Rnd 2 vs Cowboys

[Chipmunk]

An extra week.

He still would've only missed a week if he challenged and lost wouldn't he?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

When was the last time we successfully got a downgrade or a player off? The judiciary are a joke. Klemmer got off, they are disgrace!

It is very simple for me, Klemmer didn't just touch the ref, he was intimidating towards him. Then a bunch of f**kwits in the media have to find that Merrin lightly touches the ref and then it snowballs from there. Klemmer got it started and because people decided they wanted to defend his thug actions they have to go and find all footage to defend him.

Players touch refs all the time these days but Klemmers was the first one I have watched live that I thought was out of line.

To answer your question about the MRC and Norman is easy, have they charged anyone else in the last few years for all the times refs have been touched?

I didn't think Klemmer's was intimidating. It looked like he was playing peacemaker between Soward and Browne and just wanted to let the ref know he didn't need to get involved. He shouldn't have touched him, but a penalty would have been a fair result, not a f**king suspension.

 

[Jake the snake]

He still would've only missed a week if he challenged and lost wouldn't he?

Nah I I'm sure it was 1 week for early guilty plea and then 2 weeks if challenged and failed

 

[Forty20]

The clubs got no one but itself to blame if it didn't fight the charge.

Ma'u would have missed 1 game with an early guilty plea or 1 game if found guilty at the judiciary.

Simply dumb not to fight it really

To be fair, Matt Scott also took the early guilty plea for a carbon copy 'crime'.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yeah it was 127 points for an early plea vs 170 if found guilty, but he had 38 carry-over points.

 

[Chipmunk]

To be fair, Matt Scott also took the early guilty plea for a carbon copy 'crime'.

Matt Scott went to the judiciary and got off. Or are you talking about something else?

 

[Forty20]

Matt Scott went to the judiciary and got off. Or are you talking about something else?

My mistake! In that case, yes it looks silly on our end.

Feels very much once burned, twice shy for us with the judiciary.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

And absolutely laughable they Klemmer gets off.

Amazing the Dogs can just seem to do no wrong at the jokedicary.

Maybe coz when they do bad shit they plead guilty (e.g. last year's events in the game v Souths). I don't think Graham got off for his behaviour in the GF either.


Klemmer got let off partly on the testimony of the ref, who said that he didn't even realise that he had been touched. The ref also said this his 'rolling of his eyes' was not in response to being touched by the player, but rather by the events that led to the penalty/break in play.

 

[hineyrulz]

He touched him Barry , if they are going to stamp that out of the game he should of been Suspended, especially after the way the clown carried on last year in that good Friday game.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

He touched him Barry , if they are going to stamp that out of the game he should of been Suspended, especially after the way the clown carried on last year in that good Friday game.

So, should Norman be suspended too? Or is it different if he plays for us?

 

[hineyrulz]

So, should Norman be suspended too? Or is it different if he plays for us?

They missed that, if it was seen he too should of been suspended.

Moa got a 1 game suspension last year and he barely touched the ref, Klemmer has form for showing absolutely no respect at all for the officials. They had the chance to take a stand instead once again the Dogs get a favourable call. 3rd one in a couple of weeks.

 

[strider]

So, should Norman be suspended too? Or is it different if he plays for us?

Exactly

They missed that, if it was seen he too should of been suspended.

Moa got a 1 game suspension last year and he barely touched the ref, Klemmer has form for showing absolutely no respect at all for the officials. They had the chance to take a stand instead once again the Dogs get a favourable call. 3rd one in a couple of weeks.

What does missing it have to do with anything? They can cite any player after review

If anything Normans was worse. He did it twice! The first time the ref gives him a look like dont grab me. Then he doesit again immediately. Norman actually ran after the ref. The ref pretty much walked into Klemmer.

If you wanna be up in arms about klemmer then recognise what norman did was as bad if not worse. Dont crap on about klemmer getting off when norman clearly also dodged a bullet.

 

[IFR33K]

Exactly



What does missing it have to do with anything? They can cite any player after review

If anything Normans was worse. He did it twice! The first time the ref gives him a look like dont grab me. Then he doesit again immediately. Norman actually ran after the ref. The ref pretty much walked into Klemmer.

If you wanna be up in arms about klemmer then recognise what norman did was as bad if not worse. Dont crap on about klemmer getting off when norman clearly also dodged a bullet.

If you're going to have a rule, why isn't it being enforced every time???? If Norman was cited, he should of been penalised too. Klemmer has form, and is a grub going by his on field antics.

 

[strider]

If you're going to have a rule, why isn't it being enforced every time???? If Norman was cited, he should of been penalised too. Klemmer has form, and is a grub going by his on field antics.

I dont think its a black n white rule

I just dont think any parra fan should be going off over klemmer when they can clearly see their own player got off just as lightly for the same offence

 

[hineyrulz]

Did I not say Strides Norman should of gone as well????

That's the match review committees fault for missing it, like they missed Merrins as well but was Klemmer guilty of the charge yes or no??? If you have a rule of not touching refs why bother if you don't enforce it??? Moa got a week for it last year so the precedent was set.

As I said this is the third time in a couple of weeks the dogs have been looked after at the judiciary.

 

[IFR33K]

I dont think its a black n white rule

I just dont think any parra fan should be going off over klemmer when they can clearly see their own player got off just as lightly for the same offence

That's the thing. Norman didn't get off. The MRC didn't pick it up in the footage. Had they done so, dare I say he would of been suspended.

 

[Dibs]

I'm more pissed about Scott getting off. Well not so much he got off but the fact Manu took the early plea. I dislike the process

 

[strider]

Did I not say Strides Norman should of gone as well????

That's the match review committees fault for missing it, like they missed Merrins as well but was Klemmer guilty of the charge yes or no??? If you have a rule of not touching refs why bother if you don't enforce it??? Moa got a week for it last year so the precedent was set.

As I said this is the third time in a couple of weeks the dogs have been looked after at the judiciary.

That's the thing. Norman didn't get off. The MRC didn't pick it up in the footage. Had they done so, dare I say he would of been suspended.

Did they miss it or did they just deem it not worth worrying about at the time? If so why was klemmers deemed worrying about? Cos he has angry eyes?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

They missed that, if it was seen he too should of been suspended.

Moa got a 1 game suspension last year and he barely touched the ref, Klemmer has form for showing absolutely no respect at all for the officials. They had the chance to take a stand instead once again the Dogs get a favourable call. 3rd one in a couple of weeks.

Your point was that the Dogs get favourable treatment. They could justifiably turn around and say that we got favourable treatment because our player didn't even get cited.

I'm all for a low tolerance policy on touching refs. But it's hardly a case of the Dogs being treated more leniently that other clubs.

 

[Kornstar]

So, should Norman be suspended too? Or is it different if he plays for us?

According to the judiciary, no he shouldn't. I doesn't matter who he plays for.