So What do We Think of The Price & Finch Rulings?

[antonius]

There are are a zillion threads in the NRL forum about this, most written by people with axes to grind, and talking drivel or point scoring. I thought I'd ask in here seeing as we're all fair minded rational people

My view is Price shouldn't even have been put on report, it was a love tap, much worse gets let go without even a penalty every week, think about it there are some clangers just from this year alone that went totally unpunished.
Finchs' lift looked worse than it was IMO, and I've got to say much as I dislike the idea of the Roosters gaining some sort of advantage giving him two weeks for that was pretty ordinary, and should he have missed a Grand Final for it IMO it would have been very unjust and he would have every right to be feeling hard done by, again I've seen worse lifts go unpunished during games, and are not even sited on Mondays after the games. What this does highlight is the very inconsistant rulings coming from the refs in the first place, and by the match review commitee after the events, like I said both of them have equivalent lifts, punches every week that go unreported. Thank goodness for both of them that sanity prevailed in the end.
What do you guys think?

 

[northey]

i hate it!!!!

 

[Chicken_Hunter]

As moffo said in the NRL section.. This is a dead set cockadoodlefarce.

There seems to be 1 set of rules for the chickens and another set for everyone else. Chif landed on his head for christ sake. Finch was the tackler, he put him in that position. Throughout the season people have been suspended for barely lifting a player above the horizontal and then pulling out. It is just crap.

 

[Kaz]

Price shouldn't have been charged.

Finch should have gotten 2 weeks.

At least Finch finally won something, he missed out on the Dally M player of the year award, which he thought was his.

 

[Andy]

I agree with Tony. Price shouldn't have been charged, but Finch's was definatley a grade 1 carless tackle. He's just a nob.

 

[MC DUI]

IMO, Price should not have been charged so that final ruling is just, as for Finch I believe that his tackle was worth AT LEAST one week on the sidelines.

I mean it was one of the worst spear tackles I have seen all year and yet he only gets points, plently have copped a week this year for much less in tackles, it doesn't matter if shifcoske testified that he was diving, other players have attempted to get players offences downgraded all year by testifying on their behalf but the evidence has always hardly been considered, case in point being Newton's charge.

 

[~bedsy~]

I agree that it was right for Pricey to get off.
However Finch should have been suspened for it... I agree it would have been rough to miss the G/F however that's the price you pay for recklesness.
What I don't agree with is the Rooster's supporters trying to blame part of it on Shif. I know how a body works and even if you are twisted it doesn't take you into the air and head first on the ground.

 

[Ben]

i just read this i think its a bloody disgrace...http://www.crikey.com.au/columnists/2004/09/16-0002.html

 

[northey]

AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGG :roll:

 

[antonius]

Seems most agree on Price but I'm out on a limb with Finch. For Andy it was downgraded to a grade one, and because of his clean record that meant no suspension because of the early plea. I just want to point out one thing. One of our players was pretty concerned over a tackle much the same as the Finch tackle during the Wests game. He wasn't penalised at the time but was worried the match review commitee mightpick it up, they didn't and there was even a piece in the paper the following day saying how relieved he was. Really if he was a clean skin, and it was in fact a grade one then I think it's fair enough he just gets the carry over points, I think the fact that everyone dislikes the Goosters and in fact Finch even more may be clouding peoples judgement, Grade one seemed about right to me, it's not as if there was malice or he drove him into the ground, clumsy is how I'd describe it.

 

[les norton]

Price shouldn't have been charged.

Finch should have gotten 2 weeks.

At least Finch finally won something, he missed out on the Dally M player of the year award, which he thought was his.

I agree with Kaz :shock:

 

[Johns-All-Day]

I'm happy with the outcomes of both cases. Unfortunately I think Brett Finch is going to be a hated player for this (as if he isn't already!), but it is the inconsistent judiciary which should be the target. As others have already said, incidents far worse than Finch's tackle have gone unpunished. His tackle I will admit was dodgy, but I don't think it would be fair for him to be suspended.

Anyway, think of it this way. If Finch was suspended, and the Roosters lost, we would never hear the end of it from Roosters supporters. At least if they lose now, they have no excuses.

The Steve Price thing is a bit more of a concern to me, surprisingly. I know he is widely regarded as some sort of saint ... the saviour who has got the Bulldogs through lots of tough times. Well, I think a lot of people still view him as a saint who can do no wrong, and hence think his incident on the weekend was OK. I read this in The Courier Mail today and it sounds a bit suspect.

Price said he was wearing contact lenses and had his eyes closed when he struck Morrison. "At training we use our free arm when tackled to push the opposition player off us," Price said.

"In the last three weeks I have been wearing contact lenses and was worried about them falling out. I closed my eyes to protect them."

(http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10779214%5E10389,00.html)

But as I said, I am happy to see both players go unpunished. Some players from other clubs may be feeling fairly ripped off at the moment, but that is the judiciary for ya.

 

[Missa]

did u really think that finch would be found guilty......the nrl is run by the roosters....bloody joke i think

 

[Misanthrope]

I didn't think Price deserved to be troubled with a judiciary case. I've seen Michael Crocker get away with worse in backplay.

As for Finch, I was livid when I heard. He should have gotten two weeks, and the judiciary basically let him play the pity card. 'But I want to play in the Grand Final "

 

[princessjen]

of course finch wasnt going to get anything, the roosters rule the nrl and his daddys head ref. i had a big stress when i found out he got nothing. one week at least he should have got. it was way past the horizontal, it was vertical, and although he didnt really drive him into the ground it was still bad. Sure shif didnt get hurt but just say he did? what would precious finchy have got then?
very inconsistant rulings as usual.
price - he deserved nothing, there was nothing in that at all

 

[thuganomics]

Finch, that ruling was pathetic.
Ben Ross's spear tackle wasn't that much worse then finches and he got alot of weeks, Finch should of atleast got 2.

 

[Lor-ree]

This is crap, Clint gets levelled with whats equal to the worst sentence ever in recent nrl history, but finch gets off. The nrl is rigged! :roll:
Like that comedian said on the footy show...."The nrl judiciary....that was the joke!"

 

[deedles]

arent we all glad that finch didnt win dally m now

 

[Alex28]

Finch's tackle wasn't that bad - Schifcoske twisted in the tackle and it was hard for Finch to control the end of the tackle. I hate the Roosters as much as the next Knights fan but to mention Finch's incident in the same paragraph as Clint Newton's is an absolute joke.

Grade 1 is fair enough with me.

 

[~bedsy~]

Ok I'm getting sick of this twisting story. I have studied the human figure and even if you twist it that doesn't make it go into the air and land on it's head.