So is it Catt Utai or is he being coached to lay down?

[Chook]

If thats the case, then 10 minutes in the bin is the appropriate action before a send off.

Problem is that, within the rules, the referee does not have this option. For a high tackle, it's either a send-off, report and penalty or just a penalty.

Are you sure Skeepe? Couldn't a high tackle be classed as a professional foul earning 10 in the bin?

Chook.

You really have no idea Chook.

Oh goodie, another insulting halfwit to play with.

Obviously you believe you're a tad more intelligent than most people here, but if you want others to believe it you should fix the spelling mistake in your sig moron.

WOW a talking spell checker, what a quaint novelty.

But I'll leave my sig as is thanks Spellydog. If I fixed that it would make me perfect, and nobodies perfect.

Chook.

This from someone who doesn't know the difference between a professional foul and foul-play, if you have any more queries about the basic rules of the game don't hesitate to ask, we're here to help you.

I'll be sure to look Skeepe up if I have any queries regarding the rules.

You just keep checking my spelling, there's a good dog.

Chook.

 

[Chook]

More to the point, if Morley hadn't lost control and charged up and made a high shot (which should automatically make it a reckless high tackle) there would be no need for Morley and Stuart to be whinging about being picked on. Morley's misconduct means the decision was TOTALLY justified.

Try not to embelish too much Shifty. For a start Morley did not lose control and what you think it automatically should be is irrelevant, just stick to the facts. And the facts are Morley has been placed on report 3 times in 6 games and has had no case to answer for for any of them, including this one.

And by misconduct do you mean his previous record or just this incident?

Chook.

 

[bulldog]

Every high tackle that earns a penalty is placed on report automatically, you're saying he should be proud of his record of being reported for foul play in half his games this season? Quit while you're behind.

 

[Glen]

Every high tackle that earns a penalty is placed on report automatically

uhh no, penalties are often all that is given.


I haven't read the rest of the thread but Utai is a cheap piece of shit who took a dive. He does it all the time, not that he's the only one

 

[Shifty]

More to the point, if Morley hadn't lost control and charged up and made a high shot (which should automatically make it a reckless high tackle) there would be no need for Morley and Stuart to be whinging about being picked on. Morley's misconduct means the decision was TOTALLY justified.

Try not to embelish too much Shifty. For a start Morley did not lose control and what you think it automatically should be is irrelevant, just stick to the facts. And the facts are Morley has been placed on report 3 times in 6 games and has had no case to answer for for any of them, including this one.

And by misconduct do you mean his previous record or just this incident?

Chook.

That's funny Chook, you don't mind embelishing a bit yourself. Even if you were stirring, the title of this thread is a disgrace and so is Morley for implying that Utai took a dive. Even if he did, Morley has no way of knowing that and should not speculate on it. It's one thing to generalise, but he made a very thinly veiled accusation against Utai, Morley is the last one that should be pointing fingers at the moment.

Morley has been placed on report 3 times in 6 games says a lot about his discipline. It has been judged that on each occasion that he was not guilty of an offence serious enough to warrant being charged, this does not mean he did not commit an offence. The match review committee's appraisal of this latest incident and their justification raises questions about whether they are getting it right.

They have stated that Morley made contact with the shoulder first. In my view, the first point of contact was Morley's forearm with Utai's jaw/mouth region, I have reviewed the incident a number of times and that seems fairly straightforward. If there was indeed no contact with the shoulder, that raises questions about how closely they reviewed the incident? I'm yet to see any evidence that there was contact with the shoulder.

In my opinion the match review committees assessment counts for very little as it seems both they and Finch have serious questions hanging over their heads about their performance in this and other recent cases. The justification that the match review committee gave for not laying charges has more holes in it than the Knight's defensive line. That's not to say that they aren't right in not charging Morley the way he charged Utai, but the facts they used need close inspection it would seem.

Finch has failed to act appropriately to Stuart's outburst and his performance must be reviewed by the NRL. I don't believe it right to accuse Finch of conflict of interest on suspicion as many have, but his performance does not appear to be satisfactory. He has failed the referee's in a very fundamental way by allowing Stuart's continued personal attack on them.

On the misconduct, I meant in this particular incident and strictly by the way misconduct is defined in the rules that Skeepe so kindly provided reference to. His prior history is hard for referee's to ignore and he is going to find it hard to avoid attention, but that is not part of the reason for me thinking Simpkins was justified in acting on this particular misconduct in this situation.



btw.........you don't think Morley lost control? Does this then mean that in your view he was in control and the tackle was as he intended it to be?

 

[Moffo]

You're well off the mark there Chook, give yourself a triple

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

that cat utai
it was funny when sharks played dogs everytime hed get it hed submit in the tackle so covell didnt smash him

 

[Timmah]

I think your sig says it all mate.

As for your message, well, yeah, I'll leave it at that.

Your hole > O

Crawl back into it.

 

[aenima1]

it was funny when sharks played dogs everytime hed get it hed submit in the tackle so covell didnt smash him

hahahahaha covell smash utai yeah right :lol: :lol:

 

[Chook]

That's funny Chook, you don't mind embelishing a bit yourself.

Touche.

Even if you were stirring, the title of this thread is a disgrace and so is Morley for implying that Utai took a dive. Even if he did, Morley has no way of knowing that and should not speculate on it. It's one thing to generalise, but he made a very thinly veiled accusation against Utai, Morley is the last one that should be pointing fingers at the moment.

