Ballin and Watmough charged

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

Kiwi Eagle

Moderator
Staff member
But no suspensions for either

Two Panthers Charged; No Charge for Ellis

Two Panthers players are among five charged by the NRL Match Review Committee today from the weekend's Telstra Premiership Qualifying Finals, while Tigers' Gareth Ellis, who was placed on report during his side's dramatic loss to the Roosters, avoided a charge.

Penrith's Tim Grant was charged with a Grade 1 careless high tackle but will not miss a game; while team-mate Iosefa Masada was charged with Grade 1 dangerous contact for unnecesary arm/ shoulder pressure and will escape suspension with an early plea.

The warriors' Brett Seymour faces a 1-2 week ban for a Grade 2 striking charge in the Titans clash; and the Eagles' Matt Ballin and Anthony Watmough will both avoid suspension if they take the early plea on Grade 1 dangerous contact charges in their 28-0 drubbing from the Dragons.
 
if they fight it and lose will they have to sit out the first trial (unlikely to play based on past years anyway) but have less carry over points?

If so fight it, win/win
 
Surprise surprise!!! Tigers player not charged over his hit which most players would get a week or 2.Proves they are the NRL's 2010 darlings.And thats why I hate 'em... :mad:
 
Yeah was gonna say the same thing Fluffy - if all they miss is a trial plead not guilty and have less carry over!
 
Nthn NSW link said:
Surprise surprise!!! Tigers player not charged over his hit which most players would get a week or 2.Proves they are the NRL's 2010 darlings.And thats why I hate 'em... :mad:

Although I am glad to see that Dyer from the tigers didn't get charged for his hit on Hargraves.  It was a beauty and hargraves doesn't remember anything about it.  He has made himself a big target with the way he plays
 
Nthn NSW link said:
Surprise surprise!!! Tigers player not charged over his hit which most players would get a week or 2.Proves they are the NRL's 2010 darlings.And thats why I hate 'em... :mad:
The hit on JWH at the end, can you imagine if that was by Matai or Luke O'Donnell, probably sent off and rubbed out for yonks. The officials froze in the finals spotlight, but what is the excuse ogf the match review committee? Pathetic.
 
Nthn NSW link said:
Surprise surprise!!! Tigers player not charged over his hit which most players would get a week or 2.Proves they are the NRL's 2010 darlings.And thats why I hate 'em... :mad:

Yeah no surprise there. It was only a hit twice as bad as what King did. **** the NRL I ****en hate them and hope their darling teams ( Tigers Dragqueens ) get beaten.
 
That was no different to Crocker's hit on B Stewart a few year ago. If it were a regular game both would have imo been charged. Once the finals begin it's a free for all.
 
swoop link said:
. Once the finals begin it's a free for all.

Unless its Manly where choc gets charged for leaning his knee into a guys legs. They have to be ****en' kidding dont they. This is just targetted bull**** from the NRL because we have had the nerve to speak out about how ****ed the refereeing has been.
 
Matabele link said:
we should have fought King's charge.  If we lose he serves it in the trials anyway. 

I thought it would have been a simple decision. That was my original thoughts. I guess the powers that be are in holiday mode.....still.
 
swoop link said:
That was no different to Crocker's hit on B Stewart a few year ago. If it were a regular game both would have imo been charged. Once the finals begin it's a free for all.

Rules did change sue to that hit on Stewart
 
swoop link said:
That was no different to Crocker's hit on B Stewart a few year ago. If it were a regular game both would have imo been charged. Once the finals begin it's a free for all.

Sorry Swoop - I gotta disagree with that.

In the Crocker-Stewart case the tackler was moving toward a ball carrier who hadn't even yet caught the ball and was not able to set himself to protect himself from Crocker. The onus was entirely on the tackler not to hit Stewart in the head.

In the JWH tackle, the defender actually propped and stood still and sets himself as the ball-carrier comes running into him. It was JWH who decided to lower his body and thus  ultimately ended up being tackled in the head because of his own actions. JWH could have even stepped to avoid that tackle and/or at least lessen the collision - but he didn't.
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom