Inglis among eight players charged

[haha]

The thing is, Burns isn't facing 16 weeks.

He's facing 12 weeks, but if he tries to contest the charges and isn't successful, THEN he'll get 16 weeks.

He may even apply for a downgrade, and if successful only miss 6 or 7 games.

Thats what he should be facing before pleading guilty, even 12 weeks is bullshit.
The fans are the ones that are being f**ked over with these over the top punishments.
If they really want to punish players they should fine them on top of a small suspension.

 

[WarriorDefence]

Well if u go in to smash someone and u collect their head with your shoulder is that any worse than going in to smash them and collecting their head with your head? Both accidents- both reckless? Look at king- took kasiano out for 6 weeks.
Just putting it out there. I know it's different but IMO if your not intentionally attacking the head u dont deserve 5 weeks

 

[Timmah]

It's actually 9 weeks early plea for the head high PLUS 3 weeks early plea for the chicken wing.

 

[berts_moustache]

I can't imagine what burns tackle looked like to garner such a lengthy spell....

 

[Hanscholo]

Burns was a blatant, deliberate swinging arm to the face and that grading is spot on imo. Inglis, a little harsh, careless contact say 2-3 weeks is about right. the problem is that inglis tackle looked terrible. Its not the first time greg has blindsided someone like that, maybe its time to settle down.

 

[Noa]

Understandable Price was worried about Youngs jaw considering he doesnt have one

 

[Newie is God's Country]

Who are the people that supposedly see Inglis' probable suspension as a conspiracy? According to the papers many Souths fans have gone off and claimed this is an effort to rob them of a premiership. That is quite an arrogant statement by Souths fans to start with if indeed it is true. Long way to go yet. Inglis deserves suspension. 3 weeks is enough.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Who are the people that supposedly see Inglis' probable suspension as a conspiracy? According to the papers many Souths fans have gone off and claimed this is an effort to rob them of a premiership. That is quite an arrogant statement by Souths fans to start with if indeed it is true. Long way to go yet. Inglis deserves suspension. 3 weeks is enough.

No Souths fans think this.

"According to the papers"

There's your problem...

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

TBH I don't have a problem with the Inglis grading. Both Farrell and Young would've been in his vision, it was very obvious that Farrell was about to drag him down as Young had slowed to look for support. Inglis only had eyes for Young and would've seen this happen and yet still felt the need for what looked like a very sloppy shoulder charge on a blindsided player. I'd call it reckless without a doubt.

 

[Hutty1986]

Understandable Price was worried about Youngs jaw considering he doesnt have one

Pricey was always going to stick up for him. Steve doesn't have a chin, so he knows what it's like to be missing vital body parts

 

[chrisD]

Burns was a blatant, deliberate swinging arm to the face and that grading is spot on imo. Inglis, a little harsh, careless contact say 2-3 weeks is about right. the problem is that inglis tackle looked terrible. Its not the first time greg has blindsided someone like that, maybe its time to settle down.

Yeah he has to give players a little leeway who just disregard his presence. That's how you win rugby league games, that's how you do a job for your side, when players ignore the physical threat you pose you just let it go on by.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

No Souths fans think this.

"According to the papers"

There's your problem...

Firstly it isn't my problem. It is your club's. Inglis dog shotted him. He deserves suspension. Secondly I asked a question seeking clarification and u answer as only a Souths fan can. Complete guess work. How do u know that no Souths fan feels that way when it is all over the radio and forums. The conspiracy nuts are there. I asked who and not if. I am not trying to put GI down but it was pretty nasty for a bloke who generally plays clean. As i said five is harsh. I am a supporter of a send off and then a reduced suspension as opposed to leaving him on field, winning u the game and then after the event copping the weeks off. St George should have played 12 men.

 

[age.s]

I get that people don't like Burns. I wouldn't if he played for another team either. But are people here seriously trying to say that shot was worse than Priors? How does Prior get 5 weeks (he pleaded guilty and it was reduced from 7 right?) while Burns gets 9 (down from 12)? Are people seriously trying to argue Burns shot is worth nearly twice the punishment?

