Dont keep us in suspense now....I believe there is marked differences in both cases
LOL "I tucked my feet back!"...You led with knees Doofus
As said, 2 wrongs dont make it right
if you think the Gibbs call was wrong, then you can support Haynes suspension for the sake of consistancy, the only thing worse then inconsistancy is being consistantly WRONG.
I believe there is marked differences in both cases, which makes Gibbs incident worse, but i think his charge was harsh and i dont believe Hayne should be charged, he did all he could at that speed to avoid dangerous contact. These things happen in RL. Thats why its the toughest collision sport in the world.
My simple point is stated above. Being wrong for the sake of consistancy WORSE than inconsistancy.
My example, if one bloke gets sent to prision falsely, should we send the next bloke to prision for close to identical circumstances, knowing full well its the wrong decision, just for consistancy's sake? No.
The Gibbs call was wrong, we all seem to universially agree with that, so suspending Hayne for consisntancy purposes only continues the injustice... no one can bring back Gibbs for those games but we can end this ridiculous "precedent" with the CORRECT ruling here with Hayne. And i believe that is what will happen
While I dont think either case should not have resulted in a suspension doesnt matter. They have suspended one guy and should suspend the other. I dont hink most 'spear' tackle penalties should be given either but they need to be consistent.As said, 2 wrongs dont make it right
if you think the Gibbs call was wrong, then you can support Haynes suspension for the sake of consistancy, the only thing worse then inconsistancy is being consistantly WRONG.
I believe there is marked differences in both cases, which makes Gibbs incident worse, but i think his charge was harsh and i dont believe Hayne should be charged, he did all he could at that speed to avoid dangerous contact. These things happen in RL. Thats why its the toughest collision sport in the world.
My simple point is stated above. Being wrong for the sake of consistancy WORSE than inconsistancy.
My example, if one bloke gets sent to prision falsely, should we send the next bloke to prision for close to identical circumstances, knowing full well its the wrong decision, just for consistancy's sake? No.
The Gibbs call was wrong, we all seem to universially agree with that, so suspending Hayne for consisntancy purposes only continues the injustice... no one can bring back Gibbs for those games but we can end this ridiculous "precedent" with the CORRECT ruling here with Hayne. And i believe that is what will happen
Dont keep us in suspense now....
What about Thurston's knee to the head of David Williams, that deserved three weeks and he got nothing.
While I dont think either case should not have resulted in a suspension doesnt matter. They have suspended one guy and should suspend the other. I dont hink most 'spear' tackle penalties should be given either but they need to be consistent.
48,000 + posts , i feel sorry for the poor farkers at the Raiders having to read your utter Bull Sh$t all the time. Far dinkum your full of crap.:lol: i look forward to the outrage when he rightly takes his place in the GF