Minichello. A

[Mr Blonde]

LOL@LOL@50uff$ fans making this about LOL@50uff$.

f**k me. This sentence is as derp as it gets. Do you even understand what you're trying to say, or even who you are LOLing at?

Reads like a bourbon becky article tbh :alcho:

 

[moik]

A bit off topic, but it's kinda related, I'm wondering how Vidot avoided time on the sideline.
Does his penalty decrease because he is too uncoordinated to connect?
The intent was there for all to see.

He missed. Therefore free to play.

If he connected Tate is eating steak through a straw for a month..

 

[gUt]

Maybe swinging arm high shots are ok when you come from behind (twice) and not from front on. Maybe that's it.

 

[gUt]

Dugan caught a stray boot which cut him open you stupid trailer park boy

Yeah one of Mini's boots when he came kung-fu fighting in.

 

[dogslife]

f**k me. This sentence is as derp as it gets. Do you even understand what you're trying to say, or even who you are LOLing at?

Reads like a bourbon becky article tbh :alcho:

Aherpaderpaderp

 

[Cryptic]

Yeah the first one wasn't even high, try again champ.

I've seen players penalised for an arm "slipping up" and making contact with the head... One of his arms ended up around his head so under random rules it's sometimes not OK, granted 90% of the time it is, just at random they will penalise and suspend people for it... Unless they are a Rooster and cry about missing their round number game before the end of the season....

 

[blacklock]

inglis suspension v mini getting off = white australia policy still in partial effect.

 

[effnic]

Horrible decision. Matai or trex 22 weeks.

 

[Bumble]

:lol: lol@souffs

Inglis and Burns are known and scientifically proven grubs. The Inglis shot was a clear shoulder charge to the head. Burns was a deliberate high tackle.

Mini was just derping. It was nowhere near as bad as either of those two hits and anyone who thinks it was is off their head.

I came on LU tonight just for this reaction. Thanks morons :lol:

(for the record, I thought 2 weeks)

Not just Souffs fans labelling this a disgrace. Just because he's a spaz that can't take a bloke out despite two attacks to the head doesn't make the intent any less heinous.

 

[some11]

Not guilty. Free to play this week.

Why are any of you surprised? The judiciary's consistency is non-existent.

I'm happy for the bloke that he gets to play his 250th, he's just lucky these fools were having a good day and let him off.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

What??

Funny how the power of Politis hasn't stopped us being the most pennalised club in the comp.

 

[big country]

NRL judiciary needs a good multi-partner assisted fast action rectal shoom shumming with very long broomsticks no?

 

[skeepe]

What the f**k? Worst decision of all time.

So if I understand this correctly, a good shoulders tackle that slips up = 1-2 weeks, a high shot around the ears followed by a flying elbow to the head = free to play?

 

[Frailty]

This is an atrocious decision...

What was the defence?!

 

[skeepe]

This is an atrocious decision...

What was the defence?!

That to be found guilty of striking requires the act to be intentional or reckless.

Finding it not intentional I can understand, but not reckless? Seriously?

 

[Freddy's Girl]

That to be found guilty of striking requires the act to be intentional or reckless.

Finding it not intentional I can understand, but not reckless? Seriously?

He was charged for striking, not carelessness. Judiciary can only base it on that and as you said for it to be striking, they had to prove it was intentional which they couldn't. He was charged wrongly to begin with and that helped him escape the charge

 

[Frailty]

Intent should only ever come into determining how severe the penalty is.

What doesn't change is the fact that he jumped up, raised his forearm, and hit an opposing player in the head (after missing the first attempt).

To me, there is intent there. There was no attempt to make a tackle or to legally bring the player down.

 

[skeepe]

He was charged for striking, not carelessness. Judiciary can only base it on that and as you said for it to be striking, they had to prove it was intentional which they couldn't. He was charged wrongly to begin with and that helped him escape the charge

Striking is intentional or reckless.

If you're telling me that what he did wasn't reckless, well.....

 

[ek999]

This is an atrocious decision...

What was the defence?!

The Josh Dugan defence. Anyone that hits him in the head should never be found guilty of anything. They should instead be thanked for their services to Rugby League

 

[Frank_Grimes]

He was charged for striking, not carelessness. Judiciary can only base it on that and as you said for it to be striking, they had to prove it was intentional which they couldn't. He was charged wrongly to begin with and that helped him escape the charge

This.

It's just another f**k up in grading/charge by the MRC. The hit was worthy of a charge, (Mini would get off suspension with his clean record anyway) it's just they gave the wrong one. It should have been a careless high tackle.