Morley = 7 weeks

[bigdogsgottaeat]

I have no doubt plenty of people disagree with it. But why do they disagree? That's the point. Club loyalties and biases I think you'll find. I don't like the Roosters but I can look beyond that and make a judgement based on the particular incident (and only that incident) and what is best for rugby league. If only more people could do the same.

Dude the whole point is that we shouldn't be giving sentences based on the games coming up. I don't care if the tri-nations are approaching - if an Aussie (or a Kiwi) committed a similar offence, I would expect a much more harsh sentence.

Its pretty obvious the tri-nations has been taken into account, which is bloody ridiculous. Good or not for rugby league, Morley is a thug who deserved a more severe sentence - yes, regardless of the upcoming game(s).

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Dude the whole point is that we shouldn't be giving sentences based on the games coming up. I don't care if the tri-nations are approaching - if an Aussie (or a Kiwi) committed a similar offence, I would expect a much more harsh sentence.

Its pretty obvious the tri-nations has been taken into account, which is bloody ridiculous. Good or not for rugby league, Morley is a thug who deserved a more severe sentence - yes, regardless of the upcoming game(s).

I don't think that is the whole point, certainly not the one you've been making from the start. But as you've brought it I do believe that Test matches should be treated differently. I don't know Adrian Morley but I reckon he'd rather miss 10 NRL games than one 3N Test for GB. It would not be fair, I believe, to count a Test and an NRL game as the same, Origin too. I don't even think the NRL should have the right to suspend a British player from a Test match, but that is another issue.

 

[bigdogsgottaeat]

I don't even think the NRL should have the right to suspend a British player from a Test match, but that is another issue.

Actually I agree on this point (I know, I'm shocked too). I was pretty surprised that suspensions would include Test matches for a representative of another country.

Unfortunately the NRL has set a precedent - naturally they won't be consistent, but if they were, then offences like this would be subjected to the same suspension period, which I just think is wrong.

Its also a little unfortunate that Morley represents the Roosters, as they have always seemed to be something of a protected species.

Should Morley be allowed to play in the test? Yes, I think so. Do I think the offence was worthy of a longer suspension? Without a doubt.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Actually I agree on this point (I know, I'm shocked too). I was pretty surprised that suspensions would include Test matches for a representative of another country.

Unfortunately the NRL has set a precedent - naturally they won't be consistent, but if they were, then offences like this would be subjected to the same suspension period, which I just think is wrong.

Its also a little unfortunate that Morley represents the Roosters, as they have always seemed to be something of a protected species.

Should Morley be allowed to play in the test? Yes, I think so. Do I think the offence was worthy of a longer suspension? Without a doubt.

Fair enough, but I am of a different opinion. I also don't believe there is a precendent. All incidents are different and to compare them so absolutely is folly.

 

[Razor]

The knee was nowhere as bad as Bird's.

 

[Lancelot Link]

The knee was nowhere as bad as Bird's.

How so?

If anythig - Bird's was the 'love tap' out of the 2!...Little backlift and didn't really 'follow through' with it so to speak.

And Bird has barely 1/8th of the overall judiciary record that Morley did prior!

Whereas Morley CHARGED from over a metre away from 2nd marker to lay is ham-hock in! Only luck, rather than design that he didn't collect Hughes in the head!

You're kiddin' surely?? :sarcasm:

 

[Lancelot Link]

Again why question this decision moreso than the Bird decision. Bird probably should have got six weeks and Morely about the same. Six weeks is not a lenient sentence, it's a quarter of a season.

As for the old "if that wasn't on a football field it would be assault" chessnut - a perfectly legal rugby league tackle would be assault off a football field for God's sake.

When you set a precedent...to be taken seriously in the future - you must follow that precendent! And the NRL judiciary have not.

As for your 2nd point - Last time I checked - tackles are still legal in the NRL - but are not just 'out on the street' - but kneeing someone not even looking in your direction at the time was just common assault in both instances - so whilst I am hardly calling for Morley to be publically hung, drawn and quartered - that argument doesn't float either, I'm afraid.

