It's wrong

[StuBoot]

The suspension is too light and sends a poor message.

I would have thought somewhere between 4 and 6 weeks would have been about the mark.

Can't you just see the mums (who lets face it make the decisions) rushing out to sign their 6 year old little darling up to play a game where you can end up with a shiner like Walker's ?

Participation rates are already down and the NRL don't get out the big stick to show this sort of crap won't be tolerated ? Way to shoot your own game in the foot you idiots. I thought that's why the biff was banned in the first place.

I know little kids league and NRL bear little to no resemblance but do you think mums will make that distinction ? Highly doubt it.

Greensnot should have been on the front foot with the message that punches have no place in the game. Api should have also got more than 1 week because that was a brain dead play as well.

True @simon64 ,

I've never been a believer of "players are role models etc" when it comes to off field stuff - if you're an idiot away from the cameras then that's for society and the cops etc to judge.

But at two things can happen here

1. The NRL can send out a strong message that punching someone in the head is not to be tolerated by giving him say 4-6 weeks regardless of how much bait was on the hook ( I know he wasn't but what if was in the frame for Origin?)

Sure, there's plenty of times when we think so and so deserves a punch in the head but...

and

2. Mum and dad can tell little Johnny don't be a dick by trash talking because one day another dick might want to break your face.

Dylan's mouth has cost him six weeks on the sideline, let his team down and could have cost himself an Origin spot.
He might have won the battle the other night but at what cost?

 

[Jigzkiller]

Dylan's mouth has cost him six weeks on the sideline, let his team down and could have cost himself an Origin spot.
He might have won the battle the other night but at what cost?

Finally someone said it he has been running his mouth of for years finally someone belted him I hope he comes back and concentrates on footy and drops this fake tough guy bull****.

 

[lurker]

I've went from feeling sorry for him to despising him very quickly

He was playing a contact sport and **** went very wrong

He sued the people who tried to look after him and now if he farts I have to hear about it via league news

It's time we stopped pretending he was the next big thing, he was never in with a shot at origin, he was a decent first grade bench player, nothing more than a Lewis Brown at manly type player

As much as I think the league itself is a cluster**** they tried to help him and he bit the hands that fed him

I feel sorry for commentators who now have to put up with a nuffy

He sued for the insurance the nrl pays to indemnify themselves. They weren’t going to pay him but heir insurance company would pay out. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if hush hush someone had told him to. It’s not like they lose a heap of cash, just their insurer. At least that’s my understanding

 

[HoldenV8]

From what I am reading, what Walks was actually saying to him throughout the match until the punches were thrown were things like "You'll never be anything" and "You'll never play Origin".

Seriously, if that is all that Walks was actually saying to him then Scott needs to HTFU.

 

[Chip and Chase]

The send off points discount has been around for a couple of seasons from memory. I don't have a problem with it, the player and the team generally suffer a loss due to the original send off so I don't see why the subsequent penalty shouldn't be discounted slightly. Say the player just gets put on report instead of sent off then why should they receive the same suspension in that case ?

As for having suspensions fit the outcome of the results of their foul play, that's a ridiculous assertion. Has never, ever been that way for 100 years of league, why start now ?? What if Scott's punch glanced off Dylan's thick melon and did no damage ? do we suspend Scott for zero weeks because there was no negative outcome to his action ? Similarly what if a player cops a careless high shot falling into a tackle and breaks a jaw and is out for 2 months ?? does that offender get rubbed out for the same time ? What if Api's shot on Scott resulted in a broken eye socket ? do we live with a 4-6 week suspension for him ?? Of course not. I'm fine with the current arrangement, it's a contact sport and sometimes you get unlucky.

 

[The Who]

The send off points discount has been around for a couple of seasons from memory. I don't have a problem with it, the player and the team generally suffer a loss due to the original send off so I don't see why the subsequent penalty shouldn't be discounted slightly. Say the player just gets put on report instead of sent off then why should they receive the same suspension in that case ?

