Minichello. A

[adamkungl]

lol. accidental high tackles being compared to murder now.

Next logical step.. Minichiello is worse than Hitler.

 

[Ziggy the God]

Clumsy can still be dangerous. He destroyed Dugan's face.

So you put shiate on Souths supporters saying that it should have copped a suspension, then you argue this?

How many bongs did you smoke tonight you stupid cuarnt?

 

[Snappy]

lol. accidental high tackles being compared to murder now.

Next logical step.. Minichiello is worse than Hitler.

No one has compared the tackle to murder.

I used the murder to manslaughter analogy as an example of how a charge can be changed in a court of law.

It's humorous that Easts supporters are carrying on like tools saying it was a good tackle, when they know full well that he got off on a technicality.

 

[sretsoor]

No one has compared the tackle to murder.

I used the murder to manslaughter analogy as an example of how a charge can be changed in a court of law.
.

When a charge of murder is reduced to manslaughter it is due to the prosecution reducing the charge. Not the judge.

 

[skeepe]

Hopefully he breaks his leg or something this weekend. Dirty f**king prick.

 

[chrisD]

Burns had a heated argument with kennedy in the previous play, the intent was pretty clear for all to see.

Kennedy disagrees, why would you presume to know more than him on the matter?

 

[Frailty]

I can't believe people are suggesting it should have been a high tackle charge?

Leading with the forearm/elbow is NOT an attempt at a tackle.

The fact he jumped and tried twice is enough to show he had intent.

He should be rubbed out of the game for at least 4 weeks.

 

[innerwestrabbit]

How is clumsy jumping a foot off the ground to hit a guy in the head with your f**king elbow?? :lol::lol::lol:

That why I called It clumsy. Yes he should not have connected with Dugans head. Yes he should have got suspended. But I think to suggest there was malice is way off the mark. Clearly he was upset that Dugan brushed him off. Probably felt he needed to go in hard and made a quiet a comical attempt at tackle. Which has led to a broken nose and some stitches to his face which clearly is not good regardless of intent or not.

 

[Frailty]

That why I called It clumsy. Yes he should not have connected with Dugans head. Yes he should have got suspended. But I think to suggest there was malice is way off the mark. Clearly he was upset that Dugan brushed him off. Probably felt he needed to go in hard and made a quiet a comical attempt at tackle. Which has led to a broken nose and some stitches to his face which clearly is not good regardless of intent or not.

Wait, wait...

He was upset that he got brushed off, yet there was no malice in jumping and leading with a forearm?

Please, that isn't clumsy. It's a brain snap, and it was intentional.

 

[Valheru]

So because it wasn't on purpose it's OK? So if I fire a gun into a crowd and don't intend to hit or kill anyone I can get away with it as long as it's my first time and I've got a big day at work planned for the weekend? Good to know...

DERP!!!

Firing a gun into a crowd is a pretty clear sign of intent you imbecile.

Now tigers fans are having a whinge and apparently are going to protest outside the stadium on Sunday. What a pack of babies. Just get over it and accept the fact that mini is a legend and can do whatever he wants.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

No one has compared the tackle to murder.

I used the murder to manslaughter analogy as an example of how a charge can be changed in a court of law.

It's humorous that Easts supporters are carrying on like tools saying it was a good tackle, when they know full well that he got off on a technicality.

Not many of us are saying that to be fair and we're fully aware of his technicality escape. He should've been given a decent suspension.

Don't get confused by some of us doubting the 'intent' as we have followed his entire career closely and don't believe he suddenly became a dirty player. Most of us are not defending the tackle. He's been increasingly doing dumb things all year and this was just the biggest blunder so far. Next year scares me.

 

[innsaneink]

Apparently he was charged incorrectly, McCallum f**ked up.
The judiciary then had to PROVE intent.

How this stupid charge even exists, and the fact its basically a claytons charge.....is another of the inconsistent incompetency that is the NRL

The fact to me he had two attempts, not just one....shows enough 'intent' to me

 

[851]

Kennedy disagrees, why would you presume to know more than him on the matter?

I was at that game,the Penrith fans were up the refs,why I don't know they were getting a dream run.
Burns was just responding to the crowd not Kennedy,there was no intent,he was severely dudded,or Mini must have friends in high places,because Burns got 9 weeks and Mini got none and they looked similar to me.:?

 

[innsaneink]

Players are not supposed to be rewarded for being good.

You should be good, play within the rules, play in the spirit of the game etc etc

You get penalized for repeat offences...thats the loading system

Punish for bad
Carry on for good

Otherwise we'll be rewarding people for buying train tickets next

 

[skeepe]

Apparently he was charged incorrectly, McCallum f**ked up.
The judiciary then had to PROVE intent.

How this stupid charge even exists, and the fact its basically a claytons charge.....is another of the inconsistent incompetency that is the NRL

The fact to me he had two attempts, not just one....shows enough 'intent' to me

Not entirely correct.

They had to prove either intent, or that his actions were reckless.

The judiciary somehow came to the conclusion that it was careless, not reckless, therefore not striking.

How they determined a guy launching himself over two of his own players and leading with the forearm wasn't reckless is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

 

[Front-Rower]

Not entirely correct.

They had to prove either intent, or that his actions were reckless.

The judiciary somehow came to the conclusion that it was careless, not reckless, therefore not striking.

How they determined a guy launching himself over two of his own players and leading with the forearm wasn't reckless is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

This.

If I was Travis Burns I'd be finding myself a lawyer. If what I remember correctly, the judiciary justified their guilty charge for his high tackle because he jumped at the player.

Surely jumping, in Minichello's case, and leading with a forearm justifies striking. He struck at a players head, there were no sidesteps, he wasn't wrong footed he just jumped at him (twice) and hit Dugan flush in the head.

 

[gUt]

lol. accidental high tackles being compared to murder now.

Next logical step.. Minichiello is worse than Hitler.

Anthony Murderchiello

 

[adamkungl]

Anyone bringing up Travis Burns in this thread is embarassing themself.

Even correctly charged, there's no way Minichiello gets more than 2 weeks.

 

[Stinkler]

Anyone bringing up Travis Burns in this thread is embarassing themself.

Even correctly charged, there's no way Minichiello gets more than 2 weeks.

The point is that he escaped suspension.
THAT is a disgrace.

 

[Front-Rower]

Anyone bringing up Travis Burns in this thread is embarassing themself.

Even correctly charged, there's no way Minichiello gets more than 2 weeks.

Why am I embarrassing myself? They set a precedent with Burns because they said he intent by jumping. Same should of applied to Minichello.

Sure, Burns got a thousand weeks because of his record, but what Minichello did deserves a punishment of some kind.

Can anyone explain what the striking charge is then to me if jumping and leading with a forearm/elbow isn't striking?