Rnd 2 vs Cowboys

[Kornstar]

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.

Graham pulled off the definition of a shoulder charge and was not cited.

I'm not sure they get favourable treatment but the non grading of Graham is a real head scratcher imo.

If you are going to ban the shoulder charge to appease hysterical mothers then you need to follow through with punishments otherwise don't ban them!

 

[strider]

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.

Exactly

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

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

qed.

 

[strider]

Graham pulled off the definition of a shoulder charge and was not cited.

I'm not sure they get favourable treatment but the non grading of Graham is a real head scratcher imo.

If you are going to ban the shoulder charge to appease hysterical mothers then you need to follow through with punishments otherwise don't ban them!

I believe matulino got off his shoulder charge last night too. I only saw it once but it looked like a fkn shoulder charge to me .... bloody warriors and their favourable treatment

 

[Dibs]

I believe matulino got off his shoulder charge last night too. I only saw it once but it looked like a fkn shoulder charge to me .... bloody warriors and their favourable treatment

Just seen it on the news although I only got 1 quick look at it seemed textbook to me.
I'm wondering wether it's the match review committee getting these citings wrong or the judiciary. Seems to be a lot more players getting off lately

 

[IFR33K]

Graham didn't get cited for a blatant shoulder charge this year. Been suspended in recent years.

Klemmer gets a downgrade already this year. Went from potentially missing three matches to only missing the one. All this despite having form with the judiciary.

Klemmer, in the space of a few weeks again has a good outcome at the judiciary. Totally gets off his charge, despite having a poor attitude towards the referees in recent years.



Yes folks, nothing to see here.... Move along.

All we are asking for is consistancy.......

 

[Dibs]

Graham didn't get cited for a blatant shoulder charge this year. Been suspended in recent years.

Klemmer gets a downgrade already this year. Went from potentially missing three matches to only missing the one. All this despite having form with the judiciary.

Klemmer, in the space of a few weeks again has a good outcome at the judiciary. Totally gets off his charge, despite having a poor attitude towards the referees in recent years.



Yes folks, nothing to see here.... Move along.

While I agree with what you say about the dogs run at the judiciary, why would they deliberately be giving the dogs preferential treatment?

 

[IFR33K]

While I agree with what you say about the dogs run at the judiciary, why would they deliberately be giving the dogs preferential treatment?

You are asking the wrong person, my friend.

 

[Dibs]

You are asking the wrong person, my friend.

Lol maybe it was one of pous rhetorical questions. But honestly it can only be coincidental surely. What's the alternatives? The doggies bribing the judiciary? If that was the case we could do it as well but some idiot would probably put it in the minutes

 

[Kornstar]

qed.

??

I believe matulino got off his shoulder charge last night too. I only saw it once but it looked like a fkn shoulder charge to me .... bloody warriors and their favourable treatment

I did say that I don't believe the Bulldogs get favourable treatment, I was using Graham as an example of the shoulder charge rule rather than a dogs specific example.

 

[hineyrulz]

While I agree with what you say about the dogs run at the judiciary, why would they deliberately be giving the dogs preferential treatment?

Ummmm I don't know because maybe the head of football and the favourite for the NRL CEO job is a former pound puppy???

3 favourable decisions in a few weeks and some on here are wondering why we are questioning decisions with the MRC :crazy:

 

[Basil Brush]

Ummmm I don't know because maybe the head of football and the favourite for the NRL CEO job is a former pound puppy???

Bingo. Spot on. Nailed it.

 

[Dibs]

Ummmm I don't know because maybe the head of football and the favourite for the NRL CEO job is a former pound puppy???

3 favourable decisions in a few weeks and some on here are wondering why we are questioning decisions with the MRC :crazy:

Don't carry on like a fruit loop. Never said you shouldn't question the mrc. But believing the dogs are getting preferential treatment is a conspiracy theory. Do you think the judiciary or mrc would take direction from Greenberg on how to deal with each case? Do you think Greenberg would risk his job and reputation in telling them what to do? Do you also believe man didn't land on the moon or that the USA government actually collapsed the twin towers so they could go to war? That's school kid shit

 

[emjaycee]

Ummmm I don't know because maybe the head of football and the favourite for the NRL CEO job is a former pound puppy???

3 favourable decisions in a few weeks and some on here are wondering why we are questioning decisions with the MRC :crazy:

Bingo. Spot on. Nailed it.

Not much of a hidden agenda if this was the case.
Kind of makes our supposed Board minutes look like a great cover up.

 

[Basil Brush]

Greenberg apparently said Klemmer should not have even been charged ,before the case was heard

You don't think the MRP took that into consideration.

He really shouldn't be commenting on things like that as a future CEO

 

[Dibs]

Greenberg apparently said Klemmer should not have even been charged ,before the case was heard

You don't think the MRP took that into consideration.

He really shouldn't be commenting on things like that as a future CEO

No he probably shouldn't have but that is just one instance. Did he say graham shouldn't be cited by the mrc for a shoulder charge?

 

[IFR33K]

Greenberg apparently said Klemmer should not have even been charged ,before the case was heard

You don't think the MRP took that into consideration.

He really shouldn't be commenting on things like that as a future CEO

He did?????

 

[Basil Brush]

No he probably shouldn't have but that is just one instance. Did he say graham shouldn't be cited by the mrc for a shoulder charge?

Sorry, I prob confused you with what I said.

Klemmer was charged and afterwards Greenberg said he shouldn't have been charged before the case was heard. That has to influence the judiciary.

Graham was just not charged at all so Greenberg really had nothing to add on that.

Anyway we just have to now beat the dogs with both Graham and Klemmer playing, when they prob shouldn't be

 

[Basil Brush]

He did?????

I am trying to find the source but it was also mentioned on the main NRL forum in the judiciary thread.

 

[Dibs]

Sorry, I prob confused you with what I said.

Klemmer was charged and afterwards Greenberg said he shouldn't have been charged before the case was heard. That has to influence the judiciary.

Graham was just not charged at all so Greenberg really had nothing to add on that.

Anyway we just have to now beat the dogs with both Graham and Klemmer playing, when they prob shouldn't be

No you didn't confuse me. My point was that even if what Greenberg supposedly said about Klemmer did influence the judiciary he didn't say anything to influence the mrc to not cite graham.