Furious Warriors sponsor launches attack

[Vibing]

The Referee's Union isn't going to do shit.

Well your mate Paris has already back tracked , toned down .. retreated so , the unions threat has had an affect

 

[Leber]

As are 1000 people, every week, about different referees, players, teams and incidents...I don't know why they have such a massive hard on over this one.

Yeah he better not not on facebook... he will have lots of people to sue.

 

[Vibing]

Well if he was gunna sue Paris, he better sue campion aswell.

He's basically saying the same thing

they could yea

 

[Meth]

Well your mate Paris has already back tracked , toned down .. retreated so , the unions threat has had an affect

Nah. He tempered his comments because he was no longer in the heat of the moment, but still has retained the essence of what he said. Many don't see it as any kind of retreat or retraction at all. He even offered to pay for Websters' fines if he says what he thinks.

 

[soc123_au]

lol @ suing him. Freedom of speech.

I still wanna know why the tackle on Harris went unpunished. Maybe not bias, but f**k we have some incompetent refs running around.

No Freedom of speech laws here mate. That is an American thing.

Agree on the Harris tackle, Leota should have got a 10 minute sit down.

I would like to see Annesly shown vision of the Warriors bloke getting binned for the "punch" on Cleary, see him defend it, then show him a 20 minute montage of Latrell pretty much every time he gets tackled and have him explain how what Latrell does is fine, but old mate goes to the bin. I was away on the weekend, so only watched a replay last night. Cleary cops contact to the chin and doesn't even flinch, I doubt he even noticed. The inconsistencies with things like that are what does most peoples heads in.

 

[Vibing]

Nah. He tempered his comments because he was no longer in the heat of the moment, but still has retained the essence of what he said. Many don't see it as any kind of retreat or retraction at all. He even offered to pay for Websters' fines if he says what he thinks.

his balls shrunk

end of ...

 

[Meth]

his balls shrunk

end of ...

I was hoping you'd go onto say "...my contribution to this thread and my participation on this forum"

 

[Meth]

No Freedom of speech laws here mate. That is an American thing.

Yeah, Freedom of Speech is an American thing for sure. But still, the threat of suing is laughable and pretty weak and petty. It quite obviously won't go anywhere.

 

[Vibing]

. It quite obviously won't go anywhere.

your mate didn't think so

imitated a Russian Tank in the Ukraine ...

 

[ColdWetPanther]

No Freedom of speech laws here mate. That is an American thing.

Agree on the Harris tackle, Leota should have got a 10 minute sit down.

I would like to see Annesly shown vision of the Warriors bloke getting binned for the "punch" on Cleary, see him defend it, then show him a 20 minute montage of Latrell pretty much every time he gets tackled and have him explain how what Latrell does is fine, but old mate goes to the bin. I was away on the weekend, so only watched a replay last night. Cleary cops contact to the chin and doesn't even flinch, I doubt he even noticed. The inconsistencies with things like that are what does most peoples heads in.

I don’t want to defend the league, because I do think there are double standards in the way that teams are refereed (albeit the fact that literally everyone thinks there team gets the short end of the stick does go to show their are unconscious biases with everyone) but context does matter.

For the Moses head high (which I do think should have been sent to the bin) the Walker tackle where there was chest and the chin contact would have played on their mind. It was a tough game and in the first instance they took into consideration where first contact was. They probably saw first contact with Moses was shoulder and then throat but didn’t look at technique.

For the ‘punch’ Latrell should definitely get some sanction for his open handed strikes (I also saw JWH do the same thing a few times this weekend) but in fairness to both of them, I can’t remember an incident where they run 10m to get involved in a scuffle and do it. It was a weak strike but it was a striking motion and it escalated a scuffle.

 

[Vibing]

wheres the reverse on this thing LOL

 

[Meth]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/spor...ainst-warriors-despite-nrl-investigation.html

Doesn't seem like you're very good at reading @Vibing

 

[Vibing]

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/spor...ainst-warriors-despite-nrl-investigation.html

Doesn't seem like you're very good at reading @Vibing

my reading is fine
I'll read into that , what I like ...

a hasty retreat

 

[Canard]

That’s not correct. If the Match Officials were e to sue, it would be up to the sponsor to prove that he has proof that the MOs are cheating.

Given Paris is not iniating any legal action, it would be the match officials that have to make the case.

Paris might pursue this course of action in defence, however.

The match officials won't pursue this though, because it's all bluster, and the likely outcome would be them admitting they are often inconsistent and incorrect (but not cheats), so not sure that would be a big win for them.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

Given Paris is not iniating any legal action, it would be the match officials that have to make the case.

Paris might pursue this course of action in defence, however.

The match officials won't pursue this though, because it's all bluster, and the likely outcome would be them admitting they are often inconsistent and incorrect (but not cheats), so not sure that would be a big win for them.

I agree with your last paragraph. The first two paras aren’t how libel cases work. I must admit my knowledge is from the UK (but given the legal system’s are so related I am assuming it to be the case in both Aus And NZ) but in defamation cases the statements that are under scrutiny are assumed to be false unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

 

[Meth]

I agree with your last paragraph. The first two paras aren’t how libel cases work. I must admit my knowledge is from the UK (but given the legal system’s are so related I am assuming it to be the case in both Aus And NZ) but in defamation cases the statements that are under scrutiny are assumed to be false unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

I do understand that this is the case in Australia (at least) as well.

 

[Meth]

The whole thing is just so outlandishly frivolous though.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

The whole thing is just so outlandishly frivolous though.

I agree. Which is why the Referees Union have gone as far as they will, but have also got the result they were after; a stepping back from the sponsor.

 

[Meth]

I agree. Which is why the Referees Union have gone as far as they will, but have also got the result they were after; a stepping back from the sponsor.

Meh. Again, I don't think he stepped back all that far. I don't think the Referees Union are walking away with this with their hands raised at the moment.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I agree. Which is why the Referees Union have gone as far as they will, but have also got the result they were after; a stepping back from the sponsor.

Exactly. Pretty much nothing will happen from here (legally) but the Warriors will win because behind the scenes the reefs will be in damage control mode and be at pains not to make Paris appear right -because that would be embarrassing