No surprise......

[fish eel]

Do you think he would've got as many weeks if the good Dr. said he'd probably be OK for Manly's next game?

I doubt it.

I think he probably would have, given his record. Like Morely, he is a marked man and has to be more careful than most people.

In any case, the story saying Kite would miss most of the year....didnt that come out after Fui received the grading?

And Colonel, sure, Manly played it up, but FFS, its Manly v Parramatta, you'd almost be disappointed if they didnt play it up. It sells papers and gets people talking......

 

[fish eel]

also, we'd played the newspaper game ourselves in this instance, that lovely soft piece on Fui after the event...'I'm so sorry'.

Spare me.

 

[The Colonel]

after the event

Says it all really. There used to be a time when the NRL frowned upon clubs talking about pending judiciary appearances in the paper.... ;-)

 

[strider]

No problem with the Fui suspension fish, at least on my part. The lack of consistency from the MRC/Judiciary is my biggest concern. I do think Manly have played it for everything it was worth though and don't think he deserved more than a Grade 1 Reckless charge.

exactly!!!

 

[mickdo]

No problem with the Fui suspension fish, at least on my part. The lack of consistency from the MRC/Judiciary is my biggest concern. I do think Manly have played it for everything it was worth though and don't think he deserved more than a Grade 1 Reckless charge.

Spot on. A Rooster player breaks Craig Smith's jaw and doesn't even get a charge??? Explain that one...

 

[The Colonel]

Smith spray as Paea escapes charge
August 8, 2006

DURING his 12-year career, Craig Smith has often been mystified by the NRL judiciary system and yesterday proved no different after no action was taken over an incident that left the veteran Newcastle prop with a broken jaw.

While refusing to concede he has played his last game, Smith - who played on for 15 minutes with the injury - questioned how Sydney Roosters forward Mickey Paea had escaped any charge over the first-half tackle in Sunday's match at Gosford that led to the 34-year-old's jaw being wired.

No stranger to the judiciary after being forced to quit the NRL in 2001 due to an intolerable record of heavy suspensions at St George Illawarra, Smith said he bore no grudge against Paea but was bemused that he had got away with nothing more than a penalty while Knights skipper Andrew Johns was charged over an incident that did far less damage.

"If they're trying to clean the game up how do I end up with a broken jaw and no charges out of it?" he told The Newcastle Herald. "I don't think it was an offence you should get away with."

Johns was issued with a grade-one striking charge arising from a tackle on rookie Roosters halfback Josh Lewis but, unlike Melbourne fullback Billy Slater, who faces the same charge, he will escape suspension by pleading guilty.

Slater, who had already been suspended for nine games this year on separate striking and dangerous-throw charges, will receive another two-match ban unless he successfully challenges the charge at the tribunal.

Melbourne prop Brett White, South Sydney captain Peter Cusack (both grade one careless high tackles) and Wests Tigers five-eighth Shane Elford (grade one striking) will all escape suspensions with early pleas.

Brad Walter

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/smith-spray-as-paea-escapes-charge/2006/08/07/1154802820799.html

Just makes you wonder if the MRC committee watch the videos or read the paper on Monday fish..... ;-)

 

[spiderdan]

i have no problem with fui being suspended for a careless tackle.

my problem is that his penalty seemed to be based on his past rather than judging the incident on it's own.

i've watched the tackle a number of times and seen a squillion still shots of it.

kite was falling. at the time of impact his head was about level with john morris' (who is about 5"6' fully stretched on a good day) shoulders. if kite was upright the contact would've been around his chest, much like most of fui's hits this year.

why isn't this taken into account when the tackle is graded? instead he is charged on a higher offence and decides not to challenge it because of his past record.

the media didn't help matters either. the whole "knocked out for three minutes" thing irks me. while i don't dispute that he would've been clobbed hard and that he was knocked out i believe kite was unconscious because his body bent back and the snapped his head into the ground.

then kennedy comes out saying he feared for kite's life. what a crock. hassler makes similar comments that paint fui in a negative light as well. if their statements didn't influence the judiciary then they are a bigger joke than most believe.

the contact to the head was purely accidental in this incident in my opinion.

 

[fish eel]

Says it all really. There used to be a time when the NRL frowned upon clubs talking about pending judiciary appearances in the paper.... ;-)

so that story was after Fui got the grading.? I honestly don't remember. If so,how did all the moanly whining about Kite being out for the year influence who long Fui got suspended for, particuarly given we took the plea.

But, the MRC aren't consistant. We all know that - I'm not defending them either. I just think that really, a lot of us are being to precious about Fui and Kite. But what do I know, I'm just in a sh!t mood because I'm having a sh!t day full of whingers! :lol:

 

[The Colonel]

so that story was after Fui got the grading.? I honestly don't remember. If so,how did all the moanly whining about Kite being out for the year influence who long Fui got suspended for, particuarly given we took the plea.

The first stories were on Sunday and Monday before the grading was given - particularly the quotes from Kennedy about how he feared that Kites neck was broken and that he'd been hit high just a few tackles previous by Fui. I am of the opinion that the MRC can be influenced to an extent by the media coverage of such events.

