JWH-Paul Gallen: A Tale of Two Suspensions

[bileduct]

Paul Gallen is a protected species

There is no reason that punching a player in the face shouldn't be dealt with in the harshest terms

Michael Weyman was sent off and eventually got six weeks for belting Daniel Conn, if I recall correctly.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Is JWH back to play us this week? Hopefully his suspension has left him a withered husk.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Michael Weyman was sent off and eventually got six weeks for belting Daniel Conn, if I recall correctly.

Weyman was harshly punished after Conn had done some facial work on weyman IIRC

http://youtu.be/dgnXH-LLFWQ

It was a good punch though ;-)

 

[firechild]

Firstly, people are forgetting that JWH had loading AND carryover points so his suspension was always going to be disproportionately high. Also, jumping at a player and belting him across the face is always going to attract a higher grading.

Having said that, there is absolutely no consistency and there have been plenty of other tackles that deserved higher gradings than what they got (or recieved no charge, such as the Gallen tackle). Steve Matai got a week for a high tackle on George Burgess that bounced up off the ball and barely glanced the chin. A couple of weeks later he recieved a tackle flush across the nose from Shillington that got put on report but recieved no charge. I have no problem with either of these decisions on their own but if there is going to be consistency they need to charge both or let both off. I don't buy into the NZ bias that many complain about but there is absolutely a different set of rules for origin players and it applies to both states despite the incessent whinging from Queenslanders about NSW controlling the judiciary.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

So by that logic the flying elbows we saw from Hopoate and Clint Newton years back should not have even earned suspensions as they were attempted shoulder charges gone wrong.

You can attempt the worst king hit of all time but if you miss completely you have no case to answer, and that's the way it has always been. And if you jump into tackles swinging your arm into a player's chest then you pay the penalty when you belt him in the head.

Hopoate and Newton intentionally elbowed players who were hitting the line upright.

JWH attempted a legal tackle which went wrong because Rose stumbled.

There's a difference, no?

 

[Jatz Crackers]

firechilds comments repeatedly expose those of you with limited footy knowledge or a lack of general intelligence. In this environment, a very nice guy he is.

 

[kmav23]

this is pissing me off

 

[coolsteve]

this is pissing me off

fail

 

[Glen]

Hopoate and Newton intentionally elbowed players who were hitting the line upright.

JWH attempted a legal tackle which went wrong because Rose stumbled.

There's a difference, no?

Both claimed to be trying to execute a legal shoulder charge, which at fast pace can go wrong if you time it incorrectly. I find it hard to believe that from Hopoate in particular but you can't prove the intent without mind-reading powers.

The point is that tackling technique with a margin of error is punished when it goes wrong, regardless of intent.

Hopefully the fact George Rose was falling a little was taken into account in the grading but that doesn't make it a legal tackle.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Both claimed to be trying to execute a legal shoulder charge, which at fast pace can go wrong if you time it incorrectly. I find it hard to believe that from Hopoate in particular but you can't prove the intent without mind-reading powers.

The point is that tackling technique with a margin of error is punished when it goes wrong, regardless of intent.

Hopefully the fact George Rose was falling a little was taken into account in the grading but that doesn't make it a legal tackle.

Both can claim whatever they f**king like, they obviously weren't and you you'll find next to nobody on the forum who thinks that they were. Those are awful arguing points.

Neither are comparable to the JWH tackle because with the tackle on Rose, if Rose didn't stumble there is no controversy. The tackle looked bad not because the Roosters player did anything particularly bad, but because Rose didn't hit the line upright, it's clear as day on the game footage.

But it just shows the NRL have token players they'll throw the book at in the hopes of saving face for all the times they drop the ball and look like idiots. Travis Burns was banned for about 12 weeks for a similar high tackle when Martin Kennedy just about fell over. Then you get players like Rose that run around elbowing people in the head on purpose and the judiciary don't give a shit.

 

[Renowned League Expert]

Firstly, people are forgetting that JWH had loading AND carryover points

I don't think anyone is forgetting that -- it's just that loading and carryover points is a bag of bullshit.