Hindmarsh Cleared

[White Poiner]

he should of got a week, but morley writing that letter pro got him off.

 

[eloquentEEL]

Not everything that looks like a headlock is automatically a grapple tackle. By the definition which involves a tackle where the contact is initially made elsewhere and then moved around the head or neck, Hindy's tackle was not a grapple.

 

[Dirk Titan]

What a joke, should have got a week.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Nah, he deserved to get off, we need him on Wednesday...

 

[Tommy Smith]

You're the bloody joke mate. The tackle didn't deserve anything more than a few warning carry over points, and you can't prove Ricky did say anything. It's likely he may have asked Morley, but Morley would have said no if the tackle was serious!

Completely false IMO.

Chances are, Morley did think Hindy's grapple was pretty bad, and i'd give short odds that he had a joke with Hindy telling him that he nearly choked him to death. However, being the bloke he is, he wasn't going to let it cost Hindy a spot in Origin.

As Morley said, what happens on the field stays on the field.

 

[annav]

not a surprise there...different rules for rep players

 

[Paranoid]

There was never any doubt. After getting Schifcofske to dive head first into the ground this was only a minor challenge for Ricky.


Anyhow ... got Hindy!


There was nothing it in anyway. Only players that should have been charged out that game was Morris for his small grapple and cross the cat.

 

[ausraider]

it wasan't the same charge

Hindmarsh was a grade 1

Hoffman was a grade 3 that he had downgraded to a grade 2 by the same judicary.

Some both players effectivly got the same treatment by having their charges downgraded 1 level.

Thanz
mate

 

[shadow grinder]

The Storm player was the only player involved in his tackle, and threw the player to the ground by the neck. Just a tad different from Hindy's tackle (where there were other players in the tackle, and he didn't throw him to the ground)

still choked the sh*t out of morley tho.

the judciary is a joke....

 

[camsmith]

Why didnt Hoffman get off then???

Oh yeh.. he isnt in rep footy.

 

[shadow grinder]

and he is a storm player

and coz ricky stuart doesnt want to pull strings for hoffman

 

[m0j0]

What the hell could Ricky have done for Hoffman? If you watched the footy on the weekend, you would have noticed that the Storm didn't play the Roosters.

 

[shadow grinder]

no what im saying is that if stuart wanted to...he could get hoffman off..he and the roosters run the nrl

 

[m0j0]

Something I don't get about this is that the basis for Hindmarsh getting off the charge was that it wasn't technically a grapple tackle. The argument is that by definition, a grapple tackle is when the arms are moved from the point of contact to be around the head/neck. The defence are saying (and this has been shown in video evidence) that he didn't move his arms from the point of contact in the tackle.

Therefore, does that not mean his inital point of contact in the tackle was around the neck/head? If this is the case, why was he not charged with a high tackle? Given his clean record he wouldn't have missed any game time anyway, so it makes no difference anyway. I just found it kind of weird that the basis of the defence's argument was that he hit him with a high tackle. That's something you won't see too often in the judiciary!

 

[m0j0]

no what im saying is that if stuart wanted to...he could get hoffman off..he and the roosters run the nrl

...and one of the sheep hath spoken!

 

[El Diablo]

Something I don't get about this is that the basis for Hindmarsh getting off the charge was that it wasn't technically a grapple tackle. The argument is that by definition, a grapple tackle is when the arms are moved from the point of contact to be around the head/neck. The defence are saying (and this has been shown in video evidence) that he didn't move his arms from the point of contact in the tackle.

Therefore, does that not mean his inital point of contact in the tackle was around the neck/head? If this is the case, why was he not charged with a high tackle? Given his clean record he wouldn't have missed any game time anyway, so it makes no difference anyway. I just found it kind of weird that the basis of the defence's argument was that he hit him with a high tackle. That's something you won't see too often in the judiciary!

the judiciary can only find him guilty or not guilty of what he's been charged with

 

[m0j0]

Yeah, I realise that. I guess all I was getting at was that I found it amusing that they argued the fact that he made contact with the head first as his defence. Like I said, it's not something you'll see all that often.

 

[pennywisealfie]

was it ever in doubt? hes a blue, hed get off for sure!

 

[Bulldog Power]

this is good news

means o meley will play against the storm and ryan hoffman wont

sweeeeeet

 

[camsmith]

Bulldog Power.. but you'll be facing a pissed off Slater on Saturday..