Judicary get it wrong again

[Kiwi]

I guess they get it so wrong so often it is no surprise.

Fa'oso - 8 - 10 weeks fair enough
Matai - 0 - 1 week wrong, yes it came up off the ball, but not very far. Should have been 2 - 3 weeks
B Stewart - 0 -1 week WTF, and I'll say it again WTF, raises his arm and elbows a guy in the throat as he is coming through, and will be free to play. That's f**ked really f**ked.

How can officials that do this stuff week in week out, get paid to do it get it so wrong so often both on and off the field.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Nothing to do with the judiciary.

 

[Timmah]

Match review panel yes, but his point stands. Stewart and Matai got off lightly IMO. Matai I can understand because it comes up off the ball. Stewart is VERY lucky.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

The Stewart penalty is a joke and is only because the opposition player escaped injury.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

No it doesn't. It's a subjective judgement made by someone who doesn't even know that the judiciary doesn't set the charges. Says it all.

Overall the MRC are extremely harsh. Should Faaoso really miss a third of the season for those tackles? Hardly. This system is designed to remove the players from the sport and therefore devalue the product. It's nothing short of shooting yourself in the foot. If "good" players get it easy it's because even in this ridiculous system there is a realisation that banning players only hurts the code.

 

[dogslife]

Stewart got off very lightly, Matai's barely deserved a suspension. He's only looking at a week because of his illustrious history

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Stewarts was an intentional strike. I don't understand how he was given a dangerous conduct charge. It was clearly striking.

 

[Jason Maher]

ECT always manages to find another level of stupid.

 

[thorson1987]

Dogslife has it.

Richies is for 2 charges aswell remember.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

ECT always manages to find another level of stupid.

Says the thwannies-loving androtop.

You've been watching too much fisting behinds.

 

[Kiwi]

No it doesn't. It's a subjective judgement made by someone who doesn't even know that the judiciary doesn't set the charges. Says it all.

Overall the MRC are extremely harsh. Should Faaoso really miss a third of the season for those tackles? Hardly. This system is designed to remove the players from the sport and therefore devalue the product. It's nothing short of shooting yourself in the foot. If "good" players get it easy it's because even in this ridiculous system there is a realisation that banning players only hurts the code.

Yeah they were really harsh on a guy that has been suspended this year already, and did TWO spear tackles in one game and it's only round 7, another player who is no stranger to getting suspended nails a guy high, even taking the ball out of it was always going to finish high, consider the size difference and effort needed to get a player much larger high, and it was no love tap, gets a week, really harsh, and the third bloke elbows a player in the throat and will play this week is so harsh. IT"S A JOKE no matter who hands out these punishments. Banning players only hurts the code, what kind of lame excuse is that? Really? Are you that stupid?

 

[Canard]

How many carry over points does Faoso have?

 

[Fire]

I guess they get it so wrong so often it is no surprise.

Fa'oso - 8 - 10 weeks fair enough
Matai - 0 - 1 week wrong, yes it came up off the ball, but not very far. Should have been 2 - 3 weeks
B Stewart - 0 -1 week WTF, and I'll say it again WTF, raises his arm and elbows a guy in the throat as he is coming through, and will be free to play. That's f**ked really f**ked.

How can officials that do this stuff week in week out, get paid to do it get it so wrong so often both on and off the field.

Fa'oso is too many weeks.

Players getting suspended for long periods sucks.

 

[Mr Saab]

Stewart is so protected.
In 2011 he runs 60m plus to attack Blair at the "battle of brookie".
He intentionally elbows someone and gets a slap on the wrist..

ECT you are delusional if you think Richie does not deserve time over those tackles. He deserves 6 weeks alone for complete stupidity

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

No it doesn't. It's a subjective judgement made by someone who doesn't even know that the judiciary doesn't set the charges. Says it all.

Overall the MRC are extremely harsh. Should Faaoso really miss a third of the season for those tackles? Hardly. This system is designed to remove the players from the sport and therefore devalue the product. It's nothing short of shooting yourself in the foot. If "good" players get it easy it's because even in this ridiculous system there is a realisation that banning players only hurts the code.

:crazy:

Surely you jest?

This system is designed to remove the players from the sport and therefore devalue the product.

The system is designed to protect the players.

If it weren't for this system, the smaller blokes like Thurston, Bowen, Cronk and so on... They would all be rubbed out of the game. If players weren't banned for dangerous contact / tackles, all of the little blokes would end up with life altering / threatening injuries.

Inglis would probably be dead by now.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Yeah they were really harsh on a guy that has been suspended this year already, and did TWO spear tackles in one game and it's only round 7, another player who is no stranger to getting suspended nails a guy high, even taking the ball out of it was always going to finish high, consider the size difference and effort needed to get a player much larger high, and it was no love tap, gets a week, really harsh, and the third bloke elbows a player in the throat and will play this week is so harsh. IT"S A JOKE no matter who hands out these punishments. Banning players only hurts the code, what kind of lame excuse is that? Really? Are you that stupid?

So you bitch about refs 23 hours a day. Good to know how you spend the rest.

If we left it up to queer merkins like this clown and Thwannies Maher there would be no players left.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

:crazy:

Surely you jest?



The system is designed to protect the players.

If it weren't for this system, the smaller blokes like Thurston, Bowen, Cronk and so on... They would all be rubbed out of the game. If players weren't banned for dangerous contact / tackles, all of the little blokes would end up with life altering / threatening injuries.

Inglis would probably be dead by now.

It protects Inglis eh?

In the same way he protects his missus?

 

[betcats]

8 weeks for Ritchie seems a bit harsh.

 

[Canard]

8 weeks for Ritchie seems a bit harsh.

But is it 8 ? Or 6 and he has carry over points?

It pisses me of when people fail to mention this

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You can't have 200 carry over points.