Hayne escapes suspension, no such luck for Gibbs

[Hollywood Jesus]

They base it on the action committed.

So, basically, you're advocating a system where it's ok to bash Fui but it's not ok to bash Reddy. Where deliberately elbowing Fui to the head should only incur a minimal penalty based on the fact that he's actual a machine and will be able to get to his feet.

In addition, you're advocating a system that encourages a player to stay down and dog it so that there will be a harsher penalty handed out to the opposition that is in no way based on an objective review of the action but instead based on a subjective review of how tough/how much of a cat the opposition player is.

 

[sportive cupid]

Good God! I actually agree with you HJ

 

[Eels Dude]

You need to pay attention to whats actually going on..It was done and dusted hours ago.If you had have had an early nite like i suggested you would have understood everything thats gone on today.

If I'd had an early night, I'd still have not been able to understand what you just said. Go back to school. Stop acting like a baby and trying to cause rubbish. Just because I had a go at you in a couple of other threads, and rightfully so, doesn't mean you need to act like a baby.

 

[Raudonikis]

If I'd had an early night, I'd still have not been able to understand what you just said. Go back to school. Stop acting like a baby and trying to cause rubbish. Just because I had a go at you in a couple of other threads, and rightfully so, doesn't mean you need to act like a baby.

Seriously>i dont understand why you dont understand my comments, its pretty much straight forward sh*t.I dont talk in riddles so you should be able to understand what i actually say.I would suggest its just you dont understand logic or common sence when people speak it.Seriously!For you to say you didnt understand my last post really tells me a lot about you.
Ya f**king goose.It wasnt hard to figure out.

 

[Parra Guru]

I agree with you HJ

 

[mickdo]

They base it on the action committed.

So, basically, you're advocating a system where it's ok to bash Fui but it's not ok to bash Reddy. Where deliberately elbowing Fui to the head should only incur a minimal penalty based on the fact that he's actual a machine and will be able to get to his feet.

In addition, you're advocating a system that encourages a player to stay down and dog it so that there will be a harsher penalty handed out to the opposition that is in no way based on an objective review of the action but instead based on a subjective review of how tough/how much of a cat the opposition player is.

No that's not what I'm advocating, and thanks for verballing me. Neither is ok.

What I am saying is that the severity of a crime of judged by the impact of the actions. That you think otherwise means you do not agree with our legal system, or the NRL. If someone elbows Fui in the jaw and doesn't break it then they get a certain penalty. If someone elbows Reddy in the jaw and breaks it then they will end up with a more severe one. If you aren't prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions then don't elbow people in the head.

 

[caylo]

No that's not what I'm advocating, and thanks for verballing me. Neither is ok.

What I am saying is that the severity of a crime of judged by the impact of the actions. That you think otherwise means you do not agree with our legal system, or the NRL. If someone elbows Fui in the jaw and doesn't break it then they get a certain penalty. If someone elbows Reddy in the jaw and breaks it then they will end up with a more severe one. If you aren't prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions then don't elbow people in the head.

I am with HJ and disagree with this line of action. What about such senario: Benny fell on Tauiaki ankle and broke and benny pulls at Tauiaki's ankle and breaks it. They both have the same outcome but done in different senarios do we punish benny either way.

The result of an incident should not determine the punishment rather the intent and the action itself should determine the punishment. If I have a swinging arm across the chin of a opposition player that deserves a 2 week ban why should I cope an extra 2-3 weeks because the bloke I hit has a weaker jaw or previous injury which predisposes him to a break.

 

[mickdo]

I am with HJ and disagree with this line of action. What about such senario: Benny fell on Tauiaki ankle and broke and benny pulls at Tauiaki's ankle and breaks it. They both have the same outcome but done in different senarios do we punish benny either way.

What on earth are you talking about? It is not illegal to grab his ankle if you are making a tackle, so he would not be punished either way :crazy:

The result of an incident should not determine the punishment rather the intent and the action itself should determine the punishment. If I have a swinging arm across the chin of a opposition player that deserves a 2 week ban why should I cope an extra 2-3 weeks because the bloke I hit has a weaker jaw or previous injury which predisposes him to a break.

Because most of the time, if you break someone's jaw its usually because you hit him harder

 

[caylo]

What on earth are you talking about? It is not illegal to pull at his ankle if you are tackling him, so he would not be punished either way :crazy:

no not always but assuming he pulled and twisted it with intent to cause injury it would be illegal, so would you have the same punishment?

Because most of the time, if you break someone's jaw its usually because you hit him harder

if a player is running in to tackle you and you put your elbow up with intent to hit him in head a player who runs faster is going to recieve more force (simply because F=ma basic physics) or if you hit a player on the angle of their jaw it will more likley break if you hit the chin (the angle is the weakest part of the jaw) or simply if they have more dense bones. Their are alot more variables then simply how hard you hit someone and to me that is a big reason why the result should not play a part in determining punishment.

