Mini Not Guilty

[Jethro]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

 

[Jethro]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

 

[eagle-rock08]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

Thanks Jethro.

 

[eagle-rock08]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

Thanks Jethro.

 

[Shoe1]

Shows the inadequacy of the judiciary system. So fair enough it was the wrong charge (intentional striking), and he got off on that, but why is there no recourse to then charging him with reckless conduct - ie the normal head high charge? He is clearly guilty of recklessly going to the head.

 

[Shoe1]

Shows the inadequacy of the judiciary system. So fair enough it was the wrong charge (intentional striking), and he got off on that, but why is there no recourse to then charging him with reckless conduct - ie the normal head high charge? He is clearly guilty of recklessly going to the head.

 

[HappilyManly]

Choc pushes a Warrior awkwardly and got 2 weeks after risking 3 weeks by contesting an hysterical Grading.

Darcy did not even connect with the Cowboys Player, who was being pulled down by three other Manly Players, got 2 weeks.

Minicello jumps at the head, misses; jumps at the head again with cocked elbow, showing clear intent, and splits Dugan open :huh:

RL Officialdom is making a mockery of our game

 

[HappilyManly]

Choc pushes a Warrior awkwardly and got 2 weeks after risking 3 weeks by contesting an hysterical Grading.

Darcy did not even connect with the Cowboys Player, who was being pulled down by three other Manly Players, got 2 weeks.

Minicello jumps at the head, misses; jumps at the head again with cocked elbow, showing clear intent, and splits Dugan open :huh:

RL Officialdom is making a mockery of our game

 

[Chip and Chase]

I don't understand that decision. Dugan was knocked senseless and had a decent split in his melon, so it would have been difficult to argue no high contact.

It appears the technicality was that he was charged with "striking" which infers intent. They argued successfully against that and the charged was overturned. He couldn't then be charged with high tackle or contact to the head. That lacks common sense from the judiciary, but it seems the NRL judiciary is run along the lines of common law, where common sense and technicalities mean jsutice is not always served.

Not a good look for the NRL when a player gets off scot free after an incident like that. It was obviosuly deemed dangerous enough to warrant a send off (a rarity these days), so that doesn't send much of a message to the officials who made the call when there is no further punishment forthcoming.

I assume he accrues no carry over points at all from this, and technically he probably has credit given they normal discount the punishment based on minutes missed in the game due to send off.

 

[Chip and Chase]

I don't understand that decision. Dugan was knocked senseless and had a decent split in his melon, so it would have been difficult to argue no high contact.

It appears the technicality was that he was charged with "striking" which infers intent. They argued successfully against that and the charged was overturned. He couldn't then be charged with high tackle or contact to the head. That lacks common sense from the judiciary, but it seems the NRL judiciary is run along the lines of common law, where common sense and technicalities mean jsutice is not always served.

Not a good look for the NRL when a player gets off scot free after an incident like that. It was obviosuly deemed dangerous enough to warrant a send off (a rarity these days), so that doesn't send much of a message to the officials who made the call when there is no further punishment forthcoming.

I assume he accrues no carry over points at all from this, and technically he probably has credit given they normal discount the punishment based on minutes missed in the game due to send off.

 

[Rex]

Further evidence that the judiciary system (like the refereeing system) developed under Gallop and News Ltd is broken.

You simply cannot have a system that lets a player off without any penalty at all for a hit like that, and still retain any credibility.

 

[Rex]

Further evidence that the judiciary system (like the refereeing system) developed under Gallop and News Ltd is broken.

You simply cannot have a system that lets a player off without any penalty at all for a hit like that, and still retain any credibility.

 

[Fluffy]

Bit of a joke that he got off with missing jsut 5 minutes of footy.

So how come charges can be downgraded? Is there a list of the heirachy for all charges, if so it should be updated such that striking is a higher charge than certain others and thus the lesser charge also can be applied should the player find a loophole.

The military system allows for lesser charges.

 

[Fluffy]

Bit of a joke that he got off with missing jsut 5 minutes of footy.

So how come charges can be downgraded? Is there a list of the heirachy for all charges, if so it should be updated such that striking is a higher charge than certain others and thus the lesser charge also can be applied should the player find a loophole.

The military system allows for lesser charges.

 

[wombatgc]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

I'll go the following step...Stevie..:s

 

[wombatgc]

If such tactics are now legal on the field, watch your heads out there next week guys.

But in all probability - the NRL will now be looking for a scape goat Manly player to show they are cracking down on 'rough' play. So again watch yourselves out there next week guys.

Fixed your quote for you

I'll go the following step...Stevie..:s

 

[DSM5]

Norrie should get off.

 

[DSM5]

Norrie should get off.

 

[StuBoot]

I don't understand that decision. Dugan was knocked senseless and had a decent split in his melon, so it would have been difficult to argue no high contact.

It appears the technicality was that he was charged with "striking" which infers intent. They argued successfully against that and the charged was overturned. He couldn't then be charged with high tackle or contact to the head. That lacks common sense from the judiciary, but it seems the NRL judiciary is run along the lines of common law, where common sense and technicalities mean jsutice is not always served.

We have refs that are bordering on incompetent and now the match review commitee stuff up. It's not the judiciary's fault - they can only adjudicate on the charge as it's written and Mini's counsel only have to defend what he's charged with, not what he should've been charged with.

As C & C said, he was charged with "X" - not guilty. They can't then say we'll charge you with "Y".

Yes, the law's an ass sometimes.

 

[StuBoot]

I don't understand that decision. Dugan was knocked senseless and had a decent split in his melon, so it would have been difficult to argue no high contact.

It appears the technicality was that he was charged with "striking" which infers intent. They argued successfully against that and the charged was overturned. He couldn't then be charged with high tackle or contact to the head. That lacks common sense from the judiciary, but it seems the NRL judiciary is run along the lines of common law, where common sense and technicalities mean jsutice is not always served.

We have refs that are bordering on incompetent and now the match review commitee stuff up. It's not the judiciary's fault - they can only adjudicate on the charge as it's written and Mini's counsel only have to defend what he's charged with, not what he should've been charged with.

As C & C said, he was charged with "X" - not guilty. They can't then say we'll charge you with "Y".

Yes, the law's an ass sometimes.