George Burgess facing 2 week ban for contrary conduct

[insert.pause]

It happened while he was a participating player, the NRL could only have fined him if he wasn't playing.

The narrow minded dinosaurs are out in force saying he shouldn't have been charged. The same loudmouth 'experts' who were claiming the dogs were robbed in the Good Friday game only to have egg on their faces when told of the rules.

 

[Valheru]

Oh well Cecchin is ref so he will favour you guys.

Cecchin is bias against Souths.

Your performance over the last few days has to rate as one of the most epic meltdowns on LU in some years.

 

[kbw]

Oh well Cecchin is ref so he will favour you guys.

Cecchin is bias against Souths.

Does he have a lower count of leg up penalties for $ouff$ or are you just another $ouff$ supporter that has absolutely no understanding of the rules ...

 

[Lambretta]

Sterling and Johns both are saying George Burgess shouldn't be suspended.

They say it's an over reaction and that a warning and fine is sufficient. Johns says fine him 20-25k.

I was talking about Napa not Burgess, but while you are on the subject I don't think George Burgess should be banned
Complete over reaction

He didn't hit anyone. Bloody poms, can't throw.


Re the fine. I agree he should be fined, not banned, but unfortunately the match review committee doesn't have that power. On field incidents can only be given suspensions not fines by the match review committee. The MRC would have to do nothing and ask Souths to handle it themselves for a fine to be given. Personally I would be fine with that.

 

[Rabbits20]

Does he have a lower count of leg up penalties for $ouff$ or are you just another $ouff$ supporter that has absolutely no understanding of the rules ...

I understand the rules.

 

[Rabbits20]

Had you said that instead of clouding the issue by talking about Maloney, Napa and Moa you may not have gotten such stick from people.

A fine? I don't think that the NRL judiciary code permits that for these instances.

I tend to agree 2 weeks did seem harsh.

I will admit Moa not being charged is fair enough.

Moa actually isn't a dirty player.

Moa is actually good to watch when he carries the ball very strongly which is on a consistent basis.

 

[Captain Apollo]

As I had suspected, the Match Review Committee did not have an option to issue Burgess with a fine, they could only lay a charge against him. This is confirmed by an article by Brad Walter in today's Sydney Morning Herald - http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ess-under-judiciary-code-20150908-gjhx4y.html

Sorry, it appears I've hit the monthly limit here at work so I can't paste the text of the article as I can't open it.

 

[carcharias]

as I have said .
It is a suspension everyday of the week.
You cannot throw shit at players from the bench.

It doesn't matter if he missed or what he threw ...it is just utter bad sportsmanship regardless of what is happening on the field.

These dopes like Peter Tunks are arguing the fact it was only a plastic bottle and that he missed the player he was aiming at.
Totally missing the point that the bloke has got involved from outside the field of play.

You cannot do that.

You see blokes who get involved in punch ups who run in from the bench get massive bans.
Burgess was very very lucky to cop 2 weeks at most.

 

[Frailty]

as I have said .
It is a suspension everyday of the week.
You cannot throw shit at players from the bench.

It doesn't matter if he missed or what he threw ...it is just utter bad sportsmanship regardless of what is happening on the field.

These dopes like Peter Tunks are arguing the fact it was only a plastic bottle and that he missed the player he was aiming at.
Totally missing the point that the bloke has got involved from outside the field of play.

You cannot do that.

You see blokes who get involved in punch ups who run in from the bench get massive bans.
Burgess was very very lucky to cop 2 weeks at most.

Probably the kind of person who would then say any fan throwing a water bottle at a player should be banned for life.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I wonder what we'd be saying if the incident incited a Souffs fans to chuck a bottle at Evans or a Rooster supporter to chuck one at Burgess?

 

[Danish]

as I have said .
It is a suspension everyday of the week.
You cannot throw shit at players from the bench.

It doesn't matter if he missed or what he threw ...it is just utter bad sportsmanship regardless of what is happening on the field.

These dopes like Peter Tunks are arguing the fact it was only a plastic bottle and that he missed the player he was aiming at.
Totally missing the point that the bloke has got involved from outside the field of play.

You cannot do that.

You see blokes who get involved in punch ups who run in from the bench get massive bans.
Burgess was very very lucky to cop 2 weeks at most.

Problem is the buddy buddy "it's not his go" nature of the rugby league media is likely going to see this idiot get off.

If there was one charge I'd like the NRL to have backed themselves on it was this one. Its just such a dumbass thing to do and something you would really want to come down hard on. If that bottle had actually hit Kane just imagine the blue that would have erupted.


Personally instead of this stupid fine based system that is being tossed about I would prefer the NRL come down hard on try hard idiots throwing balls at players and all the other fake tough guy crap thats crept into the game more and more since the no punching rule. The best part is there is a very simple way to stamp out this nonsense without even introducing a new rule, just enforcing those already on the books:

SECTION 13 - PENALTY KICK
1.b. In the event of a breach by the kicker?s team a scrum shall be formed at the point where the penalty kick was awarded. In the event of a breach by the opposing team a further penalty kick shall be awarded at a point opposite where the breach occurred on a line parallel to the goal line ten metres from where the penalty kick was awarded.
6. If the kick is not taken as stated or if a player of the infringes kicker?s team infringes, a scrum shall be formed at the mark, provided it is no closer than twenty metres to the touch line.

