Crouch suspension a farce

[imported_MrAngryOne]

Looks like they are back toprevious years consistant, inconsistency

 

[legend]

Ozbash, which part is mindless? Crouch's tackle was not intentional. O'Donnell's was hence he should pay the price for being an idiot.

I can't see how having a suspension equaling length of injury would work. The idea that a player has to be sidelined with suspension until the injured player is fit to play is absurd.
A player could be carrying an existing injury or the coach might just want to rest him a bit longer thereby keeping the suspended player out.

Such a system would would create more problems than it would solve.

Willow, are you really that silly? Monaghan did not have a broken jaw prior to this game and to make it easy, Monaghan could be examined by an independent doctor set by the judiciaryto determine the amount of time he would be on the sidelines for that particular injury and have that report submitted to the judiciary. We are not talking about a hamstring or a knee injury here, we are talking about a broken jaw. It's not something that can be hidden and why would a coach keep a player out of the game any longer than it takes to be back at 100% fitness?????

Why should any team lose a player to a deliberate action and not have the offender sit out the same amount of time, if not more. I think O'Donnell should have received 17 weeks, not 11. I think he should be made to miss the eleven weeks Monaghan will be out and then serve more time for intent, at least six weeks for raising the elbow and doing it to a player not in possession of the football.

This is a piss weak attempt Willow and you are just sour about losing a player due to injury. It happens to every team. Last weekend Corey Pearson broke Luke Davico's nose and only got a week. and I don't think I head you pretesting when Maddison was suspended for ten weeks last year. You can't be selective about who should and should not be suspended and expect to be taken seriously.

Stapleton did his shoulder in an on the ball incident that was not deliberate and it is part of football unfortunately. All clubs have lost players in the same manner but as usual, it's the Saints fans pissing and moaning they were hard done by and this coming from a club with arguably the worst record in the NRL for suspensions.

Where will it all end?

 

[ozbash]

""Ozbash, which part is mindless""

crouch,s. he couldve crippled the guy.
a more dangerous and deliberate act than just throwing a punch.
crouch,s arm was between stapletons legs,, he meant bussiness.

expect to see a lot more of these tackles, they can get away with it,..

 

[El Duque]

crouch,s arm was between stapletons legs,, he meant bussiness.



Never was his arm between his legs.

 

[ozbash]

""A bloke couldnt get better results offthe gold coast pier. ""

lol, the only thing you get of a gold coast pier is tooth marks on yr bod from some sharp toothed denizen of the deep...


auckland piers are friendly piers..
there are people underneath specifically to retrieve lost fushing gear !!

 

[ozbash]

dookylooks, WTF is his arm then ?

 

[legend]

Ahh yes, it was the line that was faulty, not me. Weren't those prawns nice though?

 

[Willow]

One front at time lads...
El Duque,
- I think the NRL judiciary are a farce. At best, they are inconsistent. This is my opinion and I never thought it to be anything earth shattering.
- I mentionedthe head high on Riddell because both incidents were only two or three minutes apart and I've seen blokes sent off for the same.
- I don't believe Saleh is innocent. I have agreed with you on that.
- Lifting tackles are illegal. This is a fact.

Legend,
- I wasn't specifically talking about this Monoghan incident, I was looking at the long term effects of the suspension = injury policy.

- I dont agree that suspension = injury policy is workable. Thats my view.
- But as I have already said, I have no problem with O'Donnell getting a long suspension.
- I make no apologies for having a St George perspective. Last time I checked it wasnt a crime which is just as well because most of us are guilty of the same.
- I agree that I'm being concerned about Stapleton's situation and once again I make no apologies for this. But I have already said that there's nothing that can done about his injury.
- I remember the Maddison incident well and I recall saying that he derserved a long suspension.
- I am fully aware that injuries to happen to every club. Its worth remembering that many fans (even Raiders fans) sometimes forget this.

 

[El Duque]

It's hard to see from that shot, but I can't recall seeing his arm between his legs from any replays. Also, if the hand goes between the legs they usually mention that and I can't recall reading anyone saying it.