 

[caylo]

What on earth are you talking about? It is not illegal to grab his ankle if you are making a tackle, so he would not be punished either way :crazy:

Or i can give you a better example:
1) A player is going in for a shoulder charge and breaks 3 ribs of his opponent on impace

2) A player is on the floor and is kicked in the rib area and breaks a single rib.

there senario 1 has a worse outcome in terms of injury, so do we charge the player for inflicting an injury while the 2nd has intent to cause harm but does less damage. I dont believe we can pick and chose when to implement rules, it should be simple that one action should lead to one punishment irrespective of outcome.

 

[strider]

whether its right or wrong, fact is they DO punish harder depending on the resulting injury

 

[mickdo]

no not always but assuming he pulled and twisted it with intent to cause injury it would be illegal, so would you have the same punishment?

One is an illegal action, one is not, so naturally the penalty would only apply to the illegal action. We are only talking about illegal actions here.

if a player is running in to tackle you and you put your elbow up with intent to hit him in head a player who runs faster is going to recieve more force (simply because F=ma basic physics) or if you hit a player on the angle of their jaw it will more likley break if you hit the chin (the angle is the weakest part of the jaw) or simply if they have more dense bones. Their are alot more variables then simply how hard you hit someone and to me that is a big reason why the result should not play a part in determining punishment.

The biggest factor is usually how hard and where you hit them, so if you hit them hard enough and in the right spot to break their jaw, why shouldn't you receive mor punish,ent than someone who does not?

 

[mickdo]

Or i can give you a better example:
1) A player is going in for a shoulder charge and breaks 3 ribs of his opponent on impace

2) A player is on the floor and is kicked in the rib area and breaks a single rib.

there senario 1 has a worse outcome in terms of injury, so do we charge the player for inflicting an injury while the 2nd has intent to cause harm but does less damage. I dont believe we can pick and chose when to implement rules, it should be simple that one action should lead to one punishment irrespective of outcome.

Shoulder charges to the ribs are not illegal. Why are you even bringing that up???

 

[caylo]

One is an illegal action, one is not, so naturally the penalty would only apply to the illegal action. We are only talking about illegal actions here.

That is the point, If you use the idea that we are punishing depending on the outcome should this not apply universally rather than just picking and chosing when you apply it.

The biggest factor is usually how hard and where you hit them, so if you hit them hard enough and in the right spot to break their jaw, why shouldn't you receive mor punish,ent than someone who does not?

That is very untrue, as a maxillofacial surgen how much weaker the angle of the jaw is compared to the chin. Ask a thoratic surgen how much weaker the rib is around the angle and you will probably realise how much it can influence he outcome.

Other simply cases also; darryn lockyer is going to have alot more calcification of his ribs due to age (which will make it brittle and more prone to fracture) then someone like Mortimer (will have less calcification so more flexable and less likley to break). If Tahu leg was twisted illegally he would more likley do his hamstring then lets say jennings who has had no hamstring issues.

If I kick or elbow you with intent to cause harm why should it depend on were i hit you or the size and strength of the opponent. IMO players should only be judged on intent and the actual nature of action rather then the outcome.

 

[mickdo]

That is the point, If you use the idea that we are punishing depending on the outcome should this not apply universally rather than just picking and chosing when you apply it.

No, that is not the point. The game has rules. You are not allowed to attack the head of an opponent. You are not allowed to drop your knees. You are not allowed to chicken wing etc. If you break those rules then the amount of damage you do should have some bearing on the punishment you receive. If you don't break those rules and injury occurs (e.g. Ben Smith landing on Tuiaki's ankle) then you don't deserve any punishment. I don;t know how more simply I can spell it out for you.

That is very untrue, as a maxillofacial surgen how much weaker the angle of the jaw is compared to the chin. Ask a thoratic surgen how much weaker the rib is around the angle and you will probably realise how much it can influence he outcome.

Other simply cases also; darryn lockyer is going to have alot more calcification of his ribs due to age (which will make it brittle and more prone to fracture) then someone like Mortimer (will have less calcification so more flexable and less likley to break). If Tahu leg was twisted illegally he would more likley do his hamstring then lets say jennings who has had no hamstring issues.

If I kick or elbow you with intent to cause harm why should it depend on were i hit you or the size and strength of the opponent. IMO players should only be judged on intent and the actual nature of action rather then the outcome.

Because the damage you cause affects the opponent you damage. If you elbow a person to the head and out them for 3 months with a broken jaw, you deserve to be punished for the result of your actions. If you don't put them out for 3 months, you did not affect another player in the same way.

What you are saying is that if you get into a brawl in a night club and belt someone and break their jaw, you should receive no more penalty than if you only belted them and merely stunned them. Frankly that is the most ridiculous penal system I have ever heard of. Thank god you aren't in charge of it.

 

[caylo]

No, that is not the point. The game has rules. You are not allowed to attack the head of an opponent. You are not allowed to drop your knees. You are not allowed to chicken wing etc. If you break those rules then the amount of damage you do should have some bearing on the punishment you receive. If you don't break those rules and injury occurs (e.g. Ben Smith landing on Tuiaki's ankle) then you don't deserve any punishment. I don;t know how more simply I can spell it out for you.