No way. Both were terrible but Priors was a deliberate elbow to the side of the head of a bloke half his size, while Burns was an upper arm to the front of a bloke twice his size. Prior's was much more dangerous, and for Burns to be get nearly double is just lucky dip bullshit.

 

[Fingerbang]

I get that people don't like Burns. I wouldn't if he played for another team either. But are people here seriously trying to say that shot was worse than Priors? How does Prior get 5 weeks (he pleaded guilty and it was reduced from 7 right?) while Burns gets 9 (down from 12)? Are people seriously trying to argue Burns shot is worth nearly twice the punishment?

No way. Both were terrible but Priors was a deliberate elbow to the side of the head of a bloke half his size, while Burns was an upper arm to the front of a bloke twice his size. Prior's was much more dangerous, and for Burns to be get nearly double is just lucky dip bullshit.

Burns total weeks off is a compilation of 2 offences in the one hearing.....simple. He got 2 suspensions accumulated.

 

[Danish]

I get that people don't like Burns. I wouldn't if he played for another team either. But are people here seriously trying to say that shot was worse than Priors? How does Prior get 5 weeks (he pleaded guilty and it was reduced from 7 right?) while Burns gets 9 (down from 12)? Are people seriously trying to argue Burns shot is worth nearly twice the punishment?

No way. Both were terrible but Priors was a deliberate elbow to the side of the head of a bloke half his size, while Burns was an upper arm to the front of a bloke twice his size. Prior's was much more dangerous, and for Burns to be get nearly double is just lucky dip bullshit.

I agree that Burns's grading was excessive, although both incidents would actually see the same punishment in terms of weeks off if not for Burns' horrible record bumping it up into double digits.


You'd have to assume though that the panther will fight and surely successfully have the tackle down graded to a reckless grade 5. I simply can't see how the judiciary can say with any certainty that Burns intended to hit kennedy in the head. It was a reckless and hotheaded tackle that deserved to be sent, but no way does it deserve 12 weeks even with loading

 

[age.s]

Burns total weeks off is a compilation of 2 offences in the one hearing.....simple. He got 2 suspensions accumulated.

I was only referring to the one offense.

 

[Timmah]

Really struggling to believe the Souths statement.

Price's comments weren't the devils work, they didn't really adversely mention GI's tackle.

If it's any comments full stop, then what about Inglis' comments post-game?

To be honest, I doubt the MRC would give a flying fig about post-match coach or player comments anyway, it's all moot to me.

Charge justified, could be reduced on contest and won't be an issue if he does.

Only problem IMO is if he gets off scot-free

 

[skeepe]

I get that people don't like Burns. I wouldn't if he played for another team either. But are people here seriously trying to say that shot was worse than Priors? How does Prior get 5 weeks (he pleaded guilty and it was reduced from 7 right?) while Burns gets 9 (down from 12)? Are people seriously trying to argue Burns shot is worth nearly twice the punishment?

No way. Both were terrible but Priors was a deliberate elbow to the side of the head of a bloke half his size, while Burns was an upper arm to the front of a bloke twice his size. Prior's was much more dangerous, and for Burns to be get nearly double is just lucky dip bullshit.

The base penalty for what Burns was charged with is 750 points. With a 25% reduction for a guilty plea, that would be 565 or thereabouts - in other words, the exact same punishment as Prior.

The problem is that Burns is a grub. The only reason he is facing longer out than Prior for the tackle is the loading applied to the base penalty due to his previous charges.

 

[Joker's Wild]

The base penalty for what Burns was charged with is 750 points. With a 25% reduction for a guilty plea, that would be 565 or thereabouts - in other words, the exact same punishment as Prior.

The problem is that Burns is a grub. The only reason he is facing longer out than Prior for the tackle is the loading applied to the base penalty due to his previous charges.

Spot on skeepie old mate. If you have prior form you will face a heftier punishment and rightly so

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sp...glis-club-to-fight-his-ban/20120724-gspo.html

That is a hefty price to pay, but he deserved it ultimately. However I have to say, if he did what he did in Origin, he would have got weeks but nowhere near that many.

See you next season, Trav.