Manly/Storm fight

[Evenflow]

because the first counsel was an absolute nut job

and conicidently he's also a one eyed Manly fan. I can see a pattern forming here...

 

[Beachy Eagle]

no they weren't

Stewart started the sideline shit and should have got more

Im so happy a judiciary pannel had the final say and not a bitter anti manly parra fan....

 

[Lowdown]

In the not-to-unlikely scenario that the two teams meet again in the GF - the irony will not be lost that the guy who was gang tackled and punched on the ground is watching from the stands, yet the 4 dogs will be there lining up on the biggest game of the year.

I hope they don't get that chance...and most people I dare say agree.

 

[big_matt]

He pleaded guilty!!!
The judiciary have agreed that both parties were equally responsible for the fight and given them the same suspension.... surprise surprise.
Any norman person without bias or complete and utter hatred for 1 of the 2 parties can see they were as guilty as each other and deserved the same sentence.

No, he pleaded not guilty. Then changed it last minute to guilty. Something no other club has been allowed to do.

He definately didn't enter an early guilty plea. Blair did though. However they both got the same penalty.

Stewart also started the fight. There is absolutely no doubt about that. What was Blair to do as Stewart punches him in the face? Stand there with his hands behind his back?

Your club also claimed in the meeting that Stewart had to punch Blair first because he was "so offended by Blair using a swearword". The Stewart family don't strike me as people who would be horrified to hear a swearword. Laughable.

 

[hutch]

no they weren't

Stewart started the sideline shit and should have got more

i disagree, they were both completely as bad as each other.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

He pleaded guilty!!! eventually
The judiciary have agreed that both parties were equally responsible for the fight and given them the same suspension.... surprise surprise no surprise at all - everyone has been saying it for days Any norman person without bias or complete and utter hatred for 1 of the 2 parties can see they were as guilty as each other and deserved the same sentence.no amount of trying to justify it makes it any the less farcical

the judiciary is a joke...lets see how consistent they are after this precedent

 

[firechild]

Despite losing the early plea discount, judiciary hand down a 3 match suspension.

There is no early plea discount when a charge is referred straight to the judiciary. It's the same as when a person turns up to court, they officially enter their plea at the hearing. The fact we all knew that Blair was going to plead guilty means nothing. The plea was not entered until he faced the judiciary, the same applies to Stewart.

 

[Beachy Eagle]

the judiciary is a joke...lets see how consistent they are after this precedent

I am not trying to justify anything, statng FACTS as they are...
No bias no hatred (unlike most in here) just what has transpired.
The judiciary decide dthat 2 players were sinbinned and started up a fight on the sideline straight afterwards, both responsible both guilty both 3 weeks....
The rest of the conspiracy theories, and pure hatred dribble on here is irrelivant...

 

[big_matt]

the judiciary is a joke...lets see how consistent they are after this precedent

I reckon this wont be a precedent at all. If the Storm get charged with something this week will they just be allowed to change the plea they enter whenever they've seen what the other team got? I think not!

 

[the Lock8]

It's the process that is so wrong.To allow Stewart to change his plea once he knew what he would get by doing so is so wrong it makes the judiciary a rubber stamp for whatever the NRL decrees. Like I said earlier, if Manly were going to be given an extension, Blairs sentence should never have been made public until after Stewarts case was heard.

 

[big_matt]

It's the process that is so wrong.To allow Stewart to change his plea once he knew what he would get by doing so is so wrong it makes the judiciary a rubber stamp for whatever the NRL decrees. Like I said earlier, if Manly were going to be given an extension, Blairs sentence should never have been made public until after Stewarts case was heard.

Correct - but that would require an NRL which is fair and sensible!

 

[Lowdown]

It's the process that is so wrong.To allow Stewart to change his plea once he knew what he would get by doing so is so wrong it makes the judiciary a rubber stamp for whatever the NRL decrees. Like I said earlier, if Manly were going to be given an extension, Blairs sentence should never have been made public until after Stewarts case was heard.

Or delay Blair's hearing also to the same day. That would have been fairer to all concerned but the NRL have been outplayed here by some very shrewd maneuvering.

You watch the react to fix this...but it will be little comfort to Adam Blair.

 

[Patsy]

Correct - but that would require an NRL which is fair and sensible!

i can't see why the grading committee can't come up with a grading earlier in the week when they grade all other charges. Would have prevented the circus of events that went on all week!

There are enough experienced people who could have said 3 weeks at the start of the week. If Blair & Stewart knew it was 3 weeks they probably both don't even bother turning up to the judiciary and take the early plea on tuesday!

 

[Cloudsurfer]

I reckon this wont be a precedent at all. If the Storm get charged with something this week will they just be allowed to change the plea they enter whenever they've seen what the other team got? I think not!

If they employ the same tactics as Manly have in this, they can & what's to stop any club from doing that - that's what I meant by precedence. Its within the rules and while they might be transparently using the rules to do it, what can be done about it that doesn't show up what has just happened?

 

[firechild]

It's the process that is so wrong.To allow Stewart to change his plea once he knew what he would get by doing so is so wrong it makes the judiciary a rubber stamp for whatever the NRL decrees. Like I said earlier, if Manly were going to be given an extension, Blairs sentence should never have been made public until after Stewarts case was heard.

He didn't change his official plea. He didn't enter a plea until he faced the judiciary tonight. It is the same any player is referred straight to the judiciary, they have until the time they face the judiciary to change what they intend to plead as many times as they like. The information that is given to the media is absolutely irrelevent.

 

[Beachy Eagle]

It's a total farce. Not sure what is more embarrasing - Manly's behaviour or the fact that the NRL are allowing it no questions asked. The NRL are absolutely loving trying to get a Sydney club over the line.

Sure Manly, have an extension if you want. In fact come back with a different plea tomorrow if you want. Its all good. We'll stop Storm winning the GF don't worry boys.

Allowing you to change your plea no questions asked.

Why was he "absolutely innocent" on Wednesday and "admitting guilt" on Thursday? Maybe because you'd seen Blair got 3 weeks as guilty?

I reckon this wont be a precedent at all. If the Storm get charged with something this week will they just be allowed to change the plea they enter whenever they've seen what the other team got? I think not!

Correct - but that would require an NRL which is fair and sensible!

My good, te conspiracies going on...
Why do you watch the NRL if you hate it so much?????

 

[Lowdown]

There is no early plea discount when a charge is referred straight to the judiciary. It's the same as when a person turns up to court, they officially enter their plea at the hearing. The fact we all knew that Blair was going to plead guilty means nothing. The plea was not entered until he faced the judiciary, the same applies to Stewart.

But surely them must be some consideration for a lower penalty for someone who pleads guilty. If not then everyone who plead innocent wouldn't they.

 

[big_matt]

If they employ the same tactics as Manly have in this, they can & what's to stop any club from doing that - that's what I meant by precedence. Its within the rules and while they might be transparently using the rules to do it, what can be done about it that doesn't show up what has just happened?

Is it within the rules? I thought it was against the rules to change a plea you have officially submitted?

 

[afinalsin666]

Anyone notice Kurt Gidley? Anyone? Hellooooo?

 

[big_matt]

My good, te conspiracies going on...
Why do you watch the NRL if you hate it so much?????

You don't seem to be able to answer any of the points people are raising.

your club was just allowed to do something no previous club has been allowed to do (see what penalty another player gets than change your plea accordingly). That's not a conspiracy. It's a fact.