Barrett facing 6 week ban

[Jobdog]

Willow, you cannot tell me that you think that Barrett's is any "better" than Clint's? They are both pretty much the same tackle which presumably went wrong. To me, there is very very little difference btwn Barrett's shot and Newton's shot. The only difference being that Barrett never got sent off. Hell he didn't even get penalised.

 

[aenima1]

the sooner barret the fool leave the nrl the better.

 

[Nugby]

If nothing else, the shot on Carney occured while he was going down, and I don't recall him bleeding from the mouth, only stunned. Newton's disgusting act occured probably about six feet in the air, swinging it up. Newton's *might* have been an accident like Barrett's was but you can't say that it was the same.

 

[RufusRex]

a couple of differences in the newton/barrett incidents ...

Newton hit sims with the point of the elbow
Barrett seemed to hit more with the side of the elbow ...

technically still getting hit with the elbow but the force and potential for damage was worse in the newton shot. Also Ashton had not fallen in the tackle to the same extent that Carney had.

However Kennedy contributed a lot to Newtons elbow getting up as high as it did.

In my opinion both were shoulder charges that went wrong. Newtons was worse than Barretts. Newton didnt deserve as long as he got, for Barrett it is probably there or there abouts in terms of grading. Remember the base charge for Barrett is 525 points or with an early plea 393 which with no priors is 3 weeks. Due to barretts prior with PJ the damage blows out to 658 or 6 weeks.
Interesting that that prior which is supposed to load up by 50% actually ends up doubling the suspension when you take into account the carry over points.

 

[drake]

I just saw the other angles; I retract my earlier statement, looks pretty bad. I don't believe it was intentional, but most aren't. I don't think Newton intended to smash Sims face in either, and he apologised to Ashton very quickly.

Looks like Saints will be testing the Gasnier experiment earlier than planned.

 

[dannyboy]

Given that the ref, touchies, video ref and even channel 9 on the night ALL missed it, perhaps they should ALL do the 6 week penalty with Baz

 

[LESStar58]

His elbow went up as Carney was falling into the tackle.

I think its a grade 5... I was watching sports tonight and AFL players are getting pussy 3 weeks holidays for worse. This kind of thuggery shouldn't be going on in the NRL.. I don't know how the Irishman doesnt have a bung jaw either!

 

[innsaneink]

He nearly got away with it.

He wouldve spent all weekend thinking alls sweet, relieved he got away with that and pleased with the victory..... the look on his face yesterday when he learnt Vic the vid ed. at Channel 9 found his high shot wouldve been priceless.

 

[Willow]

Willow, you cannot tell me that you think that Barrett's is any "better" than Clint's?

Well its unfortunate you feel I cannot tell you. I do realise that certain subject matter may be verboten in some quarters. But I gave it some thought and I have decided to have my own opinion just the same.

Here, this time with feeling...

[SIZE=-1]Worse than this (click)?[/SIZE]

Sims was carted off with a suspected broken jaw, blood coming from a punctured face and his tooth had been driven through below his lip. He had six stitches but amazingly he was able to return in the second half. I recall a few folk who were not happy about Newton being suspended... stuff like 'its not fair', followed by varying degrees of excuses such as 'a tackle that simply went wrong'. Some dills were even suggesting that Sims was hamming it up for the cameras. LOL.

The result in the Newton-Sims incident was worse than the Barrett-Carney incident, the concern for Carney wasn't as bad and he stayed on the field.

Having said that, Barrett deserved to be charged and if he challenges the charge, he deserves whatever the judiciary decides. I expect he'll take the early plea although he may contest the grading.

They are both pretty much the same tackle which presumably went wrong. To me, there is very very little difference btwn Barrett's shot and Newton's shot. The only difference being that Barrett never got sent off. Hell he didn't even get penalised.

Well as I said, a bit more happened than that... somehow forgotten. lol.
Sims got carted off with suspected broken jaw, a tooth puncturing below his lip. Carney stayed on the field.

I've been critical of the match review committee in the past but in this case I support their decision in charging Barrett. The rules are clear and there's no excuse for any player who goes for the head, regardless of the intent.

 

[Willow]

Remeber last years game when that dramaqueen Trent got pushed an fell over like he had been shot by a sniper.

That must have been the match in Wollongong where Saints ended the Sharks' season.

 

[Jobdog]

Well as I said, a bit more happened than that... somehow forgotten. lol.
Sims got carted off with suspected broken jaw, a tooth puncturing below his lip. Carney stayed on the field.

So your telling me that it is the damage which is done to the player which is the underlying factor in which one is worse? Because Clint's tackle did more damage to Sims then Barrett's did to Carney's, all of a sudden Clint's is so much worse? I'm sorry but I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that they both look very similar and how the referee missed it, then the video ref, is totally beyond me.

 

[Willow]

So your telling me that it is the damage which is done to the player which is the underlying factor in which one is worse? Because Clint's tackle did more damage to Sims then Barrett's did to Carney's, all of a sudden Clint's is so much worse? I'm sorry but I don't see it that way.

Nope. I said the result was worse. And I feel the intent was greater in Newton's case.

I also said, 'The rules are clear and there's no excuse for any player who goes for the head, regardless of the intent.'

Please read what was posted.

The way I see it is that they both look very similar and how the referee missed it, then the video ref, is totally beyond me.

That's your view. I feel the intent was greater in Newton's case.
Everyone seemed to miss it Jobdog. I suspect even an alert fella like your good self may have missed it. How is beyond your comprehension that the referees missed it?

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

Having just watched it I think 6 weeks would be a fair punishment. Really cheap and there is no way his arm needed to be where it was.

 

[RABK]

There was no intent in Newton's tackle, it was a brain explosion. A split second in a shoulder charge gone wrong.

Same as Barrett's.

 

[Mr Saab]

Willow, how can you say that NEwton showed more intent?
Both tackles had 2 players involved and both had to alter their tackle which resulted for the worse.

 

[Danish]

For all the "shoulder charge gone wrong" brigade......

What sort of shoulder charge leads with a cocked elbow???

A shoulder charge gone wrong is Morley's hit on Walker. What Barrett did was far worse than that, yet i dont see anyone calling for him to be chased out of the game.

This is in the same league as Hoppa/Sims, only difference is Barrett's elbow is just as soft as the rest of him so Carney managed to stay on the field (after having a lie down from the elbow to the jaw for a little while mind you).

He is lucky to be getting 6 weeks.

 

[Mr Saab]

It was Newton/Simms....Hoppa/Galloway.
He led with that elbow as the player below him (making the tackle) made him alter his tackle. Same with Newton. BK was involved also and Newton had to change his tackle. Doesnt excuse it at all, he still went in with a chicken wing and is lucky to be only facing 6 weeks.

 

[Danish]

It was Newton/Simms....Hoppa/Galloway.

Oh i know, i mean it was in the same league as both of those tackles.

Again, lucky to get 6 weeks. then again he was lucky to get away with a week or whatever after the Marsh hit too.

 

[Hutty1986]

Oh i know, i mean it was in the same league as both of those tackles.

Again, lucky to get 6 weeks. then again he was lucky to get away with a week or whatever after the Marsh hit too.

In the same league as Hoppa's hit?

I don't think so, it's just the same old biased sh*t from you

 

[DJ1]

I would expect that Barrett will be successful in getting the charge downgraded by utilising the "It's not his go!" defence.

I've just had a look at the replay from a number of angles and you can clearly see that "It's not his go!"