'I have to better': Banned Barnett vows to mend ways
(says both Barnett and the person who writes the titles for the nrl.com website.)
www.nrl.com
Newcastle forward Mitch Barnett has vowed to change his ways after receiving a six-match suspension for an off-the-ball incident that resulted in him being sent off and has ruled Penrith second-rower Chris Smith out of Friday night’s grand final re-match against South Sydney.
A character reference from former ARL chief executive John Quayle, who was involved with the Knights when the NRL took over the club after Nathan Tinkler was forced to relinquish ownership, also weighed in Barnett’s favour.
Why? Why would a reference make any difference to an on field misdemeanor that was recorded by many cameras from multiple angles? Amazing that the judiciary would give any weight to a piece of paper saying "it's not his go." Sack the lot of them.
Barnett said , looking at his record, he obviously needs to change his style of play, but also insisted the first point of contact was with Smith’s chest and said that he may have “scraped his face” but the contact was not forceful.
So he feels the need to change his playing style, but not the level of b/s he sprouts at the judiciary.
NRL HQ responded with a statement saying that if Barnett played for the Storm, Roosters, Panthers, Souths or Eels, then he could have included the next 6 state of origin rep games as part of his suspension, but as a Knights player, he must serve six matches of the 'nrl proper' season games. (allegedly)
UPDATE: Nrl . coN has fixed the heading.
(says both Barnett and the person who writes the titles for the nrl.com website.)
'I have to be better': Banned Barnett vows to mend ways
Knights forward Mitch Barnett received a six match ban after his sixth judiciary offence since 2015.
www.nrl.com
Newcastle forward Mitch Barnett has vowed to change his ways after receiving a six-match suspension for an off-the-ball incident that resulted in him being sent off and has ruled Penrith second-rower Chris Smith out of Friday night’s grand final re-match against South Sydney.
A character reference from former ARL chief executive John Quayle, who was involved with the Knights when the NRL took over the club after Nathan Tinkler was forced to relinquish ownership, also weighed in Barnett’s favour.
Why? Why would a reference make any difference to an on field misdemeanor that was recorded by many cameras from multiple angles? Amazing that the judiciary would give any weight to a piece of paper saying "it's not his go." Sack the lot of them.
Barnett said , looking at his record, he obviously needs to change his style of play, but also insisted the first point of contact was with Smith’s chest and said that he may have “scraped his face” but the contact was not forceful.
So he feels the need to change his playing style, but not the level of b/s he sprouts at the judiciary.
NRL HQ responded with a statement saying that if Barnett played for the Storm, Roosters, Panthers, Souths or Eels, then he could have included the next 6 state of origin rep games as part of his suspension, but as a Knights player, he must serve six matches of the 'nrl proper' season games. (allegedly)
UPDATE: Nrl . coN has fixed the heading.
Last edited:
