George Burgess facing 2 week ban for contrary conduct

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Using the Footy Show panel as evidence...I don't know where to start...my goodness. Agendas the size of the Hume Highway and they say thing half the time purely for TV reasons. If you don't think they are, think again.

McClean on was a unique case, and it involved a serious consequence. Big difference!

Let me dumb it down for you.

Forget about past players opinions or past loyalties and lets look at the facts.

The NRL itself has acknowledged that the punishment does not fit the crime and that its own judiciary system is too inflexible.

They have committed to a review with the aim to change the rules and reverse this issue.

What I am saying is that given this acknowledgement of an issue and commitment to a review, why wouldn't they have held this review this week and made the necessary rule changes by today? They have shown that they can be totally reactionary when they have perceived other issues in the game, why have they not been reactionary here when it could have actually done them some good?

 

[Danish]

It happens all the time. Most contentious judiciary decisions are discussed on the Footy show or some of these other panel shows on TV. Some ex-players say they should have got longer suspensions, others say they should have received a more lenient suspension and some will say they shouldn't have been suspended at all.

The one that immediately comes to mind is the Jordan McLean suspension. Some of the ex-players in the media were saying he should have been rubbed out for much longer than the 7 weeks he received.

Maclean's 7 week suspension was met with huge criticism for being TOO LONG by ex-players in the media. The people wanting a longer suspension were just journos and other commentators.

Hell half the quotes from players and ex-players in the aftermath of Mckinnon's injury were about how badly they feel for Maclean and that the NRL should be doing everything they can to help HIM.


The fine system that you so desperately want shoehorned into the NRL would not have saved Burgess at any rate. Fines are for minor grade 1 offenses. He was hit wit ha grade 2 and wouldn't have had the option to pay a fine to get out of his suspension.

The best way to stop someone from being suspended for throwing shit at players on the field while sitting on the bench is to not f**king do it. The NRL should come down hard on anyone that does this as it is simply not on, and could so easily escalate crowd issues that it needs severe punishment.

 

[yobbo84]

At least he'll be fit and raring to go for another prelim final showdown vs the Roosters :crazy:

 

[betcats]

Can someone please point to a single incident that has ever occurred where current and former players have all come out and said someone should have received a higher suspension than what they got?

"Its not his go", "It seems a bit harsh", "you shouldn't miss foot for that" are basically the standard responses when you ask an ex-player about absolutely anything at the judiciary.

These are the same peanuts that came out last year saying that Issac Luke shouldn't have been suspended for the grand final. Hell they are the same geese who didn't want Cam Smith missing a grand final for essentially trying to rip Thaiday's head clean off his shoulders in 2008.

Ex-players are generally the WORST people to talk to about judiciary matters

JT and his buddies pretty much campaigned to get Snowden suspended for like 8 weeks.

 

[betcats]

The suspension is too much but its well known the MRC is f**ked, if you do dumb shit like throw the bottles from the bench then you put yourself at their mercy at have to cop whatever ridiculous(usually) charge they hand out.

 

[lockyno1]

The NRL itself has acknowledged that the punishment does not fit the crime and that its own judiciary system is too inflexible.

They have committed to a review with the aim to change the rules and reverse this issue.

What I am saying is that given this acknowledgement of an issue and commitment to a review, why wouldn't they have held this review this week and made the necessary rule changes by today? They have shown that they can be totally reactionary when they have perceived other issues in the game, why have they not been reactionary here when it could have actually done them some good?

Right so lets have a review of the whole judiciary process in 2 days right before the finals. They at least took a week for the shoulder charge thing to come in and it was already illegal at the time.

The review will happen after the season, there is nothing wrong with it happening then. The fine system will come in....but ONLY FOR GRADE 1's.

Burgess wouldn't have got off under a fine system, he had a grade 2 charge. He would have escaped with a 1 week ban as his previous offences would have been a fine. No issue with a 1 match ban for this. Burgess having priors is not the NRL's fault.

 

[muzby]

Mate, my whole argument is that if the rule is to be changed next year, why not change the rule now?

It's not like the NRL haven't changed rules mid year or even just before the finals before. We had one of the biggest and most contentious changes to a rule ever, just a few weeks ago.

