You fcken bit me, dawg.

[Timmah]

FFS you are kidding yourself, i thought Tahu was quite controlled in the circumstances. Hide behind the rule book all you want, Tahu was bitten he reacted, nothing would of happened if moron didn't bite him.

Are you seriously reading a thing?

RETALIATING = AGAINST THE RULES.

HITTING SOMEONE IN THE HEAD = AGAINST THE RULES.

Morrin bit him - there's no denying that. The grub should be rubbed out for the rest of the 'Dogs games for it.

Yes - Tahu had a right to be pissed off.

NO - Tahu didn't have a right to start hitting him in the head.

Is it that hard to comprehend? I'm trying to explain why the penalty went to Canterbury and you're trying to excuse Tahu giving a slap which is against the rules.

In summary:
I don't condone the actions of either.
You don't condone Morrin's actions but think Tahu should've been able to take a shot at Morrin and not be in trouble for it. They aren't how the rules work mate. It's why we have referees.

 

[hineyrulz]

Are you seriously reading a thing?

RETALIATING = AGAINST THE RULES.

HITTING SOMEONE IN THE HEAD = AGAINST THE RULES.

Morrin bit him - there's no denying that. The grub should be rubbed out for the rest of the 'Dogs games for it.

Yes - Tahu had a right to be pissed off.

NO - Tahu didn't have a right to start hitting him in the head.

Is it that hard to comprehend? I'm trying to explain why the penalty went to Canterbury and you're trying to excuse Tahu giving a slap which is against the rules.

In summary:
I don't condone the actions of either.
You don't condone Morrin's actions but think Tahu should've been able to take a shot at Morrin and not be in trouble for it. They aren't how the rules work mate. It's why we have referees.

Timmah,Dodge or whatever, Rugby leagues moral crusader :roll:

 

[Iafeta]

Like that SBW no try ...what crap!!
Would have made it 28 all (Hazem would have converted).

If that's as good as the Eels can play.... will be putting them into the pretenders basket.
Dogs were still missing O'Meley , Mason and Patten.

As for your biting comment (as referred to during the ch 9 commentry) Moi Moi was also up for a biting charge whilst playing for your beloved Eels. So when one person commits a crime (Morrin ) , suddenly that is referred to as team culture????....why speak such crap, there is no need to catorgorise a group from the actions of one individual.

Anyone who bites should be banned IMO....BUT remember the actions of one does not always represent the views or actions of others...so don't be so quick to judge .

SBW played at the ball fo shore fo yer life, no try, 20 metre restart correct decision.

 

[Y2Eel]

Are you seriously reading a thing?

RETALIATING = AGAINST THE RULES.

HITTING SOMEONE IN THE HEAD = AGAINST THE RULES.

Morrin bit him - there's no denying that. The grub should be rubbed out for the rest of the 'Dogs games for it.

Yes - Tahu had a right to be pissed off.

NO - Tahu didn't have a right to start hitting him in the head.

Is it that hard to comprehend? I'm trying to explain why the penalty went to Canterbury and you're trying to excuse Tahu giving a slap which is against the rules.

In summary:
I don't condone the actions of either.
You don't condone Morrin's actions but think Tahu should've been able to take a shot at Morrin and not be in trouble for it. They aren't how the rules work mate. It's why we have referees.

In the End Penalty to the Dogs, Which any good Ref would have actually sent Morrin and reversed the penalty...

 

[Timmah]

Timmah,Dodge or whatever, Rugby leagues moral crusader :roll:

Could you have made it any clearer you've got nothing and you know my points are correct? FMD. :lol:

 

[Y2Eel]

Could you have made it any clearer you've got nothing and you know my points are correct? FMD. :lol:

So who should have been given the penalty if you were the ref and could use the video ref?

 

[hineyrulz]

Could you have made it any clearer you've got nothing and you know my points are correct? FMD. :lol:

Mate it's easy to judge sitting at the crowd or sitting on your arse at home, in the heat of the moment you do things you don't normally do. Yes Tahu shouldn't have slapped Moron, but i would have tried to knock the piece of sh*ts head off. Yes, i am human and make mistakes unlike Lord Timmah of LU. Get of your high horse mate.

 

[mickdo]

RETALIATING = AGAINST THE RULES.

Ok, so you reckon if player A gouged out player B's eye, and player B reacted by slapping player A in the head, then it should be a penalty against B for the retaliation??? What planet are you from???

 

[Mr Saab]

Ok, so you reckon if player A gouged out player B's eye, and player B reacted by slapping player A in the head, then it should be a penalty against B for the retaliation??? What planet are you from???

Timmah

 

[Timmah]

I'm explaining why the penalty went the way it did in Hampstead's eyes, not my own. Fugging morons.

Y2Eel you seem to be the only one willing to argue this properly and yes the penalty I would've thought would go to the Eels too.

 

[Y2Eel]

I'm explaining why the penalty went the way it did in Hampstead's eyes, not my own. Fugging morons.

