Generalissimo Stalin said:
there was nothing in it and to be charged with a grade 5 - is stupid - adding the grade of tackle up nowdays.
people can lose teeth and fracture their jaw without being struck in this area - people have broken/loosened their teeth eating and have fractured/broken their jaw yawning.
the roosters should have had a doctor there to explain this to the panel as the above could well have happened to the player before the game as it is possible and since this has been proven and is common knowledge then there is doubt that the tackle by webb solely caused the injury as it may have only contributed to an already existing condition.
there is reasonable doubt and thus should have been found not guilty.
Reasonable doubt? Who are you? Eugene off the Practise? Starsky and Hutch? Mr Zed??
Give yourself a quadruple.
Reasonable doubt in murder=Possibly did not do it. Reasonable doubt in head high tackle? Goose, it was on video - BOOM, whack, teeth fly everywhere. What else do we need??? You are kidding yourself. By the way, he wasn't FOUND guilty, he PLEADED guilty. That shows how valid your quabbling is - the player HIMSELF agreed it was a grade 5. He did not even dispute the grading which several players have done and succeeded at in the past.
It doesn't matter that the player lost his teeth - thats just an illustration of where the tackle hit and the force. Well, it does matter because that is just a shocking tackle, but regardless. The point is, the tackle was bad enough that could have caused him to lose teeth. It has to be pretty bad to get to that stage. Thats the sticking point. The tackle had the capability of severely injuring someone. There's no grey area in this. It was a poor tackle that severely injured someone, or more to the point, had the capability of severely injuring someone.
Mr Zed, another common quote to go with your "reasonable doubt", "You do the crime, you do the time." Deal with it!!
