News: Thurston charged after verbal tirade

[Kiwi Eagle]

So DSM, tell me what Thurston saying "F***ing hell, Man of the Match"  directly to the ref implies ? Do you find that acceptable

 

[DSM5]

I thought it was amusing Kiwi.  I wouldn't have thought Thurston could have thought of saying something so witty at the end of a match.  And so did Robinson obviously.  Leave this bone alone now, or throw it to Jono.  .   

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Nice dodging of the question DSM. I am surprised Thurston had the intelligence to string a sentence together to imply that the ref he is cheating rather than just saying it

 

[DSM5]

Kiwi, it's a long bow to imply that Thurston was impeaching the ref's impartiality.  It was a funny line and Robinson smiled at it.  If he felt that Thurston was implying cheating then I'm sure he would have taken more direct action.  Thurston's rant wasn't directed at the ref, just the decision, which he thought was taken on the advice of a guy 60 metres away.  Not that I thought the pass wasn't forward, it was.  Besides, the NRL had Thurston's rant on their website for days before taking it down.  What does that say to you?  I'm glad Thurston will play against Souths this weekend.  Without him on the field the Cows would have no chance of winning that one.  And I want them to.     

 

[Guest]

This would have set a judicial precedent now, every player can tell the ref to go and get f**cked, and if he goes up on a charge he'll get off based on the Thurson decision. At times this game is a real joke, and this is one of them.

Mark, you're 100% CORRECT. Try explaining this decision to a 10 year kid.

It truly is a disgrace!

 

[Canteen Worker]

I can't agree. Others in the past have been suspended one game for this sort of dissent. What it says to young players and the general public is appalling. It is hard enough on the sideline with Junior players - it is now going to get worse as the 'role model' got off. Mind you, he should be in gaol but that is another story!!

 

[DSM5]

From one week suspended to gaol? my my.  The explanation to a ten year old kid is not to swear at the ref, full stop.  Thurston did not tell the ref to 'get ****ed' as Mark states, and no one has been suspended for this sort of dissent Canteen..  Get over yourselves.  Listen to what was said and judge intent you bunch of sanctimonious screamers.  Only Hillsongsters need to play your game (somebody will need to explain that to you Kiwi). 

 

[nodd]

DSM5,

Swearing at your fellow team members: Yes
Swearing at the opposition: Yes
Swearing at the Referee no matter how wrong he is is just not on.

There just isn't enough respect in today's society in my opinion.  The guy in the middle who is in charge of the game being played should have respect just like parents, teachers, the elderly and Police all should have.  If a player wants to carry on like a pork chop to the referee and swear and curse and carry on with total disrespect then I say send them off or at least send them to the bin for 10 minutes to cool off.

Don't forget that they are role models as well.

Swearing at your fellow teamates- Swearing? fair cop! Carrying on like a cock will get You no respect from Your teamates. A bit of leadership woukldn't go astray.

Swearing at the opposition? Gee that's going to work, they'e never heard swearing before? Forget about even talking to the opposition, it will make no difference to a good side.

Swearing at the referee? As You said - makes no difference- Clowns Like DSM5 swear at officials - no idea.

 

[DSM5]

You're so right Nodd, if the guy swears at the ref send him to the sin bin.  Thurston did not swear AT, repeat AT, the ref.  If he did I would imagine Robinson would have sent him off.  He was never charged with dissent.  And where abouts did I say swearing at your teammates was OK?  Get a life Nodd.  Just sit in your pew and be sanctimonious if you like, it's a free world even 'clowns' like me will defend your right to be just that...   

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Kiwi, it's a long bow to imply that Thurston was impeaching the ref's impartiality.  It was a funny line and Robinson smiled at it.  If he felt that Thurston was implying cheating then I'm sure he would have taken more direct action.  Thurston's rant wasn't directed at the ref, just the decision, which he thought was taken on the advice of a guy 60 metres away.  Not that I thought the pass wasn't forward, it was.  Besides, the NRL had Thurston's rant on their website for days before taking it down.  What does that say to you?  I'm glad Thurston will play against Souths this weekend.  Without him on the field the Cows would have no chance of winning that one.  And I want them to.     

Not a long bow at all mate, Man of the Match normally goes to the winning side and the person who had the biggest impact on getting that side home, Thurston saying what he did obviously was to make the point that he was on Manly's side all night, which is questioning his impartiality

On another one of your points about nobody else being done for this sort of stuff, that is incorrect, Johns got 2 weeks back in 2007 after we beat them up at Newcastle and he had a crack at the touchie.

