Judiciary Charges: Johns facing four weeks

[ShadesOfTheSun]

:lol: Yeah OK Perry Mason but unfortunately for you the judiciary is not a law court and they only need "probabilty" to find him guilty and if you watched any of the news tonight they already have that in spades.

Unfortunately, the judiciary is a law court, and is subject to the same burden of proof. Johns must be regarded innocent until he is proven guilty, and having watched the news, I have to say that the evidence against him seems insufficient for that to happen. The veracity of the recording and footage would actually be quite easy to question, as would their implications.

Oh, and before you start flaming me, I am no particular fan of Johns' behaviour, so kindly desist from the usual idiotic 'Newcastle red and blue glasses' comments. I think he should be suspended, but that doesn't stop me from judging that outcome to be unlikely. He has too many weak points in the judiciary's case to attack. If he is suspended, I will be very surprised. Please, but still surprised.

 

[Dr Crane]

:crazy:

Won't someone think of the children?




FFS, of course he should be punished, but i'm getting bored with the witch hunt.

 

[Mr Saab]

I am no fan of Johns, but 3 weeks is very harsh. I would have thought grade one and as a result of his carry over points 2 weeks.
Knights are goooooooooooooooooone

 

[CrazyEel]

Unfortunately, the judiciary is a law court, and is subject to the same burden of proof. Johns must be regarded innocent until he is proven guilty, and having watched the news, I have to say that the evidence against him seems insufficient for that to happen.

No it is not, there is no onus to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" and it is sufficent to conclude that in "all probabilty" in order to judged guilty. That is a HUGE difference mate.

 

[Sugar]

Unfortunately, the judiciary is a law court, and is subject to the same burden of proof. Johns must be regarded innocent until he is proven guilty, and having watched the news, I have to say that the evidence against him seems insufficient for that to happen.

Oh, and before you start flaming me, I am no particular fan of Johns' behaviour, so kindly desist from the usual idiotic 'Newcastle red and blue glasses' comments.

hagan proved his guilt to the media after the game and johns backed it up in his article

 

[mxlegend99]

How can anyone think he deserves a 2/3 week punishment for swearing.

His team was rorted with a bad call and deprived of one last chance to win. He swore in anger. Big deal. I've seen millions of different players swear in anger. You don't even need sound to know they did. As much as i want Joey to be out against Panthers... i don't think what he did deserves to be punished. (atleast with a suspension. Sin Bin or send off maybe).

The fact of the matter is, the referee and touch judges are not doing their jobs properly. Yet they get away with it scott-free. Players that feel ripped off are then punished. It's a load of crap.

It's a sport where guys run into each other and belt the crap out of each other. And you think a few swear words when your team is ripped off is out of place? God, i can just say that you guys haven't been to a footy match, or a pub when similar things have happened. If you guys have never sworn when your team has been ripped... well, good on ya's. Personally, i swear out loud when my team is on the wrong end of a decision that was obvious to everyone who saw it.

 

[Razor]

Players swear at the referee and touch judges all of the time. How many get suspended? None. Tallis called a referee a f**king cheat several years back and that was clearly heard on TV. Was he suspended? No he wasn't. Good that the NRL favours some teams over others.

And if the referee/touch judge didnt' stuff up Johns wouldn't have said what he did.

What's worse swearing at a touch judge or elbowing someone in the head? According to the NRL swearing at the referee.

 

[Mr Saab]

Players swear at the referee and touch judges all of the time. How many get suspended? None. Tallis called a referee a f**king cheat several years back and that was clearly heard on TV. Was he suspended? No he wasn't. Good that the NRL favours some teams over others.

Rules change over time.

 

[ShadesOfTheSun]

hagan proved his guilt to the media after the game and johns backed it up in his article

Neither did, actually. Johns admitted to swearing, but denied that his comments had been directed at the touch judge. Hagan was not a witness to the event, and could easily claim that his comments had been sparked only by the media's portrayal of the event.

