judiciary charges - f**king' joke

[Timmah]

Shut up locky, your input is repetitive and offers nothing. You've provided nothing new and I doubt you even read Iafeta's post.

 

[Iafeta]

Even if he got a grade 2 he would get only a week.He has a good record! The penalties are fine as it is for crying out loud!

We had three players risk neck injuries on the weekend for plays that were negligent and dangerous. And what punishment did those 3 players get? Three players risked the chance of not walking again through negligence - and don't give me the "oh it didn't happen", once you get the players up to a level where you have little to no control of their ending body movement it becomes good luck, not good management. It's like saying to a drunk driver, look, you didn't hurt anyone so it's fine. It's not JUST the end result, it's eliminating the r00t cause. It's not JUST putting a bandaid on when it goes wrong, it's about showing due care to prevent it from happening in the first place. There was no reason for Widder's hands to go between McKinnon's legs, the end result was largely beyond his control once he had done that.

Yep, the penalties are working just fine. The gradings are too lenient. Far too lenient.

 

[lockyno1]

Every grade gets you a week..that is more than enough. It just happens that players have good records. You have to reward good records in some ways. I would bet if it did not happen to a Warrior player..then you would not give a toss about it!

 

[Iafeta]

It happened to Jarrod McCracken a few years ago, and he wasn't a Warriors player. It happened to a Rooster on the weekend courtesy of Ben Hornby, that was an ordinary tackle.

The base penalty is too low, or the gradings handed out are two low. There is no argument that that particular tackle was not worthy of a 2 week suspension. So either the grading applied was too generous, or the points base is too low. Spear tackles are probably the most dangerous element to our game, the NRL were once vigil on it around when Jarrod McCracken's case was being heard, but now that that is washed away we now go back to usual NRL consistency - have a blitz, then let it slide and negligently ait for the next disaster.

 

[NGR]

But he would never have had to "tilt" his head had he NOT been lifted by Widders.
Robinson is a nuffy ref. He now joins the likes of :

Tony Maksoud
Neil Almond
Moghseen Jadwat
David Jay
Kelvin Jeffes.

i think u missed my point.

its not about him having to drop his head but he intentially did it to make the tackle spear, thus gaining a penalty etc...

 

[lockyno1]

It happened to Jarrod McCracken a few years ago, and he wasn't a Warriors player. It happened to a Rooster on the weekend courtesy of Ben Hornby, that was an ordinary tackle.

The base penalty is too low, or the gradings handed out are two low. There is no argument that that particular tackle was not worthy of a 2 week suspension. So either the grading applied was too generous, or the points base is too low. Spear tackles are probably the most dangerous element to our game, the NRL were once vigil on it around when Jarrod McCracken's case was being heard, but now that that is washed away we now go back to usual NRL consistency - have a blitz, then let it slide and negligently ait for the next disaster.

Yes Widders did the wrong thing but fair dinkum it was dealt with. Is the base too low, possibly and that is another point altogether. I probally would have the base at 225 for a grade 1, so you miss a week even if you do have a good record.

 

[JJ]

keep up the good work locky :lol: gimp

 

[Mr Saab]

i think u missed my point.

its not about him having to drop his head but he intentially did it to make the tackle spear, thus gaining a penalty etc...

Lay off the weed

 

[Iafeta]

Yes Widders did the wrong thing but fair dinkum it was dealt with. Is the base too low, possibly and that is another point altogether. I probally would have the base at 225 for a grade 1, so you miss a week even if you do have a good record.

Well come on Dodge provide a solution. Don't just criticise the process. As it is it is a fair penalty under the current rules!

How is it another point altogether when you were the one who asked for alternative solutions? :lol:

Then it's "the penalties are fine for crying out loud", also in your diatribe you had this one "Every grade gets you a week..that is more than enough"

Now it's "I probally would have the base at 225 for a grade 1."

Locky, which side are you on? You're beating yourself, which I'm sure is not an altogether uncommon occurence for you in L.A.

 

[lockyno1]

225-25% for early plea, is 1 week per charge. That is enough. Get it. All I would do is increase the base penalty.

 

[douglasallen91]

He has a clean record basically. You have to give some allowance for players with good records.

so has wade mckinnon!

 

[douglasallen91]

how many weeks did burns get? 2?

