finch gets off, NRL a joke

[wittyfan]

Yeah, poor Witty got two weeks! :x

 

[dimitri]

i dont get it

this is f**ked

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Dog-E]

Bloody disgraceful!

I dont care if finch did or did not get 2 play in any grand final the roosters may or not make - but that was a rock bottom MINIMUM 1 week offence!

Jesus Christ, David Gallop may as well just hand the trophy to the Roosters now - because it's clear someone has already engraved it for them anyway! :roll:

 

[Renowned League Expert]

I'd love to see a split screen of Ross' tackle which got 6 weeks and on the other side of the screen have Finch's tackle which got ZERO weeks. Both in slow motion and see which is worse and which deserved x amount of weeks.

Finch didn't "get off". He wasn't exonerated. He was charged and found guilty. He escaped suspension due to his previously clean juducial record.

There is no mystery in what happened. It is the very same process that has allowed dozens of other players over the last few years to avoid suspension.

The Ross tackle has got nothing to do with the Finch tackle. They're completely separate tackles with a different set of circumstances.

Only a dullard would make a comparison.

 

[Jake the snake]

ANd Witt had a clean record as well.

 

[skeepe]

I'm with edabomb here.

Every single player who has gone in with testimony from the player affected by their infringement has had the testimony thrown out. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Until one of the Roosters tried to use it, it seems. And people wonder why we're paranoid?

 

[Misanthrope]

What a load of shit

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

Hmm..

Finch Pleads Guilty and gets off? Correct me if i am wrong, but when someone says that they are guilty dosnt that mean they committed the offence, in this case, an illegal spear tackle?

During the season we have seen players get suspended for having a player slightly over the horizontal and then pulling out of the tackle..

This is absolute shit. And look at all you snivelling little pathetic roosters fans, revelling in the fact that your player got off for something illegal. Hopefully karma comes and visits brett finch and he gets injured in his next game and misses out on the GF.

 

[lotm]

personally, i think what needs to be addressed it the points system re: dangerous throws. i don't think any person who's found guilty/pleads guilty of a dangerous throw should leave without any suspension. increase the points so that, regardless of a player's clean record/early guilty plea, there's enough points for a suspension of 1 week for a grade 1 throw.

 

[ngap]

He was found guilty and did not get off. It was downgraded based on a well structured case put forward.

Details from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/15/1095221660727.html

Sydney Roosters playmaker Brett Finch will be available for the remainder of the rugby league finals after the club had his dangerous throw charge downgraded at the NRL judiciary.

Finch had been reported for a 16th minute tackle on Raiders fullback Clinton Schifcofske in the Roosters' 38-12 qualifying win over Canberra on Saturday.

The halfback entered an early guilty plea in the hope his defence team could get the charge reduced from level two to level one, making him available for the Roosters preliminary final against the winner of this Saturday's match between the Brisbane and North Queensland.

And it proved the right tactic as Roosters solicitor Michael Conn successfully argued the case.

"It was pretty nerve-wracking, my season was on the line but I am just very grateful and relieved that I can just get on and concentrate on playing footy," Finch said.

"I think this will be first and last trip here," added Finch, who received a 25 per cent points reduction on the grade one charge because he had not appeared before the NRL judiciary before.

Conn contended that Schifcofske, who spoke for the defence, had attempted to land on his stomach which contributed to him ultimately landing on his head.

Conn also argued that the support of fellow Raiders Joel Monaghan and Tyran Smith also contributed to the tackle.

The Roosters' defence, which also included submissions from coach Ricky Stuart and club chief executive Brian Canavan, showed footage from other tackles that were given grade one suspensions this season, pointing out their similarities.

The judiciary panel of Ian Roberts, Bobby Lindner and Scott Tronc quickly concurred, wasting little time in reaching their decision after a one hour hearing.

Had the charge stood at grade two Finch would have missed at least two games, effectively ending his 2004 NRL campaign.

"We were happy with the way the hearing was conducted and we are ecstatic with the result," Canavan said.

"Brett is a cleanskin and has been rewarded for that very, very clean record."