If I accidently make a high tackle and break a players jaw I should be outed for 3 months compared to if I made the same tackle (or worse, intended to make a high tackle) that resulted in no injury I should get 1 week. That is ridiculous, next your will be saying that the person that inflicted the injury should suffer the same injury himself as punishment.

Because the damage you cause affects the opponent you damage. If you elbow a person to the head and out them for 3 months with a broken jaw, you deserve to be punished for the result of your actions. If you don't put them out for 3 months, you did not affect another player in the same way.

What you are saying is that if you get into a brawl in a night club and belt someone and break their jaw, you should receive no more penalty than if you only belted them and merely stunned them. Frankly that is the most ridiculous penal system I have ever heard of. Thank god you aren't in charge of it.

Ben Smith broke Tuiaki foot and he will probably miss the rest of the season damaging the Tigers chances but ben should not be punished because their was not intent. It is sport and injuries occur and that is part of what a sucessful club does, I would hope someone was outed for 4-6 weeks if he intentionally elbowed a player in the head irrespective of the damage. It isnt like the team you play gets rewarded it is teams which are played in the following weeks that have it easier.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Good God! I actually agree with you HJ

I agree with you HJ

I am with HJ

It's a bloody love fest, I tells ya.

and thanks for verballing me.

No worries, brother.

That you think otherwise means you do not agree with our legal system, or the NRL.

Our legal system isn't entirely set up like that. For example the difference between murder and manslaughter is due to intent and not the result of the action (where people in both situations are killed).

In regards to the NRL, yes I do disagree. As I've said it sets up incentives to stay down or make the injury seem worse than it is. All you have to do is play dead and allow yourself to be carried off (read: interchanged) and there would be an increased chance of the player being sent for his actions.

Once he is sent, just come back later on. The NRL can never prove that there was nothing wrong with you to begin with so you can probably get away with it and you take the opposition down to 12 for the rest of the game. I've already mentioned the Fuifui/Kite example which we all know was a bloody joke.

 

[mickdo]

If I accidently make a high tackle and break a players jaw I should be outed for 3 months compared to if I made the same tackle (or worse, intended to make a high tackle) that resulted in no injury I should get 1 week.

I did not say you should be outed for 3 months compared to a week, but the punishment will be GREATER for the same type of illegal tackle if an injury is sustained.

That is ridiculous, next your will be saying that the person that inflicted the injury should suffer the same injury himself as punishment.

That is not what I am saying. Read it again.

Ben Smith broke Tuiaki foot and he will probably miss the rest of the season damaging the Tigers chances but ben should not be punished because their was not intent. It is sport and injuries occur and that is part of what a sucessful club does, I would hope someone was outed for 4-6 weeks if he intentionally elbowed a player in the head irrespective of the damage. It isnt like the team you play gets rewarded it is teams which are played in the following weeks that have it easier.

For the last time, stop bringing Ben Smith's tackle in to it. It was not illegal!!!

 

[mickdo]

Our legal system isn't entirely set up like that. For example the difference between murder and manslaughter is due to intent and not the result of the action (where people in both situations are killed).

Correct, but when it comes to sentencing, the injury sustained or the manner in which it is sustained is a main factor in determining that sentence. If a person kills someone by giving them an overdose of sleeping pills (i.e. a non-violent death), they are likely to receive a lesser sentence than someone who tortures a person and cuts off their arms and limbs to kill them.

Similarly, the NRL has different categories for for the different types of high tackles (careless, reckless and intentional) despite them all involving contact with the head, and within those categories, the injury sustained is a factor in the determination of the grading.

In regards to the NRL, yes I do disagree. As I've said it sets up incentives to stay down or make the injury seem worse than it is. All you have to do is play dead and allow yourself to be carried off (read: interchanged) and there would be an increased chance of the player being sent for his actions.

Once he is sent, just come back later on. The NRL can never prove that there was nothing wrong with you to begin with so you can probably get away with it and you take the opposition down to 12 for the rest of the game. I've already mentioned the Fuifui/Kite example which we all know was a bloody joke.

I just don't see that as a good enough reason to not take the extent of an injury in to account. Any player who does that is a dog, and would have to suffer the consequences of their actions. There is a charge for contrary conduct which I believe covers such things if a player were to be found out. If you want to tighten the system up, have an independent doctor examine the player and determine the extent of the injury.

Should law courts not take injuries of victims in to account in case they might be faking it? Please...

 

[caylo]

I did not say you should be outed for 3 months compared to a week, but the punishment will be GREATER for the same type of illegal tackle if an injury is sustained.

Irrespective if its 3 months or 2 weeks should an accidental high tackle that causes an injury be punished more than an identical accidental high tackle that does not cause injury. Your argument is flawed.
[/QUOTE]

That is not what I am saying. Read it again.

That was tounge in cheak... you know a joke

For the last time, stop bringing Ben Smith's tackle in to it. It was not illegal!!!

That is the point, first you say the resulting injury should determine the severity of the punishment but then you say there was no intent so it is not illegal. You cant have it one way or another, there should be a universal rule which encompasses all senarios and unfortunatly if you suspend a player simply on extent of injury you are now punishing them for things often beyond their control.