Didn't hoppa serve some weeks for something similar as well ?

 

[nodd]

You're so right Nodd, if the guy swears at the ref send him to the sin bin.  Thurston did not swear AT, repeat AT, the ref.  If he did I would imagine Robinson would have sent him off.  He was never charged with dissent.  And where abouts did I say swearing at your teammates was OK?  Get a life Nodd.  Just sit in your pew and be sanctimonious if you like, it's a free world even 'clowns' like me will defend your right to be just that...   

Well I quoted what You said about swearing at Your team mates, so You can take that as You want?

If You think he didn't swear at the ref, well you watched a different replay to what I watched!

Can You seriously tell me he didn't swear at the ref?

And it's not the swearing Im' worried about, I'ts the dissent, the obvious dissillusion that his rant is going to change the decision, the complete disregard that maybe the ref /touchie(although I know this may be an illusion on my behalf) were right?

If You think all he did was right, then that is why we have problems in rugby league.

 

[Jethro]

[quote author=DSM5 link=topic=183463.msg265216#msg265216 date=1275561071]

You're so right Nodd, if the guy swears at the ref send him to the sin bin.  Thurston did not swear AT, repeat AT, the ref.  If he did I would imagine Robinson would have sent him off.   He was never charged with dissent.  And where abouts did I say swearing at your teammates was OK?  Get a life Nodd.  Just sit in your pew and be sanctimonious if you like, it's a free world even 'clowns' like me will defend your right to be just that...     

Well I quoted what You said about swearing at Your team mates, so You can take that as You want?

If You think he didn't swear at the ref, well you watched a different replay to what I watched!

Can You seriously tell me he didn't swear at the ref?

And it's not the swearing Im' worried about, I'ts the dissent, the obvious dissillusion that his rant is going to change the decision, the complete disregard that maybe the ref /touchie(although I know this may be an illusion on my behalf) were right?

If You think all he did was right, then that is why we have problems in rugby league.
[/quote]

Nodd, in all honesty, DSM5 didn't actually say anything about swearing at your team mates.  You quoted my post to DSM5 where I was giving examples of who players can and cannot swear at on the field.  I told him that you can swear at both your team mates and the opposition but not the guy in the middle as he should be shown respect at all times no matter how wrong he is. 

 

[Ian Martin tragic]

The judiciary charge was on too shaky ground to survive a half-decent lawyer's challenge; add the fact the league had kept the tirade on its website (d'uh!) and it looked like a bit of a fiasco waiting to happen.

If they wanted to nail him properly after the game they had to get Robinson to write it up properly in his match report and charge him with contrary conduct. (Based on the 'tv evidence' that probably wouldn't have worked either)

Damage control: issue a 'your'e on notice' message and march the next dissenter 10, then bin them if they carry on beyond the ref saying 'that's the decision, time to get on with it'.

If this is about respecting authority then I repeat that 'authority' has to command some respect: Robinson should have stepped on it at the time. If there was a negative lesson for the 'youngsters' watching at home, it was the failure of the authority figure to say 'that's enough Jonathan, I've made my decision'. The longer it went on the more thurston looked like he had Robinson uncomfortable about the decision.

Trying to react later to the ref's failure to exercise his authority appropriately is never a good look: it looked devious, and a bit illegitimate (and that's how it turned out).

Someone said the refs and the players are too familiar with each other: this might be right. But more importantly, I've really had a gutful of listening to the bloody refs during a game of football. This was alway asking for trouble. pull the plug on the refs' mikes for the coverage and I reckon alot of our ref issues would at the least seem less pressing: like in most games controversial calls by the refs weren't the main reason the cowboys lost. They dug their own hole.

Of course, it's good to have them to whinge about instead of thinking 'we should have been 20 pts in front by then anyway....'

 

[DSM5]

Well said Ian, and I watched your game in the 73 decider last night (bought through the club) and you had a blinder.. 

 

[brookiegreg]

The judiciary charge was on too shaky ground to survive a half-decent lawyer's challenge; add the fact the league had kept the tirade on its website (d'uh!) and it looked like a bit of a fiasco waiting to happen.

If they wanted to nail him properly after the game they had to get Robinson to write it up properly in his match report and charge him with contrary conduct. (Based on the 'tv evidence' that probably wouldn't have worked either)

Damage control: issue a 'your'e on notice' message and march the next dissenter 10, then bin them if they carry on beyond the ref saying 'that's the decision, time to get on with it'.