So in the instance on friday night for example, penalty is awarded to Souths. Souths player gets up throwing handbags and pegs ball at Taka. Penalty is overturned and scrum is awarded to the Roosters for the souths player infringing after the penalty. Easy.

Players would learn very bloody quickly to keep their tough guy bullshit in check if every time they did it they cost their team an attacking opportunity AND possession.

 

[Snappy]

You can't help but wonder what might have transpired if that water bottle hit Evans .

Did you even read the thread? Already been covered......sheesh

The water bottle didn't even connect at all. If it did all it would have done is exploded and saturated Evans like a water bomb.

 

[yobbo84]

If they increased the points required to be suspended for a final to 150 (and 200 for a grand final), a lot of these minor incidents could still be charged without the usual "he's missing a final for THAT" type conversations we have every bloody year.

 

[DiegoNT]

If they increased the points required to be suspended for a final to 150 (and 200 for a grand final), a lot of these minor incidents could still be charged without the usual "he's missing a final for THAT" type conversations we have every bloody year.

That's actually a great idea. 100 for regular season match, 150 for finals, 200 for rep and grand finals. Conversely have trial matches weighted at 50 so people can avoid using trial matches to run down big suspensions.

 

[no name]

Problem is the buddy buddy "it's not his go" nature of the rugby league media is likely going to see this idiot get off.

If there was one charge I'd like the NRL to have backed themselves on it was this one. Its just such a dumbass thing to do and something you would really want to come down hard on. If that bottle had actually hit Kane just imagine the blue that would have erupted.


Personally instead of this stupid fine based system that is being tossed about I would prefer the NRL come down hard on try hard idiots throwing balls at players and all the other fake tough guy crap thats crept into the game more and more since the no punching rule. The best part is there is a very simple way to stamp out this nonsense without even introducing a new rule, just enforcing those already on the books:

SECTION 13 - PENALTY KICK
1.b. In the event of a breach by the kicker?s team a scrum shall be formed at the point where the penalty kick was awarded. In the event of a breach by the opposing team a further penalty kick shall be awarded at a point opposite where the breach occurred on a line parallel to the goal line ten metres from where the penalty kick was awarded.
6. If the kick is not taken as stated or if a player of the infringes kicker?s team infringes, a scrum shall be formed at the mark, provided it is no closer than twenty metres to the touch line.

So in the instance on friday night for example, penalty is awarded to Souths. Souths player gets up throwing handbags and pegs ball at Taka. Penalty is overturned and scrum is awarded to the Roosters for the souths player infringing after the penalty. Easy.

Players would learn very bloody quickly to keep their tough guy bullshit in check if every time they did it they cost their team an attacking opportunity AND possession.

A'f**king'men.
The ball throwing carry on pisses me off no end.

 

[no name]

If they increased the points required to be suspended for a final to 150 (and 200 for a grand final), a lot of these minor incidents could still be charged without the usual "he's missing a final for THAT" type conversations we have every bloody year.

So in a prelim, you get a previous clean skin to punch out Thurston, plead not guilty and get off for the GF.
Changing the 'value' of games will never work.

 

[yobbo84]

So in a prelim, you get a previous clean skin to punch out Thurston, plead not guilty and get off for the GF.
Changing the 'value' of games will never work.

Your example makes no sense in the context of my point. Try again.

 

[Card Shark]

If they increased the points required to be suspended for a final to 150 (and 200 for a grand final), a lot of these minor incidents could still be charged without the usual "he's missing a final for THAT" type conversations we have every bloody year.

It's too much common sense...off you go!

 

[no name]

Your example makes no sense in the context of my point. Try again.

Ok, let's say a player who has never been sited before throws a full bottle of water at JTs melon in the first minute of the prelim.
It knocks JT out he can't play for the rest of the game and Cowboys lose.
He gets hit with a grade 2 contrary conduct (as per Precedence on Burgess)
Player pleads not guilty wins the GF after taking out one of the games best players in the prelim

Is that example more in context of your point?

 

[yobbo84]

Ok, let's say a player who has never been sited before throws a full bottle of water at JTs melon in the first minute of the prelim.
It knocks JT out he can't play for the rest of the game and Cowboys lose.
He gets hit with a grade 2 contrary conduct (as per Precedence on Burgess)
Player pleads not guilty wins the GF after taking out one of the games best players in the prelim

Is that example more in context of your point?

If he plead not guilty and got off then it wouldn't matter what the points were, so no it doesn't make sense.

If a player pelted a bottle that knocked out JT I dare say it'd be a little higher than a Grade 2.

And George has plead guilty.