If you are going to change it anyway, change it when it will actually do some good for the game and stop the NRL looking like a bunch of imbeciles.

i think you're missing the whole implication of a player who isn't involved in the match at that point in time, throwing a foreign object onto the field of play, thereby interfering with the match..

and, hypothetically lets say he had an aussie cricketing arm instead of an english cricketing arm, and the bottle hit evans in the head, breaking his nose or even knocking him out..


what then?

 

[Captain Apollo]

Can someone please point to a single incident that has ever occurred where current and former players have all come out and said someone should have received a higher suspension than what they got?

"Its not his go", "It seems a bit harsh", "you shouldn't miss foot for that" are basically the standard responses when you ask an ex-player about absolutely anything at the judiciary.

These are the same peanuts that came out last year saying that Issac Luke shouldn't have been suspended for the grand final. Hell they are the same geese who didn't want Cam Smith missing a grand final for essentially trying to rip Thaiday's head clean off his shoulders in 2008.

Ex-players are generally the WORST people to talk to about judiciary matters

What is even funnier, the NRL Judiciary panel which actually decide on matters where a player challenges a charge is comprised of ex-players. The ex-players found Burgess guilty. The panel for Burgess' case was Bob Linder, Royce Ayliffe and Mal Cochrane.

 

[Danish]

JT and his buddies pretty much campaigned to get Snowden suspended for like 8 weeks.

Thats true actually. But derplanders are all merkins and don't count :sarcasm:

 

[DJShaksta]

Let me dumb it down for you.

Forget about past players opinions or past loyalties and lets look at the facts.

The NRL itself has acknowledged that the punishment does not fit the crime and that its own judiciary system is too inflexible.

They have committed to a review with the aim to change the rules and reverse this issue.

What I am saying is that given this acknowledgement of an issue and commitment to a review, why wouldn't they have held this review this week and made the necessary rule changes by today? They have shown that they can be totally reactionary when they have perceived other issues in the game, why have they not been reactionary here when it could have actually done them some good?

Let me dumb it down even further for you.

DON'T
FUGGEN
THROW
BOTTLES.

 

[lockyno1]

Let me dumb it down even further for you.

DON'T
FUGGEN
THROW
BOTTLES.

You would swear they just don't get it. It is like repeating yourself a million times!:lol:

 

[muzby]

Let me dumb it down even further for you.

DON'T
FUGGEN
THROW
BOTTLES.

exactly.

 

[redvscotty]

Imo the most telling one is Paul Gallen. He is the captain of the team we are playing against in a final on the weekend and arguably would have the most to lose. He could have shut his mouth and said nothing.

The fact that even he has come out and rubbished this call is all the proof that you need.

Gallen is a dribbling fool.

Went through a drugs scandal and only got 2 weeks. No credibility whatsoever.

Don't throw shit at players on the field if you are on the bench. Simple rule.

 

[Danish]

Gallen is a dribbling fool.

Went through a drugs scandal and only got 2 weeks. No credibility whatsoever.

Don't throw shit at players on the field if you are on the bench. Simple rule.

and bitched relentlessly at how hard done by he was for those 2 weeks as well

 

[carcharias]

I think gal is playing this weekend

 

[grandorient]

Punishment doesn't fit the crime; quite simple really..

GO

 

[Danish]

I think gal is playing this weekend

I was taught to share while playing..... Although to be fair when Gal was a rookie Matty Johns taught him that sharing involved going hard while your team mates stand around and watch, so its not really his fault.

 

[betcats]

I was taught to share while playing..... Although to be fair when Gal was a rookie Matty Johns taught him that sharing involved going hard while your team mates stand around and watch, so its not really his fault.

:lol::lol:

That's actually really good.

 

[some11]

18 pages? seriously?

Isn't this the meathead who rammed a street pole through a car window?

He's on the Josh Reynolds level of impulsive geniusation.

 

[betcats]

18 pages? seriously?

Isn't this the meathead who rammed a street pole through a car window?

He's on the Josh Reynolds level of impulsive geniusation.

:shock: Come on now never go full Reynolds.