How many weeks for Jeremy Smith?

[POPEYE]

Anyway, the gist of what you are saying is correct. It is not as it appears, Smith is not being penalised more for appealing, the offer of leniency was retracted

 

[betcats]

I'm sure Klemmer survived.
But you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the judiciary has penalized the outcome, rather than the foul play. No neckbrace = no suspension. IMO.

I see what you are saying but imo an injury as a result of foul play should be judged more harshly. It was a headslam, as a result of that headslam the player was concussed and stretchered off the field, a harsher punishment is called for imo then if he was headslammed and just go up uninjured.

 

[Jobdog]

But isn't a headslam a headslam regardless of whether there is an injury?

 

[firechild]

Yes, but more severe headslams result in greater injury. Hence the grading system.

 

[Hanscholo]

Zero, should have been let off. Wasnt a head slam at all.

 

[Big Tim]

But isn't a headslam a headslam regardless of whether there is an injury?

It is actually quite consistent.

A shoulder charge that doesnt take a bloke from the field, but causes long term injury = 0 weeks (Buderus)
A shoulder charge that concusses a player and he is removed by stretcher, but returns next week = 1 week (Faas)
A tackle with 2 players in it, that results in the head hitting the ground first, but is attributed to the player with the least amount of control in the tackle, and leads to concussion and a stretcher = 3 weeks

The system is ridiculous.

Smith had more argument going for him than any of the other 2. One wasnt even cited or penalised, and the other was downgraded.

 

[Springbokfly]

Should have got 4 weeks.

 

[betcats]

But isn't a headslam a headslam regardless of whether there is an injury?

Yeah and armed robbery is armed robbery regardless of whether you shoot someone or not, but you will get more jail time if you shoot someone.

Edit: It seems pretty stupid to me that someone arguing for Smith would keep bringing up the injury.

 

[Jobdog]

I guess what I'm getting at is I doubt the injury was caused by Smith's involvement. There didn't look to be too much force in a downward motion.

Big Tim in the Knights forum said Robinson probably would have been knocked out due to Mullen's tackle and the subsequent whiplash which would have occurred from the driving part of the tackle which probably (hypothetical I know) would have caused his head to hit the ground with the same/similar amount of force.

 

[betcats]

Lol come one, he drove his head into the ground with his forearm. I mean Smiths contact was with the head and Mullens contact was with the torso and you think Mullen caused the concussion?

I find that very hard to believe.

I do think six weeks is harsh though, three or four was pretty fair for mine.

 

[Jobdog]

Lol come one, he drove his head into the ground with his forearm. I mean Smiths contact was with the head and Mullens contact was with the torso and you think Mullen caused the concussion?

I find that very hard to believe.

I do think six weeks is harsh though, three or four was pretty fair for mine.

No, I was saying hypothetically he could very well have been knocked out without Smith's involvement such was the solid nature of the tackle in the first place.

 

[betcats]

No, I was saying hypothetically he could very well have been knocked out without Smith's involvement such was the solid nature of the tackle in the first place.

We'll never know that though since Smith decided to slam his head into the ground.

 

[Jobdog]

Regardless of what the judiciary ruled (they're all muppets anyway), he didn't "slam his head into the ground." I refuse to concede that.

 

[bottle]

We'll never know that though since Smith decided to slam his head into the ground.

This.
If Smith doesn't get involved, and the bloke still ends up knocked out, then obviously there is no case.
But Smith DID get involved, and in a nasty way. Suffer the consequences.

 

[Big Tim]

Smith was "behind" the motion of the tackle from the point Mullen left his feet.

He was essentially chasing contact, not providing it. He should have been suspended, as his involvement in the tackle most likely contributed to the fact that the head impacted the ground first, but I also refute the fact that he "slammed" his head into the ground.

As I stated in another thread. The velocity in the tackle from Mullen, and the angle that he was going into the ground would have given a significant chance that his head would have bounced off the ground anyway, causing the same result.... Other than the fact we would all be applauding an amazing tackle by a little man, rather than calling for a suspension.

 

[betcats]

^Clutching at straws like a motherf**ker.