Hunt - How many weeks?

[Utey]

0-2 for mine, but I'll go 2 just for the fact that there was a bit of elbow/forearm in there.

He was falling, this is rugby league blah blah blah.

 

[Captian_Klutz]

But Broncos players never get sited no matter what type of thuggery they are involved in.

 

[_Johnsy]

double

 

[_Johnsy]

I have a gut feeling he will be charged, but because of his clean record will not miss a game, or maybe 1 game, in an attempt to placate whingers.

HUNT should not miss one minute of football for that tackle.

 

[Danish]

Are you on drugs or something?
Youre the only one claiming 'ifs' and 'in all likelihoods'.....you need a good hard taste of reality

What are you talking about??

Hunt's defence will claim that IF Anasta had not of slipped then in all likelihood he would not have hit him high....

Is there any other defence they could possibly offer?

 

[_Johnsy]

Is there any other defence they could possibly offer?

The tackle was legal, and as such has no case to answer.

 

[Danish]

The tackle was legal, and as such has no case to answer.

The only way you, Hunt or anyone else can claim his tackle was legal is by saying that IF Anasta had not slipped, then in all likelihood he would not have made contact with Anasta's head.


If we are just judging the tackle purely on reality, the reality is that hunt shoulder charged Anasta directly in the face, breaking his nose.

 

[_Johnsy]

no, I am not saying that. I am saying the tackle was not illegal. You are wrong. Your inability to look at this matter in an objective manner is laughable.

 

[_Johnsy]

If we are just judging the tackle purely on reality, the reality is that hunt shoulder charged Anasta directly in the face, breaking his nose.

It's a pity you could not use the same rationale last week. Hypocrite.

 

[Danish]

no, I am not saying that. I am saying the tackle was not illegal. You are wrong. Your inability to look at this matter in an objective manner is laughable.

So what are you saying Johnsy?? That making shoulder charging to the head is a legal tackle in our game??

It's a pity you could not use the same rationale last week. Hypocrite.

Last I checked, making shoulder contact with a player's torso is not illegal in any way in our game, Johnsy.

Feel free to prove me wrong though

 

[NPK]

If Anasta has slipped and headbutted Hunt's knee, would Hunt be accused of attacking Anasta's head with his knee? :sarcasm:
Anasta essentially headbutted Hunt's arm, accidentally.

And there was no forearm or elbow. It was upper arm.

 

[_Johnsy]

That tackle was not illegal, simple enough for you. Do I need to expalin the laws of the game.

Section 15.
1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Intentionally - done with intention or on purpose intended. Ummmm no.
Reckless - utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution. Ummmm No
Careless - not exact, or accurate. Ummmm No

Anything else Danish ?

 

[FoghornLeghorn]

I'm of the opinion he'll get off...as Braith did slip...unless they ping him for careless conmtact with the head of a player...which is what they've been aiming for...they want no contact with the head...it's a line ball call...but if they're not carefull...every team will use that then when defending players that the opposition fell into the hit etc etc...so they have to make a stand somewhere...if you hit the head...you do some time...simple as that...

Wonder if they'll throw falcons into the mix somewhere down the line...

 

[Danish]

That tackle was not illegal, simple enough for you. Do I need to expalin the laws of the game.

Section 15.
1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

Get it now ?

But WHY doesnt it meet any of those standards Johnsy??? How did you form the opinion that Hunt's contact with Anasta's head was not careless, reckless or intentional??


Because he slipped, yes??

 

[_Johnsy]

Did you read the above law and subsequent definitions. This says all that needs to be said.

I disagree with you. Again where was this rationale last week ?

 

[Danish]

Did you read the above law and subsequent definitions. This says all that needs to be said.

I disagree with you. Again where was this rationale last week ?

Just answer the question johnsy.


Is Hunt's contact with Anasta's head deemed not to be careless, reckless, or intentional due to the fact that Anasta slipped??

