R19 | Panthers 14-32 Knights @ Centrebet | Sun 2.00pm

[Yosh]

Didnt effect the outcome?? Yeah right. All actions in the game affect the outcome. We were just able to overcome the bad decision.

If the Panthers go on to win by 13+ the bad decision wouldnt have affected the outcome......

What a bunch of bullshit.

Well we won by 13+ so I don't think it had a major effect... Not trying to justify the ref's mistake, I'm just expressing my sense of relief that we still go the 2 points.

 

[Rod]

Just watched the game again, I'm now convinced Ciraldo's first kick was a complete airswing, so they didn't score a legitimate try.

Unbelievable that no one got disciplined for those blunders and one of them even got a promotion! :crazy:

 

[Pomoz]

Didnt effect the outcome?? Yeah right. All actions in the game affect the outcome. We were just able to overcome the bad decision.

That is true. I'm sure playing without Docker for 2/3rds of the game would have not helped a Panther's team already low on troops. If the refs did their job properly, Masoe would have been sent off later in the game and Snowden would have been sent off after 20 minutes.

Refs make mistakes. The team has to be good enough to deal with it and still win. Sometimes it's for you and sometimes it's against you.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Sent off? lol

 

[Big Tim]

Sent off? lol

I lol'ed.

No break. Harden the f**k up IMO

That is true. I'm sure playing without Docker for 2/3rds of the game would have not helped a Panther's team already low on troops. If the refs did their job properly, Masoe would have been sent off later in the game and Snowden would have been sent off after 20 minutes.

Refs make mistakes. The team has to be good enough to deal with it and still win. Sometimes it's for you and sometimes it's against you.

Good points really.

You justify my position perfectly.

Maybe if the refs had have correctly disallowed the first try, Snowden wouldnt have been suspended for the next 2 games, and Docker would have played the whole game......

 

[Silent Knight]

Sent off? What's that crap?

 

[Pomoz]

Sent off? What's that crap?

Since two players have subsequently been found guilty of an offence resulting in a suspension, the only logical conclusion is they should have been sent off. One team lost a player for 2/3rds of the game as a result of foul play. The refs chose to be wimps and put both incidents on report.

These days you probably have to maim someone with a machete to get sent off and even then whilst the groundsman is mopping up the blood and putting the lopped off limb in a bucket of ice for re-attachment, there's still a chance you would only go on report.

 

[Yosh]

Sent off for what? Where in the rule book does it say that any of the offences were send offs?

 

[Joker's Wild]

lol FMD you have reached a new level of stupidity Pomoz

 

[Pomoz]

Sorry, you've lost me here. Do you understand what the judiciary is for? If you are banned for two weeks for striking the head of a player, why is that not a sending off offence? It has been deemed an illegal action worthy of two weeks suspension. The same for Masoe. He has hit a players head. It is illegal play and deemed worthy of suspension after review. They both should have been sent off in accordance with the NRL's own rules. I didn't make the rules, but they are clear.

You are arguing about the whether the rules are appropriate. Now, it is a different argument to say whether the actions should be punished with a suspension. I never said the punishment fits the crime. I think you are arguing about whether the league should award suspensions for tackles like that. "they've gone soft" seems to be the opinion of many.

However, if the rules state that the tackles are illegal (section 15 of the Laws Of The Game - recklessly striking the head of an opponent) and two week suspensions are appropriate then they are sending off offences under the current rules (section 16 sub section 6 - power to dismiss).

For the record, I think leading with the knee, as Kade did, should be illegal and should be punished. It will result in someone getting badly hurt. At the very least concussion is likely and there is massive medical evidence to show that concussion can lead to brain damage. Google "nfl head injuries" and read the reports. If you are an official in the NRL or at a club, ignore this at your peril.

I think a better way to interpret the rule would have been to award a penalty and if the player is unable to continue as a result of foul play, the offender also sits out the game. On review, if it is deemed worthy of suspension then the fact the player has already sat out the game is taken into account and the sentence reduced accordingly.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Sorry, you've lost me here. Do you understand what the judiciary is for? If you are banned for two weeks for striking the head of a player, why is that not a sending off offence? It has been deemed an illegal action worthy of two weeks suspension. The same for Masoe. He has hit a players head. It is illegal play and deemed worthy of suspension after review. They both should have been sent off in accordance with the NRL's own rules. I didn't make the rules, but they are clear.