Y2Eel you seem to be the only one willing to argue this properly and yes the penalty I would've thought would go to the Eels too.

There isnt much to argue except how many weeks Morrin will be getting.. and How refs these days cannot make on the spot decisions...

and thanks for the reply...

 

[Iafeta]

I've seen mentioned in this thread... 2-3 week suspension?

Two to three weeks for... BITING?

No way, that's a referral straight to the judiciary, surely, and the book thrown at him.

 

[hineyrulz]

I'm explaining why the penalty went the way it did in Hampstead's eyes, not my own. Fugging morons.

Y2Eel you seem to be the only one willing to argue this properly and yes the penalty I would've thought would go to the Eels too.

FFS we all know why the penalty went the dogs way, doesn't make it right though.

 

[mickdo]

I've seen mentioned in this thread... 2-3 week suspension?

Two to three weeks for... BITING?

No way, that's a referral straight to the judiciary, surely, and the book thrown at him.

I think whether the player had an arm shoved down his throat or actually went hunting for the meal would be the main factor in the amount of time they get. In this case he clearly turned his head and bit, so it should be a lot more than 3 weeks.

 

[Lowdown]

FFS...

Yes it looked like a bite, but seriously: 20 weeks?

It was a f**king nip. It aint going to injure anyone is it? We're not living in the wild wild west in the 1800's. Its 2007 and a professional game. Time to leave this 'dog act' theatrics out of scope.

4 - 6 weeks is more than enough punishment for something so minor. It's not like he bit an ear off, or a finger, or bit on a testicle is it? Biting should carry degrees of seriousness like any other charge.

Case in point:

- Punch a guy in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy repeatedly in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy as 3rd man: Suspension
- Punch a guy who aint looking: Heavier suspension
- King hit a guy: Referred straight to judiary.

People need to get off their soapboxes and recognise that there are acts of violence which have the far greater chance to cause injury - such as kneeing,kicking, eye gouging, king hits and spear tackles that are more serious that a nip on the arm.

 

[eels_fan_01]

What else would you expect from this club?? Honestly i would have expected it more from their fans but they have proven me wrong again. Waits for the Dogs fan to come in and say their club isnt a disgrace to rugby league....

 

[eels_fan_01]

FFS...

Yes it looked like a bite, but seriously: 20 weeks?

It was a f**king nip. It aint going to injure anyone is it? We're not living in the wild wild west in the 1800's. Its 2007 and a professional game. Time to leave this 'dog act' theatrics out of scope.

4 - 6 weeks is more than enough punishment for something so minor. It's not like he bit an ear off, or a finger, or bit on a testicle is it? Biting should carry degrees of seriousness like any other charge.

Case in point:

- Punch a guy in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy repeatedly in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy as 3rd man: Suspension
- Punch a guy who aint looking: Heavier suspension
- King hit a guy: Referred straight to judiary.

People need to get off their soapboxes and recognise that there are acts of violence which have the far greater chance to cause injury - such as kneeing,kicking, eye gouging, king hits and spear tackles that are more serious that a nip on the arm.

Well lets look at it this way shall we, you have a son. Someone p*sses him off so he knocks him out, would you care? I wouldnt. Well what if instead he bites someone? Its a low act from a low piece of sh*t club.

 

[mickdo]

FFS...

Yes it looked like a bite, but seriously: 20 weeks?

It was a f**king nip. It aint going to injure anyone is it? We're not living in the wild wild west in the 1800's. Its 2007 and a professional game. Time to leave this 'dog act' theatrics out of scope.

4 - 6 weeks is more than enough punishment for something so minor. It's not like he bit an ear off, or a finger, or bit on a testicle is it? Biting should carry degrees of seriousness like any other charge.

Case in point:

- Punch a guy in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy repeatedly in a fight: No suspension
- Punch a guy as 3rd man: Suspension
- Punch a guy who aint looking: Heavier suspension
- King hit a guy: Referred straight to judiary.

People need to get off their soapboxes and recognise that there are acts of violence which have the far greater chance to cause injury - such as kneeing,kicking, eye gouging, king hits and spear tackles that are more serious that a nip on the arm.

Biting, gouging, king hitting, sticking you finger up someones arse are all dog acts, that do not compare to a bit of fisticuffs when two players are fronting each other. To suggest otherwise is just utter bs.

 

[spider]

the ref admitted he didnt see the bite after awarding the original penalty to dogs - (frist reason parra didnt get the penalty)

if the video ref jumps in and says - 'he has bit him', reverses the penalty, then where does that leave the judiciary process as he has already been judged as being guilty on the spot

video ref did the right thing by leaving it alone at the time, and the judiciary will take care of the matter to allow a fair defence - if one exists for a cowardly act

tahu was extremely held back - who knows what filthy infection could have been passed on if the skin was broken from the bite

 

[Timmah]

It was one player, don't bring the whole club into it wanker.