 

[salivor]

7 weeks



You don't have to intentionally target their head

That is why they have 3 levels with 5 levels each

- Careless
- Reckless
- Intentional

Hunt will be charged at the Reckless level Grade 4

You really are a tool.

Here's a dictionary definition of reckless:
1.utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually fol. by of): to be reckless of danger.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reckless

Now in what way does that describe Hunt's tackle?

Even careless:
1.not paying enough attention to what one does: a careless typist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/careless

This was purely an accident with Anasta tripping and Hunt having no time to react and adjust his hit zone.

 

[salivor]

The other question is if Hunt is charged will Anasta be willing to help in his defence since both he and Fittler have stated they have no issue with the tackle?

 

[salivor]

Also I know the NRL isn't one for following precedents but one was definitely set last season:

Ryan relieved to be cleared

BULLDOGS captain Andrew Ryan was exonerated by the NRL judiciary last night despite admitting he struck Jason Ryles in the head during a tackle "that went wrong".
The controversial decision means Ryan is now free to play Parramatta in tomorrow night's blockbuster at Telstra Stadium.
"I'm very relieved and very happy - I can't wait to get out there and play on Friday night," said Ryan, a former Eel.
Ryan claimed he had just 0.2sec to alter the tackle which heavily concussed Dragons prop Jason Ryles last Saturday night in Wollongong.
Ryan contested a grade two careless high tackle charge at the NRL judiciary aware he would have been banned for two matches if found guilty.
But the three-man judiciary - comprising Darrell Williams, Mal Cochrane and Scott Tronc - ruled in Ryan's favour, the back-rower now free to play against former club Parramatta.
Ryan claimed the simultaneous tackle from teammate Jarrad Hickey on Ryles forced the Dragons forward to drop.
Ryan, a 186-game veteran, suggested he had just 0.2sec to change his tackle after Hickey collected Ryles in the midriff.
Jim Hall, representing Ryan, claimed Ryles fell 27cm after being hit by Hickey.
NRL counsel Peter Kite argued Ryles only fell after being hit in the head by Ryan.
Ryan emerged delighted to be playing tomorrow.
"I'm very happy and relieved. The hearing dragged on but it was a good result and I can't wait to play on Friday night," Ryan said.
"I did make contact but I wouldn't say I'm surprised (at the verdict).
"I was committed to the tackle and couldn't change.
"I didn't want this to be a blemish on my record.
"I was a bit rattled by some of the questions. Unfortunately it happened - it was a tackle that went wrong.
"But Jarrad Hickey produced a quality tackle and it put me in a bad position.
"If I'd been suspended for two games I would have felt like I let the team down."
During the 90-minute hearing, Ryan said Ryles "buckled over" after being crunched by Hickey.
"I think I was committed to the tackle to try and lock the ball up; I think there was no time to adjust to the tackle I was going to make," Ryan said.
Ryan did admit at one point: "Unfortunately I made contact with his head."
Hall presented still frames of the incident, the judiciary panel also receiving reports of the tackle from bio-mechanics expert Andrew McIntosh, from the University of NSW, and from a Sports Information Technologist, Warren Brennan.
"He (Ryles) dropped significantly after what was a terrific tackle from Hickey," Bulldogs coach Steve Folkes said.
Kite said Ryan's arm made contact with Ryles' "mouth or nose" and that the Dragons forward "dropped like a sack".
"It was a high-risk tackle and it wasn't his risk to take," Kite said.
Hall claimed it was "virtually impossible" for Ryan to alter his tackle, adding: "This tackle was an unfortunate accident. It was unavoidable in the space of time, a blink of the eye."
Earlier, North Queensland centre Paul Bowman was suspended for one game after being found guilty of a dangerous throw on Wests Tigers prop Bryce Gibbs.
Bowman will miss the eighth-placed Cowboys' clash with Canberra on Saturday.

 

[Big Pete]

I hope they use a new precedent THIS season. That way it gives the judiciary and fans a like a better understanding of the system.