The second story in regard to how long he would be out was the next day after the grading had been handed out but before Parramatta had taken the early plea. I may be wrong but I think the club decided to take the early plea rather than fight the grading due to the media coverage as they were concerned that it could influence proceedings.

But, the MRC aren't consistant. We all know that - I'm not defending them either. I just think that really, a lot of us are being to precious about Fui and Kite. But what do I know, I'm just in a sh!t mood because I'm having a sh!t day full of whingers! :lol:

Of course they aren't consistent but when a blatant foul is missed completely it still stirs emotions particularly when Smith will miss four weeks and Paea walks scott free. Had it been Morley, Fui, Crocker or Woolford you can almost guarantee they would miss half the season.

 

[fish eel]

Had it been Morley, Fui, Crocker or Woolford you can almost guarantee they would miss half the season.

Of course.
I think what Fui got was to be expected, given his record. There's no doubt Fui got him high, to my eyes, I thought Kite looked out cold before his head hit the ground.

Once he got sent off, he was always going to cop at least 6-7 weeks. The day after that match, I didnt hear to many commentators saying Clarke got the send off wrong.....and no, I wasnt listening to Raaay.

But I guess thats all immaterial. He got the 7 weeks and thats that. Kite missed a week and may be back this week. We hate Manly and they still hate us....so all is as it should be!

 

[The Colonel]

You've completely bypassed or missed the point fishy. The issue isn't Fui's suspension rather the fact that someone else can commit the same offence (or in this case cause more damage) and walk away. The MRC and judiciary have far too many pre-conceived ideas when it comes to charges and sentencing and don't treat each case on its merits.

Our club is also partly to blame for not pushing harder to have the suspension from last year against the Broncos overturned when evidence suggested he missed Barnes anyway.

 

[Kornstar]

At the game, the trainer ran on and after about 15 seconds, raised his arm and signalled that Kite was ok (unconcious for 3 minuted my a$$). Now, if Kennedy was fearing for his life, why wasn't the trainer? There was no urgency, i think they knew all along that Kite would walk off the field, they were just hoping that bringing the medicab out would get Fui sent off, it obviously worked too. It was played up by Manly after the game and that also helped get Fui outed for so long, i mean there was nothing said about the Wiki tackle and that was worse!!!

On the suspension, it was fair, the only problem was that Morley's incident was twice as bad yet got the same punishment.

 

[mickdo]

The day after that match, I didnt hear to many commentators saying Clarke got the send off wrong.....and no, I wasnt listening to Raaay.

Because we won the game, there was no chance of that.

 

[fish eel]

You've completely bypassed or missed the point fishy. The issue isn't Fui's suspension rather the fact that someone else can commit the same offence (or in this case cause more damage) and walk away. The MRC and judiciary have far too many pre-conceived ideas when it comes to charges and sentencing and don't treat each case on its merits.

Plenty of posts in this thread, Colonel, are just about Fui's suspension. Like it or not, he is a repeat offender and like Morley, draws extra scrutiny

Our club is also partly to blame for not pushing harder to have the suspension from last year against the Broncos overturned when evidence suggested he missed Barnes anyway.

yeah....boneheaded decision that one was!

 

[strider]

Of course.
I think what Fui got was to be expected, given his record. There's no doubt Fui got him high, to my eyes, I thought Kite looked out cold before his head hit the ground.

Once he got sent off, he was always going to cop at least 6-7 weeks. The day after that match, I didnt hear to many commentators saying Clarke got the send off wrong.....and no, I wasnt listening to Raaay.

But I guess thats all immaterial. He got the 7 weeks and thats that. Kite missed a week and may be back this week. We hate Manly and they still hate us....so all is as it should be!

You should have watched the footy show last week ... Vossy (god bless him), in part of his little segment, said pretty much exactly "I can't believe how highly Fuifui was graded" as he didn't set out to attack the head of the opponent.

 

[eeladdick]

call me stupid ,but everyone goes on about fui's record what is it..
the way people talk about him is as if he is in the same leauge as hoppa...
but from what i can recall hes been charged for some high shots and a late hit ,when has he stood there and gone toe to toe with someone,i think he is victimised coshe plays hard ,

 

[Bigfella]

Any opposition player or coach interviewed took theopportunity to sy it was very bad; Matt Elliott Ben Kennedy Stuart Raper Wayne Bellamy etc. Gives you an idea of how much they rate Fui...

 

[eloquentEEL]

"The NRL has requested a medical report from Manly doctor Paul Bloomfield on Kite's condition."

This is the thing... the judiciary can't make up its mind if it is charging based on:

a) intent,
b) the actual result (eg. the "victim" is definitely out for a number of weeks),
c) the expected result (eg. doctor's prognosis), or
d) the most anal interpretation of the outcome (eg. got a fingernail to his head, constituting a high tackle)

There is no consistency to the approach and in Fuifui's case pick a,b,c or d based on whatever will result in the longest suspension.