If this is about respecting authority then I repeat that 'authority' has to command some respect: Robinson should have stepped on it at the time. If there was a negative lesson for the 'youngsters' watching at home, it was the failure of the authority figure to say 'that's enough Jonathan, I've made my decision'. The longer it went on the more thurston looked like he had Robinson uncomfortable about the decision.

Trying to react later to the ref's failure to exercise his authority appropriately is never a good look: it looked devious, and a bit illegitimate (and that's how it turned out).

Someone said the refs and the players are too familiar with each other: this might be right. But more importantly, I've really had a gutful of listening to the bloody refs during a game of football. This was alway asking for trouble. pull the plug on the refs' mikes for the coverage and I reckon alot of our ref issues would at the least seem less pressing: like in most games controversial calls by the refs weren't the main reason the cowboys lost. They dug their own hole.

Of course, it's good to have them to whinge about instead of thinking 'we should have been 20 pts in front by then anyway....'

Yes well said Ian - the league should consider for cleaner better TV viewing and better referee/player interaction:

1. The refs shut up and get rid of the ref mic feed from the TV coverage - we don't need to hear them grinding their teeth or belching or anything else. Far too much information from this superficial gimmicky TV move to get mics on refs.

Its the job of the commentators to interpret what the referees do and what this means to the game at that point. They can have the ref's mic feed to assist their commentary work - that's their job. And having a mic prob adds pressure to the more inexperienced refs and gives the glamourpusses like Harrigan a bigger stage to pose on at times and exercise their egos. KISS: Keep it simple stupid!

2. Command better respect and authority by making firmer better decisions - which places the onus on Robert Finch et al to upgrade the refs abilities, training and experience - which prob maybe means their pay too. And have more of em at that level - not easy to do in the short term.

3. Assist respect by only ever calling the players by their number. Cut the over-familiarity rubbish in all ways.

4. Bring back the non smiling universally respected by all and feared by all Col Pearce  ;D  RIP Col! A model for these blokes to follow not the showboat all singing all dancing Bill Harrigan model although he was prob best of the modern lot.

 

[Rex]

Thurston's rant went for 50 seconds, was highly heated and agitated, directly disputed the referee's competence and impartiality, was full of cursing and swearing, and was only directed at the referee.  And Thurston was 100% incorrect as the referee had got the decision right.  No penalty, no sinbin, no caution, no action.

Three tackles later his opponent Matt Cross was penalised in possession and then immediately marched 10 metres when he said three words (total time: one to two seconds) - "That's f#'n B/Sh#t". 

Same referee. 

Is Mr Thurston is Mr Untouchable or should Matt Cross have escalated the swearing for another 49 seconds?

 

[Guest]

Good.  Thurston didn't swear AT the ref, but about the decision.  There's a difference.  Obviously Robinson didn't think he was swearing at him, or else he would have given a penalty and then marched him some more.  Get over yourselves you lillywhites and see the game for what it is.  It's a game of passion and boof with some footie skill thrown in.  I've seen many penalties given for dissension, and obviously the ref didn't think Thurston's childish outburst was in that category.  His comment about m.o.m was amusing, and I think I saw the ref have a laugh at that one.  Back on the couch Jethro. 

he was swearing at the ref !!!!!!!!!! wtf .. why would he say your man of the match **** **** **** .. who was he directing it too if not the referee..

 

[DSM5]

Robinson wasn't as upset about the decision as some posters.  That's weird.  Maybe it's the dislike of Thurston that clouds this issue for some.  Thankfully refs aren't influenced by their personal likes or dislikes.  He was not charged with dissent, so the powers that charge didn't see it your way jjai.  Bringing the game into disrepute was the charge.  The mom comment was funny and Robinson saw it that way.  Not malicious or said in anger.  Frustration is a different matter.  Do you guys want Souths to win this weekend?   

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Thankfully refs aren't influenced by their personal likes or dislikes.  

 

[Guest]

Robinson wasn't as upset about the decision as some posters.  That's weird.  Maybe it's the dislike of Thurston that clouds this issue for some.  Thankfully refs aren't influenced by their personal likes or dislikes.  He was not charged with dissent, so the powers that charge didn't see it your way jjai.  Bringing the game into disrepute was the charge.  The mom comment was funny and Robinson saw it that way.  Not malicious or said in anger.  Frustration is a different matter.  Do you guys want Souths to win this weekend?   

no i want cowboys to win as souths are moving up the ladder i also went against tigers hoping bulldogs can win 1 ..

try & get a 3 game buffer up on all the sides in 6th 7th & 8th position