 

[Shorty]

Why are people trying to compare?
Sure the tackle was extremely dangerous but that doesn't condone what Mckinnon did to the ref.

There is absolutely no excuse for touching a ref let alone pushing one aggressively like he did.

It shows he has little respect for the officials of the game,which let's face he probably doesn't but should keep it to himself.

You're not ever going to come out looking like roses by doing that sort of thing,he should have got more.

That's the difference between the two,one was absolutely deliberate and the other can be argued that it wasn't at all.

 

[lockyno1]

so has wade mckinnon!

MacKinnon's crime was worse- officials whether we like them or not are needed to ref the games and they should not be absused.

 

[Iafeta]

Why are people trying to compare?
Sure the tackle was extremely dangerous but that doesn't condone what Mckinnon did to the ref.

There is absolutely no excuse for touching a ref let alone pushing one aggressively like he did.

It shows he has little respect for the officials of the game,which let's face he probably doesn't but should keep it to himself.

You're not ever going to come out looking like roses by doing that sort of thing,he should have got more.

That's the difference between the two,one was absolutely deliberate and the other can be argued that it wasn't at all.

One could argue that killing a kid due to drink driving isn't deliberate, but shop lifting is. I'm sure the driver's intention is not to kill someone. He makes a mistake. With consequences.

No, the r00t cause as I've been trying to explain to lockyno1 is the key point. I'm sure if one of my workers kills himself on site, it's not deliberate, but it is much more punishable or have more dramatic effects than a deliberate act of say throwing a pen to the ground. The r00t cause for the kid getting killed would be drinking and then driving obviously, as in the spear tackle, going between the legs and lifting up the way Widders did is the r00t cause. Neither person meant it, but not surprisingly there is a very much heightened risk of something going wrong. Even though neither are deliberate, you are still expected to take responsibility for the outcome, you put yourself in that position, you have to cop it sweet. Both have made a mistake, with potentially severe consequences.

 

[Shorty]

One could argue that killing a kid due to drink driving isn't deliberate, but shop lifting is. I'm sure the driver's intention is not to kill someone. He makes a mistake. With consequences.

No, the r00t cause as I've been trying to explain to lockyno1 is the key point. I'm sure if one of my workers kills himself on site, it's not deliberate, but it is much more punishable or have more dramatic effects than a deliberate act of say throwing a pen to the ground. The r00t cause for the kid getting killed would be drinking and then driving obviously, as in the spear tackle, going between the legs and lifting up the way Widders did is the r00t cause. Neither person meant it, but not surprisingly there is a very much heightened risk of something going wrong. Even though neither are deliberate, you are still expected to take responsibility for the outcome, you put yourself in that position, you have to cop it sweet. Both have made a mistake, with potentially severe consequences.

I get what you're saying but it sounds like you're trying to justify Mckinnon pushing the ref because of that tackle.

There is no excuse for either offences,but Mckinnon got longer because,unlike dangerous tackles,what he did does not happen in the game often.

The tackle was in the play of the game and there are potentially dangerous tackles occurring in every game,you are supposed to tackle in football.
You are not supposed to touch the ref in any way shape or form,how many weeks did Scott Hill get for his?

 

[Iafeta]

Not at all. McKinnon deserved two weeks. I have no problems with that at all. I would be very surprised if McKinnon's frustrations weren't born out of that tackle, but that doesn't make his actions right and consequently he's been suspended.

I'm more interested in the tackle. I don't like seeing any player in that position, I cringe anytime I see one like that. The other thing is, what frustrates a lot of league fans is "blitzes" from the judiciary and referees. Lifting tackles were one in about 2004, as they should have been. The league came out in public and said they were going to try to eliminate them or at least greatly minimize them. They're still happening, and a lot of players are playing next week irrespective. And in this case, the player wasn't even penalised on field, in fact, the one who was tackled dangerously was because according to the referee "he put himself in that position". In relation to the actual on field officiating, that's the part that bugs me the most. No player would risk his career, perhaps his ability to walk, for a penalty.

There's risk in any tackle, however the risks are greatly raised when you tackle in the motion Dean Widders did.

I don't think the rarity of what McKinnon did had any impact on the suspension. After all, 8 point tries don't happen often but the defender who caused it isn't sent to the judiciary.

 

[Shorty]

Well the only thing we can hope is Widders won't attempt that kind of tackle again,or he will and next time perhaps he'll get a harsher reception.