There is no POSSIBLE defence of Morley's actions. At all. And given other supensions handed down by the judiciary recently (Which you may pooh-pooh - but are the only 'slate' we have to draw off in comparing incidents and appropriate punishments by the way) - Morley can consider himself VERY lucky indeed!

If Morely was 'Joe Bloggs' and not one of GB's biggest Tri-Nations drawacards - he'd have sat out far more than just 7 weeks..and that's a FACT!

 

[melon....]

What a joke.

Explain to me how you can knee a guy in the head/nether-region and only get 7 weeks? Utai almost got as much for a high tackle, arguably after bouncing off the ball

Once again inconsistency and a soft decision. Great work NRL. Way to defend the golden Eastern Suburb boys... Good to see that nothing has changed.

Big diff between Utai and Morley...Utai goes Meow!

 

[melon....]

How so?

If anythig - Bird's was the 'love tap' out of the 2!...Little backlift and didn't really 'follow through' with it so to speak.

And Bird has barely 1/8th of the overall judiciary record that Morley did prior!

Whereas Morley CHARGED from over a metre away from 2nd marker to lay is ham-hock in! Only luck, rather than design that he didn't collect Hughes in the head!

You're kiddin' surely?? :sarcasm:

Secret Chimp,

Bird conected with teh head. Big difference. LOL@ the "lawyers" with their precedents. Apples are oranges.

 

[JoeD]

I think it was a little low, not outrageous though. 8-10 would have been fair. I remember hearing that because it got referred straight to the judiciary he wouldn't benefit from an early guilty plea. Presumably this means his bad record wasn't a consideration either.

 

[Chook]

Maybe Moz shouldv'e gone in there with a pathetic bullsh*t excuse like he suffered ADHD or something?:roll:

That seems to work for some cheats.

Oh well, at least Moz faced his actions like a man and not a child.

Chook.

 

[skeepe]

7 weeks is remarkably soft.

Still, it could have been worse. An AFL player fronted the tribunal this week for a deliberate head-butt. His suspension? 1 paltry week. A deliberate headbutt in NRL would be 10 weeks min I'd suspect.

 

[drake]

It's unbelievable that a man with his record runs into Hughes and knees him and gets one week more than Barrett got for a high tackle.

Maybe Isaac and his Roosters Illuminati are telling the truth!

get Rowan onto the case!

 

[Saint 60]

Record? hes been sent off b4..?
Like 1 minute in and international...just to name 1 other time...there has to b more..how many times has he been sent off...?

o and 7 weeks hahahahahah
not good.....

 

[taxidriver]

Barrett got more weeks (when you take the loading into account) for a lesser charge !!!

Barretts was an accident, Morleys was intentional.

Justice ? pffft

 

[drake]

Justice is lost
Justice is raped
Justice is gone
Pulling your strings
Justice is done
Seeking no truth
Winning is all
Find it so grim
So true
So real

 

[dontmakemeangry]

Justice is lost
Justice is raped
Justice is gone
Pulling your strings
Justice is done
Seeking no truth
Winning is all
Find it so grim
So true
So real

yeah.....whatever

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

Imagine how much needle he's going to get during the Tri-Nations series? Wind him up and watch him go off.....

It's a pretty lenient sentence, given his record, but not outrageous. I personally thought that 8-10 weeks would have been fair and I also think that it is pretty obvious that international pressures have been brought to bear.

 

[hrundi99]

And to answer the question, yes. I always want the minumum suspension for a player because I want to see the best players on the field, not sitting on the sideline. The NRL is only hurting the game by rubbing its best players out of the game and anyone who wants to see the best players suspended for longer and longer spells is not a true supporter of the game.

Yes with that in mind let's let players do anything the want on the field, as long as they're "good" players.

:crazy:

 

[Lancelot Link]

Maybe Moz shouldv'e gone in there with a pathetic bullsh*t excuse like he suffered ADHD or something?:roll:

That seems to work for some cheats.

Oh well, at least Moz faced his actions like a man and not a child.

Chook.

:lol:

What else was he going to do? Go in there, look the judiciary panel members in the eye and say "I didn't do it 'yer honour!"

Please....He had NO choice but to face it the way he did. If he was a man - he wouldn't have been there for kneeing in the first place! Simple as that.