You are arguing about the whether the rules are appropriate. Now, it is a different argument to say whether the actions should be punished with a suspension. I never said the punishment fits the crime. I think you are arguing about whether the league should award suspensions for tackles like that. "they've gone soft" seems to be the opinion of many.

However, if the rules state that the tackles are illegal (section 15 of the Laws Of The Game - recklessly striking the head of an opponent) and two week suspensions are appropriate then they are sending off offences under the current rules (section 16 sub section 6 - power to dismiss).

For the record, I think leading with the knee, as Kade did, should be illegal and should be punished. It will result in someone getting badly hurt. At the very least concussion is likely and there is massive medical evidence to show that concussion can lead to brain damage. Google "nfl head injuries" and read the reports. If you are an official in the NRL or at a club, ignore this at your peril.

I think a better way to interpret the rule would have been to award a penalty and if the player is unable to continue as a result of foul play, the offender also sits out the game. On review, if it is deemed worthy of suspension then the fact the player has already sat out the game is taken into account and the sentence reduced accordingly.

How long have you watched rugby league out of curiosity? Are you aware that the way Kade was handled is the way it's been handled forever? Now you want to bring in an instant send off when a player looks like he will get suspended.

Are you aware that when a player goes to the judiciary, that a lot of time is spent working out if the player deserves a suspension? New evidence is brought in, such as different TV angles that weren't available at the time. Also a player has the right to contest the outcome with a lawyer at the judiciary. I guarantee you that your pie in the sky idea would result in players getting sent off and then later cleared by the judiciary.

 

[rnb11]

so Pomoz, when a player gives away a penalty, you want the ref to decide whether they will be charged by the judiciary for it, what grading and how many weeks they'll get on the spot and then decide whether or not to send them off according to their prediction? wtf are you smoking?

 

[Joker's Wild]

Sorry, you've lost me here. Do you understand what the judiciary is for? If you are banned for two weeks for striking the head of a player, why is that not a sending off offence? It has been deemed an illegal action worthy of two weeks suspension. The same for Masoe. He has hit a players head. It is illegal play and deemed worthy of suspension after review. They both should have been sent off in accordance with the NRL's own rules. I didn't make the rules, but they are clear.

You are arguing about the whether the rules are appropriate. Now, it is a different argument to say whether the actions should be punished with a suspension. I never said the punishment fits the crime. I think you are arguing about whether the league should award suspensions for tackles like that. "they've gone soft" seems to be the opinion of many.

However, if the rules state that the tackles are illegal (section 15 of the Laws Of The Game - recklessly striking the head of an opponent) and two week suspensions are appropriate then they are sending off offences under the current rules (section 16 sub section 6 - power to dismiss).

For the record, I think leading with the knee, as Kade did, should be illegal and should be punished. It will result in someone getting badly hurt. At the very least concussion is likely and there is massive medical evidence to show that concussion can lead to brain damage. Google "nfl head injuries" and read the reports. If you are an official in the NRL or at a club, ignore this at your peril.

I think a better way to interpret the rule would have been to award a penalty and if the player is unable to continue as a result of foul play, the offender also sits out the game. On review, if it is deemed worthy of suspension then the fact the player has already sat out the game is taken into account and the sentence reduced accordingly.

Wow, what a rant. Pity none of it made any sort of sense

Send offs are for deliberate and dangerous actions and rightly so. If the ref had sent Kade off for the knee it would have been one of the biggest jokes to occur in the 2013 season and that is saying something. Hell, its still up for debate whether it even warranted a suspension at all.

Common sense seems to be not so common anymore

 

[Pomoz]

How long have you watched rugby league out of curiosity? Are you aware that the way Kade was handled is the way it's been handled forever? Now you want to bring in an instant send off when a player looks like he will get suspended.

I guarantee you that your pie in the sky idea would result in players getting sent off and then later cleared by the judiciary.

I'm not bringing in anything. The rules are already in place. All that has happened is that the referees don't even bother to send people off any more and pass the buck. I agree with your assertion that the process is usually to defer to the judiciary.

