Charlie Gubb

[Leber]

Guilty. Hes out for the rest of the year.

Disgraceful actually.

 

[ozbash]

7 weeks ?

Shows how credible the NRL is..

 

[JJ]

Judiciary is laughable he was guilty of something but that's excessive especially given other offences, Thaiday, Tapau Spring to my mind this year

That said, I think the suspension was doubled because he has recent history of two similar offences, so Crazy Charlie is accountable for his previous lunatic behaviour I guess

Shame for him but no loss for the team IMO

 

[Meth]

Yeah, 7 weeks is harsh for that incident, but his history was a factor. Given the way that he plays, he probably is going to get these big suspensions every once in a while....another liability.

 

[vvvrulz]

Yeah, those two last year must have counted, and they were both blatant clear as day shoulder charges.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Yeah, those two last year must have counted, and they were both blatant clear as day shoulder charges.

They were, yeah - and that explains the loading. The Grade 2 charge is where the joke lies.

I mean, we can all cast it off because it's Gubb and we don't want him in the side. But if it was Ben - who I think would have loading as well - we'd be up in arms.

I don't rate Gubb but I do feel sorry for him in the fact there's no way he deserved a skate for 7 weeks, for a tackle I believe he had every intention and desire to use his arms in.

Too bad your name isn't Gallen, Thaiday, Taupau or another marketer's wet dream my friend. You'd be playing this Saturday.

 

[Iafeta]

Amazing. You can spik a dudes neck, and get 2 weeks. You can break a blokes jaw and get 3 weeks. You have a very debatable pec charge and you get the rest of the year.

 

[vvvrulz]

Too bad your name isn't Gallen, Thaiday, Taupau or another marketer's wet dream my friend. You'd be playing this Saturday.

He is Cappy's wet dream however, poor guy must be crying himself to sleep.

 

[ozbash]

Yeah, 7 weeks is harsh for that incident, but his history was a factor. Given the way that he plays, he probably is going to get these big suspensions every once in a while....another liability.

That's what I disagree with. He paid the price for the last indescetions yet it's bought up again.

Slate should've been wiped clean.

 

[Meth]

That's what I disagree with. He paid the price for the last indescetions yet it's bought up again.

Slate should've been wiped clean.

really. or was the payment just deferred?

 

[RHYTHM AND STEALTH]

Copped 2 charges in round 25 last year for the same thing. So this is his 3rd charge for the same offence in less than a season. Of course they gonna come down hard no matter if your name is Gubb, Bird, Thaiday, Crosby, Stills, Nash or Young

 

[vvvrulz]

Copped 2 charges in round 25 last year for the same thing. So this is his 3rd charge for the same offence in less than a season. Of course they gonna come down hard no matter if your name is Gubb, Bird, Thaiday, Crosby, Stills, Nash or Young

Yeah from memory he escaped suspension last year, so I really don't see what the gripe is.

 

[JJ]

I think the gripe remains over the grading - McFadden is a bit thick so probably doesn't get it - either way he was going to get a decent spell... 7 weeks seems harsh, but if he keeps doing shoulder charges he'll keep getting long suspensions - personally I think the loadings are a sensible idea

 

[Rich102]

My gripe is that the NRL is turning the game into something it never was by introducing new rules willy-nilly.
The fans love a bit of aggro and the sight of a couple of big men creating a bit of havoc.
The ref is (should be) in control to see that play is within the spirit of the game. ie A big guy doesn't bowl a small guy or an unsighted player taken out by a dangerous hit.
Gubbs shoulder wasn't dangerous - the player affected said so.
As has already been said, there were far worse incidents over the week that were punished less harshly.
Next thing tackling players will be an offence.
Leave the game alone. It's been just fine for a hundred years.

 

[JJ]

The ref is (should be) in control to see that play is within the spirit of the game. ie A big guy doesn't bowl a small guy

Next thing tackling players will be an offence.
Leave the game alone. It's been just fine for a hundred years.

Good post Rich, my 2c:

1. I have no problem with a big guy bowling a little guy, legally of course.
2. I guess James Gavet is still confuse over whether tackling is legal!
3. Kind of agree, but they have to take the head injury stuff seriously - for legal/$$ reasons, but more importantly for health reasons - when I see/hear greats that I grew up watching (Ian Roberts and Mario Fenech come to mind) it's not great... that said, league is much more proactive and transparent around these issues than union seems to be, so I applaud it... shoulder charges are spectacular but not necessary... again though, I find Thaiday's origin tackle and the penalty it received disgraceful

 

[RHYTHM AND STEALTH]

Yeah from memory he escaped suspension last year, so I really don't see what the gripe is.

i think he got 4 weeks for those charges (they were in the same game against the tiger)
he was suspended from the start of the year if i recall

 

[Rich102]

Correct.
If the referees really believe a tackle is dangerous surely they have a duty to send a player to the sin-bin or send him off.
The ability of the referees to make a decision has been severely curtailed, to the detriment of the game.

 

[TheDMC]

My Gripe is Norman gets just 1 week more than Gubb's non dangerous shoulder tackle for:

• His conviction for drug possession at The Star casino
• A police warning for consorting with known criminals at the casino
• Filming incidents involving apparent drug use and sexual activity
• Distributing video of those incidents to other NRL players

 

[ozbash]

Correct.
If the referees really believe a tackle is dangerous surely they have a duty to send a player to the sin-bin or send him off.
The ability of the referees to make a decision has been severely curtailed, to the detriment of the game.

Perhaps that's the answer, although I don't think the refs actually were aware of the "seriousness" of Charlies so called shoulder charge.
Dealing with it there and then would be a better way of handling it.

If that shot was in union, there'd be no charge because arms were involved. The nrl seem hell bent on outlawing the physicality out of our game and the inconsistency shown borders on favoritism..

Good example was the touching the ref bullshit earlier in the season, it all came down to who touched the ref whether or not it went further... same thing here..

 

[RHYTHM AND STEALTH]

My Gripe is Norman gets just 1 week more than Gubb's non dangerous shoulder tackle for:

• His conviction for drug possession at The Star casino
• A police warning for consorting with known criminals at the casino
• Filming incidents involving apparent drug use and sexual activity
• Distributing video of those incidents to other NRL players

Agreed

Who tarnished the nrl brand more Gubb or Norman