Hindmarsh is now suspended and not playing

[Glenn]

Hmmm nice to see some things never change..I know we should be grateful he can play in rnd vs bulldog$. Hmmm are these sanctioned NRL events??Yes okay Hindy misses the sevens and has the Trial match under his belt..If these Sevens/trials are not sanctioned then Hindy should be able to play as they are not NRL controlled, there is nothing to stop him playing :? :? :? :?

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Way i see it, if the eels had a trial game organised prior to the 7's he would serve his suspension then, and be available for the 7's!

Fitzy. If you want i will get a bunch of lads together and we will have a run this weekend against the Eels. That should take of the suspension and it will be smooth saling from there....

Top call PB. 8)

 

[Avenger]

Why risk our best player to play in the 7's anyway???

I'm glad he is not playing in the tournament

 

[hh]

Why risk our best player to play in the 7's anyway???

I'm glad he is not playing in the tournament

A few above have said this also....


Hindy is just as likely to get injured outside of footy with the stupid crap he is always doing!!!! Remember the stack he had on his bike which prevented him going on tour?!?!?!?!
Lets wrap him in cotton wool for the second half of the season so he can play the grand final!!!!!

 

[Jic Jarrett]

Should the opening game of the 7's count as a game though? Because our second game is another game altogether. The NRL judiciary is a joke and is so hypocritical, they do more backflips than most MPs. How is 7's and a trial classed as one game? Maybe the slapnuts need to learn how to count. Good on Fitzy for taking legal action. But Moggles, why count ourselves lucky? It's double standards considering that some players used a trial to serve their suspensions last season? It's not fair and just! Would an online petition work, and if so, who knows how to get the things going? :evil:

 

[Stagger eel]

Reading all the views above make me laugh, don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic that we can as supporters have a different view on the situation but atleast as supporters we don't stoop to the level like the wankers in "Vulchure" town who continuely brown tounge their club management like it's going out of fashion. :roll:

 

[Hurriflatch]

I'm not THAT upset that he can't play in the 7's but at very least the &'s tournament should count as 1 game if not the 1st game in the 7's.
but to suspened him for the 7's + 1 trial means his 1 match suspension effectivly because a 6 match ban

3 pool games in 7's
1 final game
1 Grand Final
1 trial

 

[Eelementary]

I am not surprised. At the Judiciary or the refereeing.

And if I am wrong (which I may well be because, as some of you may know, I am a more recent League and Eels fan) please correct me, but:

Doesn't Nathan Hindmarsh have a very clean past incidents record? Isn't his discipline very good?

And I thought NRL sanctioned trials counted as bans.

And the interesting thing is I had a VERY interesting conversation with a Knights fan friend of mine the other day. She claims the Judiciary is NOT biased (I brought up the incident last year where Johns tackled somewhat late and high on an Eel I can't recall, but was not put on report; and another high tackle incident where he got off) and says that it is fair.

Ahem:

(1) In 2002, in Finals campaign for the Eels, Nathan CAyless was put on report which from ANY UNBIASED POINT OF VIEW it was clear to see that (Sing I think it was) fell forward in the tackle; CAylo had his head down; his arm STARTED swinging at Sing's chest-height; and yet he ended up hitting him on the head because SIng fell into the arm of CAyless, and yet he was suspended.

(2) Let us not ever forget the 2002 Newcastle-Parramatta and Harrigan Show incident. FOUR players sent to the bin. Ludicrous.

The whole of the system is so obviously against the Eels. According to my friend it is a paranoia. What about when Morley ran into MAcdougall in the Semis and LIFTED his knees staright into MAc's face? Not even put on report or penalised.

Yes, I suppose you could argue he was in the air - I argued that at one stage. But he lifted his knees to meet MAc's face and body deliberately. That is not legal.

What about the high tackles from other players, like Villasanti and co. during the finals? Nothing.

But any excuse will do to screw an Eel.

 

[bartman]

I think the reasoning behind Hindy's suspension situation goes like this...

NRL sanctioned first grade trial matches (presumably against other NRL clubs) ARE recognised as NRL games for the pruposes of serving out suspensions.

The sevens tournament is essentially a different sport/type of game, with NRL participation (rather than sanctioning), and so they DON'T serve as an NRL game (or games) for the purposes of serving out suspensions.

The philosophical debate then is: since Sevens is a "different" thing altogether, should Hindy be allowed to play while under NRL suspension, or would it be unfair to let suspended players take part in a tournament that is still "similar" enough to league to make NRL suspensions seem arbitrary?