Sure, and some times that's appropriate because the judiciary does have the benefit of additional evidence to consider and lots of time to make a decision. In many cases that is useful because it is not always clear cut. But lets be honest, a lot of the times it is clear and players are hurt by foul play and nothing happens until judiciary time. There have been 22 findings of guilty at the judiciary this year and only one sending off (Hargreaves). Yet there have been 4 suspensions of 5 weeks or more. If you are getting a 5 week ban, it must be pretty bad and but the video refs just waved play on.

How would you feel if Jared Waerea-Hargreaves irons out Jared Mullen and he cannot continue to play on in a semi final? The Roosters knock the Knights out of the finals, and Hargreaves gets a five week ban afterwards at the judiciary. To be honest, I would be filthy with the refs for not sending off Hargreaves (sorry Jared, but you have form on this!).

Since you asked, 30 years I have been watching League and I played league at local A grade level.

 

[Rolla]

Then you should really know better.

Getting a weeks suspension is very different to getting sent off in severity of punishment to the offending club.... You get that right? In one case (suspension) you are able to replace the placer that is banned. In the case of a send off the team plays a man down - HUGE difference.

Also, as has probably been pointed out, refs put people on report that they think might deserve a suspension. Usually, these players are found not guilty later, but at the time the refs obviously think they are guilty....... Do they all get sent off? A few players per game maybe?

 

[Joker's Wild]

I still can't believe this spastic believes Kade should have been sent off. It's utterly laughable

 

[Pomoz]

I still can't believe this spastic believes Kade should have been sent off. It's utterly laughable

Mate, try easing up on the abuse. The use of the term"spastic" is offensive. You're quite happy to see footballers hit people in the head with their knee, I'm not. The rules are clear on who is right, the rest is just opinion. No need to shout abuse.

 

[TheFrog]

I still can't believe this spastic believes Kade should have been sent off. It's utterly laughable

It's like this. The bloke kneed in the face was subsequently replaced with a fractured cheekbone. No free interchange, no penalty, nothing. It was clearly shown on a replay which can be viewed on the NRL site at about 2.40 into the match and would have been viewed by video refs. The bloke who raised the knee subsequently received a suspension. However, the injured player's team was disadvantaged for the entire remainder of the game (77 minutes) due to an act of foul play by an opponent.

If you think all this is fair and reasonable, well I look forward to a few Knights players being taken out similarly in weeks to come.

Maybe if the refs had have correctly disallowed the first try, Snowden wouldnt have been suspended for the next 2 games, and Docker would have played the whole game......

Sorry. The incident where Docker was kneed occurred in the 3rd minute. The Whare try was in the 17th minute.

 

[Big Tim]

Sorry. The incident where Docker was kneed occurred in the 3rd minute. The Whare try was in the 17th minute.

My bad. Thought it happened after that call. Looked through the live thread and the Whare try was mentioned before the knee. Assumed that is how it happened. I was at the ground and dont recall the incident live.

It's like this. The bloke kneed in the face was subsequently replaced with a fractured cheekbone.

No break. Named to play this week.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Mate, try easing up on the abuse. The use of the term"spastic" is offensive. You're quite happy to see footballers hit people in the head with their knee, I'm not. The rules are clear on who is right, the rest is just opinion. No need to shout abuse.

I call it as I see it and imo if you think Snowden deserved to be sent off for something that could easily be considered accidental, then Im gonna consider you mentally deficent. I think calling you a spastic sufficently conveys my opinion

It's like this. The bloke kneed in the face was subsequently replaced with a fractured cheekbone. No free interchange, no penalty, nothing. It was clearly shown on a replay which can be viewed on the NRL site at about 2.40 into the match and would have been viewed by video refs. The bloke who raised the knee subsequently received a suspension. However, the injured player's team was disadvantaged for the entire remainder of the game (77 minutes) due to an act of foul play by an opponent.

If you think all this is fair and reasonable, well I look forward to a few Knights players being taken out similarly in weeks to come.

You do realise that Docker does not have a broken cheek bone yeah, and is named to play this very weekend. You also realise that part of the reason he copped a knock on the head was because of his attrocious positioning in the tackle

Im pretty sure Snowden copped a penalty, the incident couldnt have been put on report without it.

Now if you 2 muppets had had your way and Snowie was sent off, what happens if he fights the charge and gets off?

You look forward to players getting hurt? Wake up to yourself idiot