Willow has the tape I presume so maybe he can watch it and say.

 

[Willow]

Sure El... thats if you can take my word for it.
It looks like the arm is between the legs but I really cant remember now. The tapeis still in the VCR so I'll have quick look tonight.

 

[imported_Brook]

Why should any team lose a player to a deliberate action and not have the offender sit out the same amount of time, if not more. I think O'Donnell should have received 17 weeks, not 11. I think he should be made to miss the eleven weeks Monaghan will be out and then serve more time for intent, at least six weeks for raising the elbow and doing it to a player not in possession of the football.

There are many problems with this argument though, the wests tigers tried to claim that Monaghan's jaw was actually broken two tackles later when he clashed heads with Ian Hindmarsh ina tackle on Mark O'Neill and not in the O'Donnell tackle - now while I don't believe that, I think it was certainly Luke that broke his jaw although the later incident may have made things worse I doubt that they would find it easy to prove in similar cases the exact point where the injury occured,for that matter if a player suffers an injury and then stays on the field and causes more damage to himself how much of that length of injury time should be blamed on the player who initially caused the injury? (just to note that I'm not refering to Monaghan here - there are no excuses for luke)

Also what happens in a situation like Steven Kearneys spear on Jarred McCracken - that tackle ended his career so does kearney get a lifetime ban to think about what he did or does it then go back to a straight points system in which he may end up getting a lesser suspension than if he'd simply put him out of action for 10 weeks? (actually he did get less than that but thats another story entirely)

I simply think that things should be judged on their merits and not on the damage caused - if luke had done the axact same thing but by some freak chance had caused no injury would he have then deserved a lesser sentance? I think not - it was an act of thuggary and would have been just as bad if he had caused no damage at all

 

[El Duque]

Also what happens in a situation like Steven Kearneys spear on Jarred McCracken

I believe Marcus Bai was also involved.

Another tackle that ended a career was done by Andrew Pierce (I think) when he tackled David Penna in a game v Cronulla.

 

[legend]

Brook, that's a fair point and I can see where you are coming from but the main difference between what Kearney did to Crackers and what O'Donnell did to Monas was intent. Kearney's was an accident so IMO, it should be treated differently to O'Donnell's deliberate hit and I think I am right by saying no deliberate act of violence on the field has resulted in a player having to retire early from the game so no precedent has been set yet. Personally, I see no reason why a player should be allowed to continue playing the game and earning an income if he has ended the career of another player because of an intentional act that was malicious and career threatening. Do it once (lifetime suspension) and you will never see it happen again. I just hope we never see rugby league drop to that level. There have been similar incidents in lower grades and park footy for intentional acts of violence (against players and referees) so I don't see why first grade players should be any different.

 

[El Duque]

Sure El... thats if you can take my word for it.

If you can tell me what minute it happened in I can check it out on the NRL site.

 

[Willow]

Surrreee... just in case its all bullshit, right?

 

[El Duque]

Never trust a Saints fan.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that?

 

[imported_pastor-borderline]

Willow..I'm sure it's the policy of the NRL, that the injury caused has no bearing on the penalty handed down.

Refer to Craig Smiths "shot" on Kevin Walters. Remember the row...Smith shouldn't have been cited in the opinion of some, yet he recieved a lengthy sentence on the back of damage caused.

I haven't seen the incidents in question (Crouch or O'Donnel), so I can't comment. But any judiciary activity is bound to becontentious after week 1.

 

[Willow]

Meth, I was sort of trying to avoid those memories.. lol. Jim Hall literally forced Craig Smith out the country.

Youre right, despite the official line, the judiciary has been guilty of allowing the severity of the injury to governcertain decisions. Unfortunately, they tend to make it up as they go along.

Theres plenty examples of Jim Hall contradicting himself.... too many.

 

[imported_pastor-borderline]

"Jim Hall literally forced Craig Smith out the country"

I wouldn't of minded, but he was the Kiwi captain ...

 

[imported_pastor-borderline]

That reminded me of Cayless last year.

Jim Hall....suspend Andrew Johns or get lost