I am Nostradamus. I can predict the outcome of the tribunal this week.
It is really quite simple as it is a simple formula - let Essendon* off with everything.



Isn't it interesting that the Herald Sun - the Essendon* Football Club's mouthpiece - has hardly covered at all the Lloyd hit, prefering to concentrate on the goal... was it a goal wasn't it bulldust.



Hawthorn vs Essendon* - For starters, Solomon shouldn't have been

playing if they considered his hit on Teague the week before. But as we

know the tribunal seems to be inconsistent when it comes to Essendon*.

If Solomon hadn't played the Hawks would have won. This is WHAT

TRIBUNAL INCONSISTENCY MEANS TO THE COMPETITION.



Furthermore, the tribunal will help Essendon* again this week. Lloyd will get off this week eventhough he fractured Thurgood's cheekbone. Accidental... of course it was.. he hit him from behind with the hardest part of his arm guard around the jaw. Of course it was accidental.




Camporeale, by the way, will get suspended despite it causing no damage to the face. 2 weeks for Campo - nothing for Lloyd.


Consistent? you bet it is.


Essendon* coach Kevin Sheedy had not seen the replay of the incident but said "it's unfortunate for the boy if he has broken it".

I'll premise what I'm saying by saying I haven't seen the Thurgood footage, but if Lloyd's collected him high with the forearm he should be in strife - hasn't he got form for this very same type of tackle?

_________________
This might sound extreme in the context of alleged sexual assault, drunken violence and a drug trafficking charge...

Lloyd should go high contact and reckless an WHAT ABOUT the hit on Campo and the CHARGE on Nick

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06

Come on, guys. I haven't seen the Lloyd incident, but I'm sure it was a 'love tap'.

Lloyd gave so called love taps to Mansfield and Fletcher consequently receiving a holiday.

And don't forget Thornton.

_________________
Writer for SuperCoach Paige www.scpaige.com.au
Twitter - @johnfeeney24

Not once.

Twice.

Going by that pic, he will get off the Thurgood charge.
The Mitchell elbow doesn't look too good though.

_________________
Writer for SuperCoach Paige www.scpaige.com.au
Twitter - @johnfeeney24

everyone keeps dismissing lloyd's hit as accidental and focussing on the guard as though the "naked" forearm wouldn't have done any damage. even clarkson has said as much

bulldust!!

it's NOT about the guard at all ... it's about a RIGHT FOREARM TO THE friggin HEAD of a guy going for the ball.

it's about a guy sustaining a BROKEN JAW just cos lloyd wanted to make a physical statement at the beginning of the game!! (just like soloman did last week).

lloyd's act was weak & reckless AFAIC!!! ... but of course they'll get away with it!

_________________
... an eagle flew out of the night. he was something to observe, came in close i heard a voice, bending stretching every nerve, had to listen had no choice ...

That's the first of ot I've seen. It looks reckless at the very least, leading with his forearm both times.
Lloyd has a history of this, if he broke a kids jaw because he hit him from behind with an armguard the tribunal needs to have a serious look.
Imagine if it had been the other way around, Sheedy would be huffin and puffin.
The only reason Clarkson is keeping quite is because the little squibb was guilty of the same guttless act a number of years back.
Regards Pedro.

From the reputable hun:



Of course.... The arm guard did it, Lloyd had nothing to do with it. Said arm guard should be suspended for at least 2 weeks based on bad prior record...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 22,00.html

HE MUST GO. Seriously watch the replay and watch his eyes and hand and then tell me.

Surreyblue, if it was any other player he would go. But it is Lloyd. He is just as good at diving and playing for free kicks as he is at pretending he was looking somewhere else and having no idea he collected someone around the head with a swinging forearm.

Even the rugby league tribunal come down harder on their players with head high tackles than the AFL tribunal with Essendon* players.

It is quite easy to look in one direction and look like a dumb ass and hit someone at the same time.

The AFL did the same thing with Lloyd last year - he elbowed someone in the face - but because he was looking elsewhere it is all ok.

They are being laughed at by Lloyd as we speak. He makes the tribunal look like a joke.

http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg= ... eid=195403

Whats the use of the AFL letting a guard be used if the consensus is that a blow with the guard will do more damage than without. In my opinion, a player asking to use a "guard" another protective device should also have to agree that he has a greater burden to be clean and any contact with the guard will be judged more severely.
ie you can play but keep the guard to yourself. Dont like it, dont play

_________________
T E A M

Makes sense to me buzaaaah, but imagine if the AFL suspended, or even cited a guy, for an incident that a player using an approved protective device caused greater harm to another player than would have normally occured had he not been wearing said device. They'd be wrong. And the AFL is never wrong.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

I fu**ing hate Lloyd

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah)

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.