Fui - Guilty, No Contest

[hineyrulz]

i think fui should at least fight the grading it was careless not reckless. so they think that was worse than morley's kneeing what a f**king joke :roll:

 

[CharlieF]

wtf?

There is a fine line between careless and reckless. A lot of responsibility is on the player to take due care. Whilst Kite was falling, Fui's arm was still high. It was at least to the same height as his own head. This might have tipped it towards reckless instead of careless. It may have been classified as careless if his arm was not high to begin with.

 

[fish eel]

If there is a duty of care and it involves being aware of 'inherant risks', then Kite should be charged with a grade 3, reckless hit up for running anywhere near Fui!

He should have known there was a risk in that Fui may have nailed him.

 

[number8]

There is a fine line between careless and reckless. A lot of responsibility is on the player to take due care. Whilst Kite was falling, Fui's arm was still high. It was at least to the same height as his own head. This might have tipped it towards reckless instead of careless. It may have been classified as careless if his arm was not high to begin with.

You just said it yourself! Kite fell.

The arm was at an acceptable height to make a legitamate "big hit" had the 1st player not fell him into it. The intent was for a big ball & all hit. Legally!

The arm did not begin at a dangerous height at all!

 

[CharlieF]

If there is a duty of care and it involves being aware of 'inherant risks', then Kite should be charged with a grade 3, reckless hit up for running anywhere near Fui!

He should have known there was a risk in that Fui may have nailed him.

Thats pretty funny

 

[eelsta]

The player has a generalized duty of care which takes into account the

circumstances of the sport, which will include the rules, customs and
inherent risks.

​

​

​

OK, SO DO YOU THINK FUI WAS DELIBERATLY TRYING TO HURT KITE YES OR NO​

 

[caylo]

eelsta yes i do... but don't you always. you want to hurt the player as much as you can legaly. i do think fui arm was swinging, but it was intended to hit him chest high. i think they can easly get that down graded to a carless grade 3, where he misses 4 weeks. but to be honest, if kite isn't falling fui hit isn't a high shot. the problem is fui hits so hard it hurt kite. i say had fui hit him on the chest whilst falling he would have been knocked out just as long. it wasn't where it hit that caused the damage. i don't agree with this, suspention take in2 account injury. two identical tackles can lead to som1 breaking a jaw and som1 getting up and playing the ball injury free. they should be punished the same. fui should have got a grade 1 or 2 careless at worse, and that was not a send off offence. no malice wot so ever and it was the first shot all day from fui that was high.

 

[CharlieF]

OK, SO DO YOU THINK FUI WAS DELIBERATLY TRYING TO HURT KITE YES OR NO[/left]

He was trying to hurt him, but legally. Unfortunetley the execution was wrong. There was definetely NO intentional foul play by Fui.

 

[strider]

i've gotta say the whole "careless" vs "reckless" thing is a joke (cos there is still "intentional" also) ..... just f**king have "careless" and "intentional" nad have more grades if necessary

"careless" vs "reckless" is all just a matter of opinion ... there was no way I will believe Fui's was any worse than Wiki's - NO WAY IN HELL!!!

and all the "duty of care" crap .... well lets play f**kin touch footy then - cos thats the only way we aren't gonna have accidents eh!

 

[strider]

He was trying to hurt him, but legally. Unfortunetley the execution was wrong. There was definetely NO intentional foul play by Fui.

He wasn't trying to "hurt" him ... he was trying to stop a big bastard from scoring a try 3m from the try line ... just grabbing hold wouldn't have done sh*t - kite would have carried him over and likely scored ... Fui needed to put alot of force into it to try and stop him and thats ALL it was - Kite keeps his head up and its all sweet

 

[CharlieF]

You just said it yourself! Kite fell.

The arm was at an acceptable height to make a legitamate "big hit" had the 1st player not fell him into it. The intent was for a big ball & all hit. Legally!

The arm did not begin at a dangerous height at all!

I don't know that his arm was at an acceptable height. It always looked pretty high the moment he went into the tackle. Anyway, that will be the arguement, I believe.

 

[mickdo]

If it came up off the ball then I can't believe it's a reckless grade 3. If the front on video shows that initial contact is with the shoulder, or the ball then surely he must be able to get a downgrade. All this whinging is because Kite has a glass jaw and ended up on the deck.

 

[slippery nipeel]

I agree with true eel 110%. What a joke this grading cr@p is? How could Fuiy possibly get 10 weeks and Wiki 1 week for identical tackles. In fact if Kite does not fall Fuiy hits him around the lower chest and it's a great tackle. As much if not more damage was done when Kite's head hit the ground. If he get's straight to his feet, Fuiy would not have got sent off (it would have been put on report and he get 2 to 4 weeks at worst!!

As I said before Fuiy is the new Morley/Craig Smith - the ref plays the man not the incident!!

These guys play the game hard and with aggression, but they add a great deal to our game and why do we want to rub them out for a indiscretion that should be no more than A PENALTY in most cases??

 

[CharlieF]

i've gotta say the whole "careless" vs "reckless" thing is a joke (cos there is still "intentional" also) ..... just f**king have "careless" and "intentional" nad have more grades if necessary

"careless" vs "reckless" is all just a matter of opinion ... there was no way I will believe Fui's was any worse than Wiki's - NO WAY IN HELL!!!

and all the "duty of care" crap .... well lets play f**kin touch footy then - cos thats the only way we aren't gonna have accidents eh!

True, it has become a lot softer in the last few years, but I think you will find that the actual players are happy with it because it does afford them more protection. They would have been the ones pushing for tighter rules and more stringent enforcement of foul play as much as anybody else in the NRL.

 

[eelsta]

He was trying to hurt him, but legally. Unfortunetley the execution was wrong. There was definetely NO intentional foul play by Fui.

Thank you

 

[Freak2]

Thats pretty funny

CharlieF I have read a few of your posts now and I am very concerned.........

You sound too intelligent and nice to be a Manly supporter.


Please explain yourself!!;-)

 

[Hurriflatch]

The only reason he got more tghen Wiki is because Kite is a softc**k and wears a Manly jersey

 

[Join The Bandwagon]

I say plead guilty to avoid the longer suspension, but go for a down grade to get him back earlier

 

[Hellsy]

When do we find out if Parra are contesting the charge???

 

[Utey]

He just has these itches in his game, which come out at the worst possible times.