Williams escapes punishment

[bigdogsgottaeat]

If the video referee would've penalised O'Meley for his obstruction, as the league has stated he should've been then maybe your result is out the window, Bigdog, you troll.

I actually agree about the first try. Did it change the course of the game? I'm honestly not convinced - you certainly did well enough to get back in it, and put on a good show without key personnel available. The Dragons had heaps of time to get back into the game. The Sharks could make a similar argument - they had a very dodgy call on the weekend in the 1st 3 minutes against the Roosters that put them behind early.

Personally I think the SBW tackle deserved a week, like Hindmarsh. I too was a little surprised that he was exonerated without charge.

Where I took offence (rightly or wrongly) was that the link provided in this thread talked about a great NRL conspiracy where the 'Dogs are involved. I can assure you that we have been on the wrong end of a huge amount of bad decisions and negative media (the 2nd somewhat self-inflicted, mind you).

I think a clear definition about what is and isn't a "legal" tackle is required. Is it lifting above the horizontal, or does that not come into it? I seem to remember that there was a lot of discussion about this on the various football shows and forums. I thought it was a "dangerous position", and had nothing to do with the horizontal - though I may be wrong. Then again the position Best was put into may have been above the horizontal. I don't think it was deliberate - perhaps a little bit of an over-enthusiastic effort by Williams - but it certainly deserved a week on the bench.

 

[Ribs]

While the first try was a no brainer, it didnt really cost us that dearly. When I heard Bill Harrigan had control of the button we were always screwed there. The guy is a dead set wanker of the highest order.

Id look more closely at El Masri knocking the ball into touch with about 13 mins to go..... How the touchy got that wrong is beyond me. Instead of a 10 metre scrum to Saints, its a hand over.

That aside I thought it was a good effort from the younger forwards and could have gone either way.

Well done to the dogs.

 

[Steel Dragon]

I reckon Mick Crocker must be scratching his head and swearing at anyone who'll listen.

There is definitely a double standard with who does and who doesnt get charged. And to be fair - Barrett has gotten away with a bit he should have been charged with in the past.

 

[The Preacher]

Barrett has gotten away with a bit he should have been charged with in the past.

That's right, like when he's out for three weeks with dandruff or foot odour !!:shock:

 

[Willow]

Jim hall was never part of the MRC that watched games and decided on who was charged though, was he?

He was the MRC 'Coordinator' and Judiciary Commisioner.
Greg McCallum took over the MRC. More here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/29/1075340785729.html?from=storyrhs

Hall was sacked from both jobs but the slide began earlier than that.

In September 2001, Barrett was issued with a suspension. It was right on the eve of the semis and the charge only happened after Hall got involved in the MRC. The judiciary, chaired by Hall found Barrett guilty. Barrett's defence appealed immediately. The next day, the appeals committee exonerated Barrett.

The reports at the time said NRL Judiciary Commissioner Jim Hall, in his capacity as Match Review Committee boss, originally cited Barrett on a grade 2 striking charge. It was a late and controversial decision. It would have meant a 3 week suspension but Barrett defended the charge.

Hall lost at the first hurdle when Barrett's defence successfully reduced this to a grade 1 striking charge - the judiciary panel didn't fully agree with Jim Hall's MRC citing. Barrett received a 1 week suspension.

Then Barrett's advocate, Alan Sullivan QC (a former judiciary commissioner himself) took the matter to the appeals tribunal.

They found that judiciary commissioner Jim Hall had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the contact was intentional.

It was a rare moment when the judiciary and the MRC lost... it doesn't happen that often. And in my opinion, it was an indication that some folks were losing faith in Hall's way of doing things. Just my perception.

In 2003 the wheels had finally fallen off Hall's cart after he decided not to lay any charges against Gorden Tallis after he thumped up Ben Ross. Hall reckoned Gordie was 'provoked', or some such nonsense. Most reasonale people thought Tallis needed some anger management and the MRC failed to deliver on this front. In early 2004, the NRL sacked Hall, reportedly while he was confined to a hospital bed:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/24/1074732656958.html?from=storyrhs

 

[The Preacher]

I think that means he was part of the MRC from what I can make out. :lol:

 

[Mr Saab]

In September 2001, Barrett was issued with a suspension. It was right on the eve of the semis and the charge only happened after Hall got involved in the MRC. The judiciary, chaired by Hall found Barrett guilty. Barrett's defence appealed immediately. The next day, the appeals committee exonerated Barrett.

It was a hit on Anasta at the SFS. Similar to the one Johns did on Dykes.
How barrett was let off that is baffling.

 

[Willow]

The point being, Charlie, that Hall appeared to lacking support as far back as 2001. He had been there since 1997-98... and had perhaps passed his use-by date a few years prior to him getting the handshake.

 

[Mr Saab]

Hall had his problems, but it is not the easiest job in the world. What you think is worthy of 2 weeks, others think 3 and some think 1 week.

 

[Willow]

Well you know my view. All tackles which see a player's noggin heading southwards should cop a decent suspension. Intentional or not, once bodies are in motion, there's no controlling where the head will end up.