CrazyEel - I know. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is, actually, employed in very few legal circumstances. I have actually made a substantial study of the NRL judiciary, as part of my thesis, so I would appreciate a slight reduction in the condescending remarks.

 

[The_Savage_1]

I reckon he's got an ok chance of getting off. This forum will be pretty funny for a week or so after if that happens!

if he gets off, they might as well hand him the dally m on his way out!

also, all these people comparing quinn and other players swearing need to realise that general swearing and calling someone a merkin are very different.

go down the street and and try it out for yourselves and you can post the results from your hospital bed.

 

[Iafeta]

Players swear at the referee and touch judges all of the time. How many get suspended? None. Tallis called a referee a f**king cheat several years back and that was clearly heard on TV. Was he suspended? No he wasn't. Good that the NRL favours some teams over others.

And if the referee/touch judge didnt' stuff up Johns wouldn't have said what he did.

What's worse swearing at a touch judge or elbowing someone in the head? According to the NRL swearing at the referee.

Fair dinkum pal. If you think referees and touch judges are robots who'll get 100% of calls right, you're in fairyland. Deadset.

 

[Iafeta]

Neither did, actually. Johns admitted to swearing, but denied that his comments had been directed at the touch judge. Hagan was not a witness to the event, and could easily claim that his comments had been sparked only by the media's portrayal of the event.

CrazyEel - I know. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is, actually, employed in very few legal circumstances. I have actually made a substantial study of the NRL judiciary, as part of my thesis, so I would appreciate a slight reduction in the condescending remarks.

No problems, Doogie Howser MD.

 

[Sugar]

Neither did, actually. Johns admitted to swearing, but denied that his comments had been directed at the touch judge. Hagan was not a witness to the event, and could easily claim that his comments had been sparked only by the media's portrayal of the event.

CrazyEel - I know. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is, actually, employed in very few legal circumstances. I have actually made a substantial study of the NRL judiciary, as part of my thesis, so I would appreciate a slight reduction in the condescending remarks.

so your john's lawyer:sarcasm:

 

[RABK]

I feel i let my most biased Knights supporter title slip away a little...

 

[mickdo]

Imagine that every player who swore at a ref was suspended ??? We`d struggle to find 13 players for each side every week. He may have went over the top, but a 3 week suspension is nothing short of a joke. The whole judiciary system is a farce and is forcing this great game to become far too soft.

But not every player has repeatedly sworn at the ref after being warned not to repeatedly.

 

[Raider_69]

to say your grip on the paul harrigan thrown has been loosened would be an understatement

 

[CrazyEel]

CrazyEel - I know. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is, actually, employed in very few legal circumstances. I have actually made a substantial study of the NRL judiciary, as part of my thesis, so I would appreciate a slight reduction in the condescending remarks.

Was not condescending, or at least didn't mean to be. Was simply stating the judiciary does not have the same burden of "proof" as the legal system and it is sufficient for the judiciary to arrive at a guilty verdict on the simple basis of probability. A big difference.

IMO the footage clearly shows Johns looking directly at Cecchin when he said what he did in a second person context so it is likely to be concluded that in all probability he was indeed directing those remarks at the touchie and that is all the judiciary needs to find him guilty.

As for the severity of the charge I would have thought 1 week sufficient with his carry over points taking it out to 2. Unfortunately for him I believe the stupid article he wrote got him the extra week for good measure. This is evidenced in the NRL breach notice to Hagan where they actually make a point of saying they reduced the fine because he softened his original statement.

 

[RABK]

to say your grip on the paul harrigan thrown has been loosened would be an understatement

My grip on your neck shall never loosen... ;-)

 

[CrazyEel]

go down the street and and try it out for yourselves and you can post the results from your hospital bed.

:lol: pay that one :lol:

 

[Raider_69]

My grip on your neck shall never loosen... ;-)

nor my grip on the trust old brick
should keep ya on ya heels mate ;-)