Fuifui faces 12-week ban

[mickdo]

You're speaking from experience it seems !!

So you don't think players can get brain damage from high shots? :sarcasm: :crazy:

 

[The Preacher]

So you don't think players can get brain damage from high shots? :sarcasm: :crazy:

I recall Adam Ritson had a problem associated with this, but are you saying that blood transmitted diseases cannot be passed through being bitten.

 

[mickdo]

I recall Adam Ritson had a problem associated with this, but are you saying that blood transmitted diseases cannot be passed through being bitten.

Nope, but my guess would be that its a lot less likely than the chance of brain damage from a high shot...

 

[The Preacher]

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 !!!

 

[Mr Saab]

I recall Adam Ritson had a problem associated with this, but are you saying that blood transmitted diseases cannot be passed through being bitten.

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.

 

[mickdo]

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 !!!

Actually, you said this...

You don't contract blood carried diseases from high shots, so do myou still think that high shots have much much greater consequences ???

...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?

 

[The Preacher]

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?

Neither of these charges were regarded as deliberate, they were careless, and I dont think you can bite someone without actually meaning to.

 

[LESStar58]

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!!

]

Chewie Chewie Moi Moi has carry over from dangerous throw charges/suspensions from last year....

 

[mickdo]

]

Chewie Chewie Moi Moi has carry over from dangerous throw charges/suspensions from last year....

Yeah, I guess that's probably part of it...

 

[Pierced Soul]

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.

ironically I believe lomax was sued and ended up settling out of court. as far as i 'm aware you cant get brain tumours from being hit in the head... Ritson should really be paying lomax for saving him...

 

[El Diablo]

i think it was a cyst, not a tumor

 

[Mr Saab]

Indeed it was a cyst and not a brain tumour as i assumed.
My bad

 

[b&wdynamite]

Chewie Chewie Moi Moi has carry over from dangerous throw charges/suspensions from last year....

I raised this point in a later post..........

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)....

People without a knowledge of our game and its judiciary processes don't see/understand the idea of loadings & carry on points - they see that biting gets 12 weeks and high shots only 6.

The media needs to better report - detailing both the value of the charge without loading (which is what by the way?) and then the fact that the players poor record is resulting in an extended period on the sideline ie. 12 weeks. This would go some way as to show how the NRL treats each act on its own merit, not the person who committed them.