NGR
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,499
so u encourage players grabbing testicles and alike? :roll:Bazal said:I can live with 4...good to see Delaney has no case to answer either, looks like old Jaiman was a little confused
muppet
so u encourage players grabbing testicles and alike? :roll:Bazal said:I can live with 4...good to see Delaney has no case to answer either, looks like old Jaiman was a little confused
insaneink said:Yet two days ago you were calling for 10 weeks and a sacking.
Bazal said:I do agree with that sentiment...Carney deserves to be hit hard by both the law and NRL...But you can't strike a guy like that and get away with it either...I think, seeing in in slow mo, my previous 10 weeks was a little harsh. But it was still a nasty incident, and he still should get about 6 weeks...
NGR said:so u encourage players grabbing testicles and alike? :roll:
muppet
DeeGan said:Well, well, welll ... as light is shed on the story this morning (as I alluded to above) there has been an alleged incident that sparked the reaction. Delaney is alleged to have grabbed the testicles of Lowe. I missed this, the camera crew missed this, the commentary team missed this.
Looking at live, it looked like Lowe has simply made a bee-line for the player and clocked him square on the jaw for no apparent reason. I couldn't believe that as I suggested above.
I retract the last statement, this is no where near as bad as Danny Williams - thankfully.
If Delaney is to have grabbed the balls of Lowe, he copped what he deserved to be blunt about it. I have played the game at a semi-pro level and whilst I can appreciate niggling a player to get a reaction to draw the penalty (e.g. facial massage, verbal taunt etc.) - making a play like the one Delaney is alleged to have made is not on. If you condone it, you are deluded.
Attempting to guess the time out of the game is a fruitless exercise with the inconsistencies in our NRL judicial process. Anywere between 1-5 weeks is a ballpark guess.
Well I guess if youre going to have several differing opinions on a subject, you run the risk of people picking up on your FIRST opinion.Bazal said::lol: Talk about selective quoting...I see you skipped over this one, but I'll get it for you
But hey, I get it, you're just a poor geniused little man with a burning need to make up for his own inabilities and feel like he's better than everyone, by making noises on an internet forum. Sad really
innsaneink said:Well I guess if youre going to have several differing opinions on a subject, you run the risk of people picking up on your FIRST opinion.
Just confirms though your backdown....and for someone who doesnt care what i think of them, youre still being very very creative with the insults. :lol:
"geniused"
verrry good.
I'll give you a tip, get an opinion, and grow some balls and stick by it.
innsaneink said:Just said on 10 news ''Delaney didnt see it coming'', then pointed to his face where he got all these stitches...
ToiletDuck said:4 weeks is fair, what do you suggest? Rub him out for the season?
osg said:4 weeks for potentially disfiguring a guys face for life?????... Lets look at this realistically shall we?
If you got king hit on the street after accidentally brushing up against a guys nuts in a line, would you want the full extent of the law applied??????
Irrespective of what went on prior to the hit, it is no excuse for the action that followed.
innsaneink said:Oh FFS!
Footy field and street is totally different.
Frank Pritchard put a beatiful high shot right on Fitzhenrys chin early in yestrdays game, he gets off with nothing taking early plea, though with his record if he does it on the street he's inside for 9-18 months.
Mr Saab said:They shaped up and Lowe got in 1st...wasnt a king hit and it was not a low act.
A low act would be Williams on Oneill 2004 when ONeill was not looking
The Lowe punch is No different to Mason on Fielden
Carl Webb chased Hoffman in 2005 and hammered him and got 5 weeks.
osg said:4 weeks for potentially disfiguring a guys face for life?????... Lets look at this realistically shall we?
If you got king hit on the street after accidentally brushing up against a guys nuts in a line, would you want the full extent of the law applied??????
Irrespective of what went on prior to the hit, it is no excuse for the action that followed.
osg said:so on your logic it's a free for all then....... my issue is more with the judiciary and their inability to apply some semblence of normality and consistency in their decisions.