 

[Renowned League Expert]

I'm with edabomb here.

Every single player who has gone in with testimony from the player affected by their infringement has had the testimony thrown out. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Until one of the Roosters tried to use it, it seems. And people wonder why we're paranoid?

No, we don't wonder. You're a nutball. Simple as that.

:lol:

 

[Moffo]

I'd love to see a split screen of Ross' tackle which got 6 weeks and on the other side of the screen have Finch's tackle which got ZERO weeks. Both in slow motion and see which is worse and which deserved x amount of weeks.

Finch didn't "get off". He wasn't exonerated. He was charged and found guilty. He escaped suspension due to his previously clean juducial record.

There is no mystery in what happened. It is the very same process that has allowed dozens of other players over the last few years to avoid suspension.

The Ross tackle has got nothing to do with the Finch tackle. They're completely separate tackles with a different set of circumstances.

Only a dullard would make a comparison.

You cockjockey

He put his hands up his legs and drove his head to the ground. And he doesn't get a penalty for it....what a cockadoodlefarce

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Anyone who defends the judicary = :^o :^o :^o :^o :^o :^o :^o :^o

My general thoughts on whatever the Roosters say after this result = :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb: :blahb:

 

[atomic_crimson]

could u expect anything less when it comes to the roosters and the nrl....

 

[Renowned League Expert]

I'd love to see a split screen of Ross' tackle which got 6 weeks and on the other side of the screen have Finch's tackle which got ZERO weeks. Both in slow motion and see which is worse and which deserved x amount of weeks.

Finch didn't "get off". He wasn't exonerated. He was charged and found guilty. He escaped suspension due to his previously clean juducial record.

There is no mystery in what happened. It is the very same process that has allowed dozens of other players over the last few years to avoid suspension.

The Ross tackle has got nothing to do with the Finch tackle. They're completely separate tackles with a different set of circumstances.

Only a dullard would make a comparison.

He put his hands up his legs and drove his head to the ground. And he doesn't get a penalty for it....what a cockadoodlefarce

He does get a penalty for it, as I've just explained. Just not a suspension. Same as dozens of other players over the last few years.

He had a clean record.

Why don't you start a new thread about it, Moffo? :lol:

 

[dimitri]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[PARRA_FAN]

He does get a penalty for it, as I've just explained. Just not a suspension. Same as dozens of other players over the last few years.

He had a clean record.

Why don't you start a new thread about it, Moffo? :lol:

Can you rephrase that to dozens of other Roosters players since that makes more sense now.

 

[greeneyed]

Because Schifcofske didn't think it was all Finchs fault. Apparently the Raiders coaching staff instruct their players to dive forward in the tackle and with Monaghan's involvment the tackle got out of hand.

You may not like the Roosters or Finch but he played Russian Roulette with the judiciary rules and he won.

So why don't we all leave it alone. It wont change now.

Dive forward in the tackle!!!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: Monaghan wasn't involved in the tackle either...........

 

[Moffo]

A penalty?

Get your head out of your ring of fire and tell me exactly how Finch suffers (ie: the definition of a penalty) as a result of this?

What...he gets 90 fictional points that will in all likelihood mean SFA the next time he is up before the judicary

BIG penalty. Oh PUHLEASE

Not happy Janice

 

[Tupac Shakur]

I'd love to see a split screen of Ross' tackle which got 6 weeks and on the other side of the screen have Finch's tackle which got ZERO weeks. Both in slow motion and see which is worse and which deserved x amount of weeks.

Finch didn't "get off". He wasn't exonerated. He was charged and found guilty. He escaped suspension due to his previously clean juducial record.

Found guilty in which he deserved 3 weeks. Because he is a Rooster he gets nothing.

The Ross tackle has got nothing to do with the Finch tackle. They're completely separate tackles with a different set of circumstances.

Only a dullard would make a comparison.

Exactly.
Ross was in the tackle with another player, Finch wasn't. Finch done it all on his own meaning his suspension should have been worse in that case.

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

what a cockadoodlefarce

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats gold :thumnn