Why did Mason walk?

[smeghead]

jewster sooks :lol:

Thats really nice. It's a real shame that RU486 was not around in the year of Willie's and yourselves birth

 

[ibeme]

if the club was to be truly punished & the fans spared, the executives responsible should have been fined the amount of the breach & dismissed.

They were dismissed. That's why Steve Mortimer and George Peponis had to come in to take up the reigns.

 

[Danish]

To all the rooster sooks, this is how it works.

1. Last season Mason wasn't on report for "careless high tackle" nor was he this season excpet rnd 2. So That's what some in the judicial system call a clean record.. Hence the reason Laffranchi got let off on the same charge.

2. Adrian Morley, has been done for the same offence before, so when you got a Half wit like morely on ur side, stupid enough to not learn from his mistake. WHAT DO U EXPECT

***Me hands all the whingers a tissue and directs them to the kids help line.. Tell it to someone who gives a F#$%

Clearly you dont know the rules, or the record of Morley.

The loading system looks back the past 24 months. Not last season.

Morley had a kneelifting charge last year, not a high tackle charge.

The Judiciary should not take a player's record into account when GRADING a tackle. They should judge the tackle on its own merits regardless of who the player is. Its after that grading is made we then let the loading system assess their past record and modify the base penalty accordingly.

Unfortunately the Judiciary takes record, and media beat up into account when grading a tackle. Lets "clean" players go with a lower grading, then their good record reduces that even more, while repeat offenders receive both a higher grading and then a mark up. Complete sh*te.

So if they are going to take a player's record into account when deciding what base figure to dish out, they should just ditch the loading system altogether.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

i know roosters fans will say what about Morley, but i think 2 weeks was pretty reasonable for that tackle.

Most Roosters fans aren't complaining about the 2 weeks Morley got.. I am sure as hell not, we just want consistency.. The Billy Slater incident was a farce as well.. Soward copped 4 stictches to the forehead as a result anf the NRL match review committee said that there was no contact to the head.. I can only conclude they all turned away when contact was made.. They are a disgrace.

 

[Mr Saab]

You cannot be sin binned for a high tackle.

 

[Timmah]

You can be sin-binned for any foul play that a referee deems to be worthy of 10 minutes off the field.

 

[ibeme]

You can be sin-binned for any foul play that a referee deems to be worthy of 10 minutes off the field.

I don't think that's the case for head high tackles. There are two ways you can get sent off for head highs. One is sent off for the match. The other is sin binned for repeated infringements, as was the case on Sunday between the Dragons and Panthers. He wasn't sin binned for the head high, he was sin-binned because it was the third penalty against him for the same offence.

 

[Gene Krupa]

Lolesi was the one who should of been sin binned. Just ashamed the ref was afraid to take action on both accounts i guess

Why? For running upright and accidently stricking Masons forearm with his head? :roll:

Farktard!

 

[DJ1]

Why did Mason walk?

Because his penalty did not exceed 100 points.

Why didn't Morely?

Because the NRL introduced a stupid new rule this year regarding shoulder charge tackles and due to his record as a serial offender his loading was an additional factor in his points penalty.

 

[cainen]

He wasn't sin binned for the head high, he was sin-binned because it was the third penalty against him for the same offence.

It was the repeated penalties against Penrith, not F Puletua in particular that saw him get some time in the bin.

 

[Fairfax]

How did this moron walk?

Because no cabs would pick him up.