mickdo
Coach
- Messages
- 17,355
So you don't think players can get brain damage from high shots? :sarcasm: :crazy:The Preacher said:You're speaking from experience it seems !!![]()
So you don't think players can get brain damage from high shots? :sarcasm: :crazy:The Preacher said:You're speaking from experience it seems !!![]()
mickdo said:So you don't think players can get brain damage from high shots? :sarcasm: :crazy:
Nope, but my guess would be that its a lot less likely than the chance of brain damage from a high shot...The Preacher said:I recall Adam Ritson had a problem associated with this, but are you saying that blood transmitted diseases cannot be passed through being bitten.
The Preacher said:I recall Adam Ritson had a problem associated with this, but are you saying that blood transmitted diseases cannot be passed through being bitten.
Actually, you said this...The Preacher said:Well what's your point against what I've said then ?? I've admitted that brain damage can come from high shots, but biting is a low "dog act" that is abhorrent to even the toughest modern day footballer.
Just about every player expects contact to be made with his head at some point of a game but, you never take the field expecting to be bitten !!!
...responding to a post saying that getting 12 weeks for a bite seemed a bit harsh as opposed to a head shot getting 6. Whether they expect a high shot or not is irrelevant.The Preacher said:You don't contract blood carried diseases from high shots, so do myou still think that high shots have much much greater consequences ???
mickdo said:Actually, you said this...
...responding to a post saying that getting 12 weeks for a bite seemed a bit harsh as opposed to a head shot getting 6. Whether they expect a high shot or not is irrelevant.
My point against what you said is basically the same... it does seem a bit strange that you can get 6 weeks for trying to take a guys head off, but 12 for supposedly biting that doesn't break the skin. And given that the bite didn't break the skin (which by all accounts is the case), and therefore diseases aren't an issue, do you think double the penalty for something that could give someone permanent brain damage is the right penalty?
]b&wdynamite said:12 weeks is a joke in my opinion, don't get me wrong in no way do I think he should get off lightly for it (if proven guilty of course!) but what sort of message does that give to parent's?
On one hand Moi Moi is looking at 12 weeks for biting an arm through a jersey and Trent Barrett/Adam Mc Dougall get/are looking at 6 weeks for callous high shots which could have much much greater consequences.
I heard Brandy touch on this in NRL scoreboard last night too, with the same issue - yes biting is bad and a very cowardly act, but surely it is not worth double the penalty of trying to knock some blokes head off with a forearm?
(note this is not an attack on Trent Barrett or McDougall, these are just the latest big cases in the high shot category)
I guess this all goes back to the oldest complaint about the judicary and its processes - PLEASE BE CONSISTENT!!
Yeah, I guess that's probably part of it...LESStar58 said:]
Chewie Chewie Moi Moi has carry over from dangerous throw charges/suspensions from last year....
Mr Saab said:I dont recall it was proven that all the head shots he copped resulted in his brain tumour.
I recall it that the hit he copped from John Lomax at parra stadium 1996 resulted in him having a brain scan and it was shown he had a brain tumour.
In some aspect John Lomax saved his life.
LESStar58 said:Chewie Chewie Moi Moi has carry over from dangerous throw charges/suspensions from last year....
b&wdynamite said:Maybe if it was reported a little better perhaps - that Fui Fui is facing 12 weeks because of his poor judiciary record (I can only hope the 12 weeks does include loading otherwise someone needs to send Fui a link to the centrelink website)....