 weeks depending on carry over points.
• 

  Tinkerbell August 11, 2010 at 8:24pm

  HEY!
  
  You watch it Perfecta.
  
  No one calls my Benny a thug!!!
  
  ;-) ;-)
• 

  My Bob August 11, 2010 at 8:31pm

  ha we would have to hand in our Blue eye and Gold Eye.
• 

  My Bob August 11, 2010 at 8:37pm

  I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but in the words of a famous Australian Politician commonly referred to as a racist......" Please explain???"
• 

  Tinkerbell August 11, 2010 at 8:39pm

  I will be Perfecta - don't you worry.
  
  I'm just waiting to hear back from Peter Pan on the best way to proceed. ;-)
  • 

    My Bob > Tinkerbell August 11, 2010 at 8:43pm

    Tinks are you down with the girl power are you? Using Ms Gillard the PM's annoying slogan "go forward" aghhh!!!!
    • 

      Tinkerbell > My Bob August 11, 2010 at 8:48pm

      I am down with Tinkerbell power! :-)
      
      And if you have any queries as to what that is, ask the men of the judiciary when they wake up as disgusting slugs tomorrow morning.
      
      My Benny should have been let off. He wouldn't hurt a fly!