I agree that if Parra had organised an NRL sanctioned first grade trial to take place before the sevens, the under all arguments, Hindy would then be allowed to play in the sevens. However, we didn't or couldn't, so Hindy just can't play in that different style of footy tournament (which is why Fitzy may be so upset - he's upset at not realising this for himself). And Hindy has to rightly serve his proper suspension in the first trial game as well.

Bottom line - he'll be back against the bulldogs, having had a few trials under his belt!

 

[half]

BOOO

i sent an email of complaint to the nrl. and let's just say i didn't use my nicest language

i was looking forward to seeing nathan on the second day of the sevens

 

[Stagger eel]

c'mon Hallfy! I'm sure we'll provide 10 other fine lookin lads you can check out on the sunday. ;-) .....It's more important for our boy wonder!! to be fit for the 2nd most evil empire in the NRL in March.

 

[half]

but they won't be hindy. it's not the same...

oh i guess lyon will have to take the mantle of greatest sevens player

unless we win this court case, of course

 

[Stagger eel]

Oh!! don't say court case. We are not the Roosters!! we don't have to resort to that sort of crap.

Look. I know Nathen would be a big loss but just think of the door of opportunitys for someone like Muckett, Armit, Hopo, Muspratt and co...

 

[wittyz chick]

Eelementary...what about in 2001 when we were playing the Cowboys at home and the Cowboys went for a kick then changed thier mind and P.J Marsh jumped in the air expecting a kick but instead landed on the player and was sent-off and suspended for 2 matches...what did the ref and judiciary expect him to do...PULL OUT IN MID AIR :evil:
i agree that it is against the eels

 

[Twizzle]

BOOO

i sent an email of complaint to the nrl. and let's just say i didn't use my nicest language

i was looking forward to seeing nathan on the second day of the sevens

That should fix it.

He'll play for sure now.

 

[Glenn]

I think the reasoning behind Hindy's suspension situation goes like this...

NRL sanctioned first grade trial matches (presumably against other NRL clubs) ARE recognised as NRL games for the pruposes of serving out suspensions.

The sevens tournament is essentially a different sport/type of game, with NRL participation (rather than sanctioning), and so they DON'T serve as an NRL game (or games) for the purposes of serving out suspensions.

The philosophical debate then is: since Sevens is a "different" thing altogether, should Hindy be allowed to play while under NRL suspension, or would it be unfair to let suspended players take part in a tournament that is still "similar" enough to league to make NRL suspensions seem arbitrary?

I agree that if Parra had organised an NRL sanctioned first grade trial to take place before the sevens, the under all arguments, Hindy would then be allowed to play in the sevens. However, we didn't or couldn't, so Hindy just can't play in that different style of footy tournament (which is why Fitzy may be so upset - he's upset at not realising this for himself). And Hindy has to rightly serve his proper suspension in the first trial game as well.

Bottom line - he'll be back against the bulldogs, having had a few trials under his belt!

If the NRL doesnt sanction the Sevens, then why should a NRL peanlty apply..from memory the Sevens comes under IRLB managment, ie any player sent off/ on report faces a IRLB judiciary. I can only assume the NRL suspension has been verifed by the IRLB :roll:

 

[PB]

Well the other argument is that the example of Cayless getting suspended for 3 matches at the end of 2002, and missing the NZ tests against GB. Those test wouldnt have been NRL sanctioned!?

By that it shouldnt matter who is playing who when or where. Either way there is no consistancy.

You could also put up an arguement that Hindy would have been picked for the test team i suppose.

 

[Eelectrica]

A couple of seasons ago Hindy was able to use a City -Country game he wasn't even selected in to avoid a suspension. You win win some, you lose some it's just the way it goes. He will have to take his frustration out on the Puppy dogs in rnd 1.

 

[Jic Jarrett]

But why both the 7's and a trial when it's supposed to be a one match ban?

 

[Hurriflatch]

Just on the Cayless suspension.

He wanted to use the two tests NZ played one v Tonga the other v Samoa (from memory) as the final 2 games in his suspension so he'd be able to play v Australia.

The NRL ruled that Cayless couldn't have been selected in both games as they were being played on two consecutive days.

yet at the same time Hindmarsh was able to use the City/Country game, Jason Ryles also got off the same way.

He was able to use the Friday night city/country + the saturday Dragons game as his two games to be able to play in Wednesday nights Origin.