Hayne must be Suspended

[Sleep]

Oh lawdy. Nothing in it. He'll play next week.

 

[innsaneink]

I believe there is marked differences in both cases

Dont keep us in suspense now....

 

[wittyfan]

No doubt a team of lawyers and bio-mechanics will be descending to Moore Park.....

 

[thehattrickrabbit]

OMG, There was absolutely sh*t all in it. Hayne will definately get off.

When he came in, He turned his knees away from Goodwin, and the rest is just unfortunate, Like someone said you can't dissapear.

What about Thurston's knee to the head of David Williams, that deserved three weeks and he got nothing.

It's consistency, Even if it was a regular game there is no way I'd take a game off him. Let alone in a big important game like Origin which they seemed to take exception with Thurston.

 

[isaiah]

LOL "I tucked my feet back!"...You led with knees Doofus

then at the end of the game, it was all, "no malice in it". he is so gen Y!
our own version of serena williams.

 

[Raider_69]

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

that being said, they will charge him, he will contest it, and he will win, and all involved in that process will know that. They'll charge him simply because this is a dream media situation for the NRL, having the golden boy up on a charge, perhaps missing the big day, it will keep the back 5 pages covered in RL news in sydney and brisbane and relegate AFL to the mid section.
Smart stuff

 

[sting]

imo they should suspend him but make it start at round 1 next year vs saints...

 

[gallagher]

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.

 

[Ulysseus]

I think there is more in the chicken wing than the knees.
If anything, the judiciary will spare Hayne, although in answer to someone saying "you wont be able to dive in to stop a try anymore", they are called your arms, and the torso, and the shoulders.
all are readily available, he chose the knees, now he waits.

 

[Goddo]

No. if soward and thurston got away with kicks to the head this year with something like 75-80 points, hayne will get the same. He will play

 

[Feej]

They won't be able to resist a Hayne / Slater matchup in the GF - He'll be fine.

 

[Raider_69]

Dont keep us in suspense now....

i havent, others have posted where the differences in the two are. Someone above put it quite nicely. Gibbs flopped in, Hayne took evasive action and did everything in his powers to try and avoid contact. Unfortunately at the pace he was going he cant stop on a dime, nor disappear into thin air.
Gibbs's was slightly most avoidable. But i stress, i think a penalty would have been sufficent. And i dont believe he should have been charged either.

 

[Ulysseus]

What about Thurston's knee to the head of David Williams, that deserved three weeks and he got nothing.

Yes, but Jonathon is special, or so I have gathered by the fac the talks to refs like sh*t and never gets sin binned and never gets suspended and never cops a smack in the mouth for being an arrogant merkin.

 

[Chook Norris]

in the regular season, he might get 1 week.. but since its the GF, i think a 1 week suspension (the GF) would be too harsh

 

[pennywisealfie]

no way thats a suspension.

However that chicken wing tackle.....

 

[Raider_69]

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.

Why do they need to be consistant if they are WRONG?

Surely getting the right result is more important than being consistant?
If they've made the wrong call once, why should others have to suffer the same injustice? It makes absolutely no sense that you believe the Gibbs call was wrong but are now calling on the judicary to make the same WRONG call for the sake of consistantly being WRONG...

Going by this crazy logic, that ridiculous call against the Dogs early in the year becomes the consistant call. The send off of Douglas becomes the norm, for the sake of consistancy of course. A forward pass got missed tonight, for mine that was a mistake but for the sake of consistancy, we should now allow ALL forward passes :roll: are we serious!?

 

[Rodent]

Looking at the NRL site, you have a charge of "dropping knees" available. There are 5 gradings available.
There is no doubt Hayne dropped his knees collecting Goodwin in the head after he scored. I can't see how it isn't at least a grade 1. A grade 1 is 200 points. I don't like his chances of playing in the GF. After consulting the video ref, it was given a possible 8 point try and put on report. How on earth can he not at least get a grade 1 dropping knees charge?

 

[Butters]

Definitely deserves to miss out. You don't dive on a players head with your knees, there was no way at all that he could have stopped the try.

 

[saints_fireup]

The NRL will be very reluctant after last year and the Smith incident. It will be interesting to see how it transpires..

 

[macnaz]

:lol: i look forward to the outrage when he rightly takes his place in the GF

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.