At least you're entertaining the idea that Utai couldv'e dived. And Morley has ever right to call out a player he thinks took a dive. Why shouldn't he? It's a part of the game no one likes and those that participate in it should be named and shamed.

Morley has been placed on report 3 times in 6 games says a lot about his discipline. It has been judged that on each occasion that he was not guilty of an offence serious enough to warrant being charged, this does not mean he did not commit an offence.

What crap Shifty! If the match review committee says there's no offence after being placed on report, then there's no offence. And in one of those cases, the Canberra game, Morley was placed on report for a high tackle but never came in contact with the neck or head. What does that tell you? It tells me Morley is being scrutinised on suspicion and reputation.

The match review committee's appraisal of this latest incident and their justification raises questions about whether they are getting it right.

They have stated that Morley made contact with the shoulder first. In my view, the first point of contact was Morley's forearm with Utai's jaw/mouth region, I have reviewed the incident a number of times and that seems fairly straightforward. If there was indeed no contact with the shoulder, that raises questions about how closely they reviewed the incident? I'm yet to see any evidence that there was contact with the shoulder.

That's your view and your entitled to it. I should be thankful you're not on the match review committee.

In my opinion the match review committees assessment counts for very little as it seems both they and Finch have serious questions hanging over their heads about their performance in this and other recent cases. The justification that the match review committee gave for not laying charges has more holes in it than the Knight's defensive line. That's not to say that they aren't right in not charging Morley the way he charged Utai, but the facts they used need close inspection it would seem.

Finch has failed to act appropriately to Stuart's outburst and his performance must be reviewed by the NRL. I don't believe it right to accuse Finch of conflict of interest on suspicion as many have, but his performance does not appear to be satisfactory. He has failed the referee's in a very fundamental way by allowing Stuart's continued personal attack on them.

On the misconduct, I meant in this particular incident and strictly by the way misconduct is defined in the rules that Skeepe so kindly provided reference to. His prior history is hard for referee's to ignore and he is going to find it hard to avoid attention, but that is not part of the reason for me thinking Simpkins was justified in acting on this particular misconduct in this situation.



btw.........you don't think Morley lost control? Does this then mean that in your view he was in control and the tackle was as he intended it to be?

Mmmm, nicely loaded question.

He was in control. It was a reflex action.

Chook.

 

[Timmah]

Chook, the obvious thing here is that you have no clue - a two line response to three paragraphs of fact.

Move on. Your team won, your player was cleared. What are you trying to achieve? All you've achieved so far is looking like an over-zealous fool who can't stop complaining even after a win.

 

[m0j0]

Morley has been placed on report 3 times in 6 games says a lot about his discipline. It has been judged that on each occasion that he was not guilty of an offence serious enough to warrant being charged, this does not mean he did not commit an offence.

Hmmm...given that logic would you therefore agree that even though some Bulldogs players were not found to be guilty of any offence in Coffs Harbour last year, that it doesn't mean they did not commit an offence? So you think they probably could be guilty?

 

[Hari Kari]

Which brings me back to my original question, was Catt Utai’s feigning something he’s been practicising or just another inititative from Fiberglass Folksie’s dirty tricks play book?

Bulldogs or Bullcats?

Chook.

The Bulldogs are proven cheats. nuff said.

 

[Chook]

Chook, the obvious thing here is that you have no clue - a two line response to three paragraphs of fact.

Move on. Your team won, your player was cleared. What are you trying to achieve? All you've achieved so far is looking like an over-zealous fool who can't stop complaining even after a win.

What I'm trying to achieve is to highlight the fact that Utai took a dive.

That would be obvious to Rock Moss reading this thread, why not you?

Chook.

 

[JJ]

Chook, the obvious thing here is that you have no clue - a two line response to three paragraphs of fact.

Move on. Your team won, your player was cleared. What are you trying to achieve? All you've achieved so far is looking like an over-zealous fool who can't stop complaining even after a win.

What I'm trying to achieve is to highlight the fact that Utai took a dive.

That would be obvious to Rock Moss reading this thread, why not you?

Chook.

Utai said he didn't - Morely said he did... When Hayden doesn't walk when he's clearly out you accept his word. So why not Utai's - because he's a Bulldog, or because he's a Kiwi??

To be blunt, Morely wouldn't have a clue. I've seen numerous replays from on of the incident, and it was a high shot, plain and simple. Any initial contact with Utai's shoulder was very very slight...

 

[Pantherjim.]

But I'll leave my sig as is thanks Spellydog. If I fixed that it would make me perfect
Chook.

Have you been shooting-up and having deep and meaningfuls with your imaginary friend again Chook?

Pantherjim.

 

[Pantherjim.]

I find it absolutely hilarious that after 6 pages of this thread, The only other person to agree with Chook's sentiments other than Roosters supporters is this imbecile:

that cat utai
it was funny when sharks played dogs everytime hed get it hed submit in the tackle so covell didnt smash him

:lol:

Pantherjim.

 

[ozzie]

Trying to justify the actions of the dirtiest player in the game :roll:

Morely was head hunting ever since your prissy captain got some sense knocked into him by Maitua!

Puhlease!! Utai runs through 3 and 4 defenders to score tries, yet one little tickle on his chin from Mozza and he dives like Greg Leganous?? I didn't realise Mozza slapped so hard and that Utai was so soft :roll:


Chook.

you know that leganous was gay as well??