3week Suspension for Kerr..?

Question

Do you think this is a "just" amount...

I'm in two minds especially as Carr got the same for a kneeing Ablett Jr..

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=211&ContentID=70309

Answer 1

4-5 weeks, a mnimum of three for the violence and 1 to 2 for bringing the name of football into disrepute.

Answer 2

Carr's incident looked like it was nothing, but as i said previously, it is all about the points players carry from a previous incident. if carr was a clean skin, that would of been a fine or a week.

kerr's did look a bit bad, he knew he wouldn't get out of it, so he took the 3 weeks.

Answer 3

Both Kerr & Carr were harshly dealt with.

Because there was nothing in either incident. Both West & Ablett took massive dives.

The AFL tribunal is painting themselves into a corner by handing out such harsh penalties for such minor incidents. What will they do to the next player who really biffs someone?  All depends which club he's from, I suppose.

Answer 4

Kerr should have got 6 wks. hes done it 3 times now he should no better.

Answer 5

The Carr incident was soft and he shouldn't have got what he did (but we all know that you can not touch an Ablett!) However, despite what Kerr says to defend the incident that he ws involved in, I think it was a fair suspension. He's probably lucky that he didn't get longer.

Answer 6

If Kerr didn't have a record at tribunal he would have only gotten a week, same with Carr it was his past record that extended his suspension.

Answer 7

kerr should have been rubbed out for atleast 6 weeks it was delibrate. and carr maybe 1-2 weeks but yeah kerr definatly 6 or more weeks. anyone that runs at someone with your head down should get 6 or more weeks.

Answer 8

yeah I reckon Kerr should've received 5

But Carr's knee could've ended very bad for Ablett considering that it could've given him a corky and him be out for the rest of the game.

Answer 9

he's a serial offender, remember him punching mitchell in the nuts last year, he is a loose cannon

Answer 10

I heard he was going to fight it.  Which would be good coz then he'll lose and get the punishment he deserves.  5 weeks.

Answer 11

a player from a melbourne club would have got 6-8 weeks

Answer 12

no

kerr should of got 5

but anyway carlton will beat them on friday night

GO BLUES!!!

Answer 13

i thought he was very lucky just to get 3 weeks, for a clear head butt, plus he has a bad record

Answer 14

Carr is in the same class as Hall a serial thug put on the ground to hinder those that can play  Kerr on the other hand can actually play football thats why he is tagged so severely.

I think 3 wks is more than a fair punishment.

Answer 15

no

it was gutless of him and the tribunal

should of been 8-10

PERTH_ETIC

Answer 16

bs

Answer 17

It was a weak penalty for a weak compulsive serial headbutter.

I reckon both players should change their first names to Wayne...Wayne Kerr & Wayne Carr...because that is what they both are...WANKERS!!!

But I still believe that Brent Staker should have been reported for headbutting Barry Hall's fist!

GO THE 'PIES!!!

Answer 18

I think he should have got 4-5 but with the new system with the points and discounts and c**p he got 3. As with Carr - I thought that was very weak - nothing in that. Again with the new system and the bad record he got 3.

Answer 19

Did Kerr headbutt you

if he did thats why your in two minds

i

Answer 20

nope... i thought kerr should've got 4-5 regardless of any circumstance.

i thought carr should've got 1-2 weeks for his kneeing incident as there wasn't much in it but it was still wrong

Answer 21

Daniel Kerr 3 match ban was probably about right. After all he does have a history.

Josh Carr's kneeing suspension was really nothing, 3 weeks was too harsh, probably 1 at the most.