Blair for 5

fine with me. it means wests wont have to play against him in the finals
 
@Suzie-Q said:
It should mean he's free to play for us from round 1 too.

thats right because if storm dont make the grandfinal, the trials next year will be enough for him to play round 1 next season :slight_smile:
 
It's actually win win win for us:

1\. We don't have to play against him.
2\. He won't get injured this season.
3\. He'll be ready for next season straight away.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
It means he comes to us injury free.. A big win for us all round I reckon!!!
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
That's right. He'll miss this week, melbourne have two games minimum in the finals as they will finish 1st or 2nd. And two trials next year makes five.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
@alien said:
@Suzie-Q said:
It should mean he's free to play for us from round 1 too.

thats right because if storm dont make the grandfinal, the trials next year will be enough for him to play round 1 next season :slight_smile:

That's how I was thinking too. We usually have 2 NRL sanctioned trials, don't we?
 
Good deal for us but extremely harsh penalty for him.

So hypocritical of the NRL to hand down that judgement when it routinely uses images like that to promote SOO, rivalry rounds and test matches.
 
He will be nice and fresh and ready to go come round one.

And as others have said we wont have to face him again!
 
@Suzie-Q said:
@alien said:
@Suzie-Q said:
It should mean he's free to play for us from round 1 too.

thats right because if storm dont make the grandfinal, the trials next year will be enough for him to play round 1 next season :slight_smile:

That's how I was thinking too. We usually have 2 NRL sanctioned trials, don't we?

hmm 2 or 3
 
Not good for Melbourne, but guarantees us not just an injury free player for 2012, but a weaker Melbourne should we meet them in the finals.

Regardless of the advantages it presents us, I'm just gobsmacked that Blair could have been given 5 weeks for protecting himself against a pre-meditated attack by one of the 'Deliverance' brothers. Perhaps 2 weeks for those few uppercuts in the original blue, but 5 weeks for defending himself? Sorry, that's an emotional decision by the judiciary.

As for the brothers grub, 10 weeks for Glen the 'in bred' and 6 for 'low brow' Brett. Won't happen though
 
he gets two for the uppercuts that got him sin binned and three for the second fight that he got sent off for just happy he wont miss any action for us
 
@Citizen Tiger said:
Not good for Melbourne, but guarantees us not just an injury free player for 2012, but a weaker Melbourne should we meet them in the finals.

Regardless of the advantages it presents us, I'm just gobsmacked that Blair could have been given 5 weeks for protecting himself against a pre-meditated attack by one of the 'Deliverance' brothers. Perhaps 2 weeks for those few uppercuts in the original blue, but 5 weeks for defending himself? Sorry, that's an emotional decision by the judiciary.

As for the brothers grub, 10 weeks for Glen the 'in bred' and 6 for 'low brow' Brett. Won't happen though

Defending himself against a pre-meditated attack. Are you serious? thats not what i saw.

He ran to catch up to stewart after they have both been binned, mouthed off at him, then pushed him. The second brawl was all his fault (well the start of it). If he just walks off at normal pace second brawl doesnt happen.
 
Back
Top