Pretty low act deserves more than two weeks!!!
Burgess' squirrel tackle
- Thread starter The Who
- Start date
-
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.
mozgrame
Engorged member
That should be an immediate send off and 4 week ban. I would MUCH rather take my chances going toe to toe with someone than get my dibs ripped off in a tackle. Punch someone in the head and you're out. Squeeze their nuts, and it's play on. Geez?! Rub the grub out from the game altogether and send his gigantic head back to England. Sh1thead he is.
Masked Eagle
Bencher
I wish he could have gotten a week less for an early guilty plea. Now he is going to have to fight the charge no matter what, and with the video footage being circumstantial then I'm guessing they are going to have to rely on Chambers giving some damning evidence, something opposition players aren't known for doing in this circumstances. Wouldn't surprise me if he got off.
HappilyManly
Journey Man
What is it with these Poms, the vaso, the biting and the squirrel grip went out in the early 80's :huh:
Our continued climb up the ladder, will still be 'under the radar', as our forwards' efforts will be dismissed by the Media's fawning over the Burgess Clan
Manly by 32
Our continued climb up the ladder, will still be 'under the radar', as our forwards' efforts will be dismissed by the Media's fawning over the Burgess Clan
Manly by 32
Hamster Huey
Space Invader
Masked Eagle said:
And if Chambers responds a couple of octaves higher?
HappilyManly
Journey Man
1969 said:
That's so gross, imagine the slow motion close ups
CAMBO
Reserve Grader
Can someone explain how squeezing a players testicles is different to poking a players anus with your fingers.
Yet precedence says poking an anus of an opposition player is worthy of a penalty 6 times more severe than squeezing a players testicles. (12 weeks for hoppa in 2001)
How does that work? In public both would be treated as indecent assault?
Yet precedence says poking an anus of an opposition player is worthy of a penalty 6 times more severe than squeezing a players testicles. (12 weeks for hoppa in 2001)
How does that work? In public both would be treated as indecent assault?
Brissie Kid
Bencher
All good promo for the RLWC. Far away from the control of the soft soppy NRL we will see the Pommy ear biters & squirrel grippers put the Kangaroos and Kiwis in their place.
manlyfan76
There is no A.I. Just better computers
If all Burgess play on the field at the same time, do we call them the foreplay brothers?
tookey
First Grader
He will have his three brothers give evidence that groping testicles is a normal part of brotherly love in the Burgess household.
The good part is that it will be the 5th time he has been to the judiciary and one more slip up before the semis could see him miss the rest of the year
The good part is that it will be the 5th time he has been to the judiciary and one more slip up before the semis could see him miss the rest of the year
Treating this and comparing to an in public indiscretion is silly
You can make a tackle in public, let alone the head highs, punches etc which would be various grades of assault
You can make a tackle in public, let alone the head highs, punches etc which would be various grades of assault
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 2 | 25 | 9 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -8 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -18 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 4 |
|
6 | 0 | 6 | -90 | 2 |
