bob dylan said:What a joke.
Zero weeks is the right penalty, 10 worse tackles in the weekend just gone.
Farce.
swoop said:bob dylan said:What a joke.
Zero weeks is the right penalty, 10 worse tackles in the weekend just gone.
Farce.
Mclean got 7 weeks which is a joke, just imagine how many weeks the next player who makes a tackle worse than that. That player could be out for 6 months or the entire season.
If Alex didn't get hurt Mclean would of got off or at worst penalised. Massive over-reaction by the NRL.
Ralphie said:swoop said:bob dylan said:What a joke.
Zero weeks is the right penalty, 10 worse tackles in the weekend just gone.
Farce.
Mclean got 7 weeks which is a joke, just imagine how many weeks the next player who makes a tackle worse than that. That player could be out for 6 months or the entire season.
If Alex didn't get hurt Mclean would of got off or at worst penalised. Massive over-reaction by the NRL.
McLean should count himself lucky it was only 7 weeks. The NRL is at fault here. Lifting in a tackle is a lucky dip and has enormous potential to go wrong as it did in this case. If a player is lifted even 1 inch off the ground it should be instant penalty. If a player is lifted and taken beyond the horizontal as happened in this case it should be an instant 1 year suspension. This must be stamped out of the game, the consequences are too tragic to take the risk.
Please don't tell me this isn't beyond the horizontal.
I think the two others were already there, it was McLean who came in 3rd?RiverEagle said:If the two other Storm players don't come in, I doubt the same happens with McLean tackling alone.
So you would impose a harsher penalty for a deliberate attempted punch that misses than for a reckless act that causes major injury.lsz said:The issue I have is that it potentially places the consequences above intention
If a player goes out to punch someone in the head but there is no damage they might be suspended for a lesser time than a player who does something without the same intention to harm? That does not seem consistent or right to me
It's the same thing.Stevo said:7 weeks is a joke. He was penalised for what happened not what he did.
Stevo said:7 weeks is a joke. He was penalised for what happened not what he did.
SeaEagleRock8 said:It's the same thing.
"Hey, I only lit a match, people light matches all the time. Don't blame me if the whole service station blew up."
Stevo said:
Stevo said:7 weeks is a joke. He was penalised for what happened not what he did.SeaEagleRock8 said:It's the same thing.
"Hey, I only lit a match, people light matches all the time. Don't blame me if the whole service station blew up."
That is a stupid comparison.
Try, "Hey, I only lit a match, people light matches all the time. Don't blame me if the whole service station blew up.""And there were 2 other people there liighting matches too" "But it's ok because my employer encourages me to do this because of the stupid rules that their governing body have come up with and becuase they have NFI".
haha Yes that's odd, but not a bad change!RiverEagle said:Good to see, generally respectful debate between us all, too.
bones said:If the guy at the service station used a 'match' why would he expect a 'lighter' sentence?
Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 | 6 | 1 | 99 | 14 | |
8 | 6 | 2 | 66 | 14 | |
7 | 6 | 1 | 54 | 14 | |
9 | 5 | 3 | 37 | 11 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | 95 | 10 | |
7 | 4 | 3 | 49 | 10 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | 42 | 10 | |
9 | 5 | 4 | -14 | 10 | |
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 8 | |
8 | 4 | 4 | -14 | 8 | |
8 | 3 | 5 | -55 | 8 | |
8 | 4 | 4 | -60 | 8 | |
8 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 7 | |
8 | 3 | 5 | -25 | 6 | |
7 | 2 | 5 | -55 | 6 | |
7 | 1 | 6 | -87 | 4 | |
8 | 1 | 7 | -166 | 4 |