Hawkins offered one-week AFL ban

@Maggie I didn't see it that way Maggie. I saw it as careless, medium impact to the head — to my understanding that's two weeks down to one, but correct me if I'm wrong there. The MRP found it to be intentional conduct with low impact to the head. I don't believe he deliberately tried to punch him in the head; but like the bump, if you chose to do so, make sure you don't hit the head — because @@$@ happens! Cut it up anyway you like; he was always getting a week, which is what this argument was about, not my methodology as to why he'll get a week. That's just sour grapes from those who thought he'd get off.

"Low impact is nothing more than a token gesture to Hawkins, providing he pleads guilty, which he will. It has no bearing on anything .... ". Actually it does have bearing. The penalty would have been 3 matches (down to 2 with an early plea) had the strike been graded as medium impact, rather than 2 matches (down to 1 with early plea) which is what Hawkins has been offered with the assessment of low impact.

That's not even the half of it. I've got Cat (and his/her/its alias 'James') making stuff up to boot. Talk about getting caught out in a lie.

Why are you saying this then: "Actually you should be on a two week holiday word breaker." ...immediately followed by comments I made to you and not the ones made to 'James' then? Kind of desperate don't you think? You've been caught out in a lie, Gene. How do I know this? Because It's been confirmed in the other thread with 'James' also trying the same thing. Unfortunately he has referenced your comments and intertwined them with his (which have been deleted). It wouldn't surprise me at all if "James' is you. Kind of weird that a guy I've never conversed with joins the conversation after I dealt with your silly comments yesterday, only to suddenly pop up again today and try the same trick. We all know you change your name on this forum too, or are you going to tell me I spoke with 'Cat' over two years ago on this thread: http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/07/09/do-the-media-even-know-what-they-are-talking-about/ ...that's my own thread. I know I spoke with you as Gene. What's hard for you to explain though is how 'Cat' now comes up in that article, instead of 'Gene'...particularly when 'Cat' wasn't commenting in 2014 on this site? You should have just made a new profile, instead of asking the mods to change your name if you wanted complete anonymity. I understand your distain towards me. I pay next to no attention to you, yet you are determined to prove yourself to me. As for my comments directed at you: we all know I was referring to being right about Hawkins being suspended. If you want to play a little game of semantics regarding medium vs small, knock yourself out if it makes you feel better. The reality is: Hawkins is going to be suspended. Get over it.

Surely you are not saying Rick was wrong because he did not match the wording from the MRP? He said one week with an early plea otherwise two. Sounds pretty correct to me. I hope that this is not going to come down to Australian v English spellings ...B-) I had another few looks at the incident on the video. I think the only think that makes it low contact is that the punch didn't go far and it hit Crouch in the throat not the jaw, otherwise medium contact.

Surely you are not saying Rick was wrong because he did not match the wording from the MRP? He said one week with an early plea otherwise two. Sounds pretty correct to me. I hope that this is not going to come down to Australian v English spellings ...B-)

Sure you said it to James. But, this is an open forum, anyone can speak to anyone. No one made you make your bombastic claims of never being wrong, which btw you did say to me and told me to get back to you when you were. Well, you were wrong, hence why we're here now. Stick to your word or not, matters not to me, you've already proven the type of person you are.

"now you are a proven liar as well." I want you to say: "Rick, you made those comments regarding a 2 week holiday to me, not James." If you can honestly do that, I'll leave for 2 weeks. Will say a lot about you & why you needed to go into hiding for 12 months. There's all the provocation you need to get rid of me for 2 weeks, Gene. All you need to do is lie!

You were proven wrong Rick, now you are a proven liar as well. Wiggle and squirm all you want but the fact is you were wrong.

Great footballing analyst by Rick,he said he would take two weeks off if Hawkins wasn't suspended,was unbiased in his opinion and was proven correct. Gene/Samantha/Cat was heavily policing anyone and everyone who thought Hawkins would be suspended despite the AFLs comments that that's exactly what was going to happen to the next person partaking in such an excercise. Sporting commentary is sometimes about who got it right and who got it wrong,not who your friend or favourite poster is,

It's been deleted for some strange reason, AD. I just went back and checked that thread. I'm a man of my word and I didn't even have this conversation with Cat. It was with a guy called 'James', who I've never conversed with before on this site. My original comments were made to James that if Hawkins doesn't get suspended, I'll take 2 weeks off from this forum. He agreed to do the same. It was not based upon my reasoning to Cat above. Cat now thinks he/she/it can pick up on a conversation he/she/it wasn't part of and try to be smart. The reality is: Hawkins has been suspended (unless he appeals) just like I predicted. High vs Low is merely subjective and could have gone either way. I'd even suggest if Geelong challenge this, the tribunal may very well deem it medium impact, warranting the 2 week suspension should he fail. Low impact is nothing more than a token gesture to Hawkins, providing he pleads guilty, which he will. It has no bearing on anything, apart from Cat and James trying to save face now.

Where did Rick actually say he'd take a two week break, though? I can't see that anywhere.

I never made any prediction. I said if the mrp was consistent he would. We all know they aren't though. So you are not a man of your word. How unsurprising. Just another mattyb/donfreo/anon/SMH

Unfortunately for you Cat: me being right about Hawkins' impending suspension trumps your dismal effort of predicting he'll get off. Now I suggest you go hide in a corner again — the same place Gene & Samantha are hiding.

The umpires change their interpretation of rules week by week and from one end of the ground to the other. If you punch someone on the street you face assault charges, why should AFL be different, oh that's right it's only a game.

Actually you should be on a two week holiday word breaker. Rick said:

My reasoning is based on conclusive vision showing him punching another player in the head with medium force. He’ll get a week.

the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head.

Better to accept as they play Weagles..anybody can beat them these days

Nobody toots their own horn like you, Rick.

I guess a few people yesterday — who staunchly argued against me — got it completely wrong; unless of course Geelong challenge it (which they won't) and win. As usual: I'm right.

They might have to resort to tickling.