As for having suspensions fit the outcome of the results of their foul play, that's a ridiculous assertion. Has never, ever been that way for 100 years of league, why start now ?? What if Scott's punch glanced off Dylan's thick melon and did no damage ? do we suspend Scott for zero weeks because there was no negative outcome to his action ? Similarly what if a player cops a careless high shot falling into a tackle and breaks a jaw and is out for 2 months ?? does that offender get rubbed out for the same time ? What if Api's shot on Scott resulted in a broken eye socket ? do we live with a 4-6 week suspension for him ?? Of course not. I'm fine with the current arrangement, it's a contact sport and sometimes you get unlucky.

All true. However, how do you equate the treatment of the Storm player (I think it was Jordan McLean) involved in the McKinnon tackle? Had the tragic outcome not been taken into account he would have receive 1-2 weeks, but got 9 weeks (if my memory is correct). I'm just trying to point out the inconsistencies of the NRL judiciary. Either you take notice of the outcome of the actions, or you don't. In the McKinnon case it was public and media pressure that forced the judiciary to try to make the punishment for the crime - not that any punishment ever could. However, the McLean tackle was accidental; Scott's punches were deliberate.

 

[Narrabeen Laker]

As much as I like the biff the NRL has made it a priority to stamp it out. If you throw a punch your off . The players know it and the game has moved on . When Curtis snapped Saturday night and punched Dylan 4 times in the head breaking his eye socket he took the game back 20 years . For the NRL to only give him 2 weeks on the sideline is manifestly inadequate. It wasn’t a tackle gone wrong in the heat of the moment it was blatant act to hurt an opposing player. This act results in the player being out for 6 weeks and have to endure the pain and suffering of healing his eye . How he didn’t get at least a month off is a disgrace .

 

[BrendonStarr]

Well they have set a precedent for the remainder of the season. Expect to see more punches thrown in the coming weeks. If a player knows that they will only get a maximum of 2 weeks for smashing an opponents skull in, well in the heat of the moment, and with enough spite, they might just let it rip.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Let's not forget he got sent off as well.

 

[HappilyManly]

Now that the NRL have ruled that a multiple direct hit to the head is 300 points less time on sideline during the game in which the event happened = 2 games.

What's to stop a cleanskin rookie maiming a star player 1st week of the final series in the 79th minute 😵

NRL got it totally wrong as it was not a 1 punch incident

#PolicyOnTheRun
#ElleryHanley
#SackGreenberg

 

[globaleagle]

That's just ridiculous. Get the goon to take him out in the warm up - then get the full 80 minute discount. Better yet, then get him to feign an injured fist and try to get him replaced before kick-off.

Agreed, sheesh what was I thinking?????

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

As much as I like the biff the NRL has made it a priority to stamp it out. If you throw a punch your off . The players know it and the game has moved on . When Curtis snapped Saturday night and punched Dylan 4 times in the head breaking his eye socket he took the game back 20 years . For the NRL to only give him 2 weeks on the sideline is manifestly inadequate. It wasn’t a tackle gone wrong in the heat of the moment it was blatant act to hurt an opposing player. This act results in the player being out for 6 weeks and have to endure the pain and suffering of healing his eye . How he didn’t get at least a month off is a disgrace .

Maybe 4 years, not 20 (Gallen punching Myles) but your point is well made.

As for the 'discount' for being sent off, that certainly should not apply when the victim of his foul play also had to miss the rest of the game, let alone another 6 games after that!.

 

[HappilyManly]

Agreed, sheesh what was I thinking?????

You only need 1 minute to get the discount as the NRL requires a full 100 points for 1 game penalty 😕

 

[Sue]

The send off points discount has been around for a couple of seasons from memory. I don't have a problem with it, the player and the team generally suffer a loss due to the original send off so I don't see why the subsequent penalty shouldn't be discounted slightly. Say the player just gets put on report instead of sent off then why should they receive the same suspension in that case ?

As for having suspensions fit the outcome of the results of their foul play, that's a ridiculous assertion. Has never, ever been that way for 100 years of league, why start now ?? What if Scott's punch glanced off Dylan's thick melon and did no damage ? do we suspend Scott for zero weeks because there was no negative outcome to his action ? Similarly what if a player cops a careless high shot falling into a tackle and breaks a jaw and is out for 2 months ?? does that offender get rubbed out for the same time ? What if Api's shot on Scott resulted in a broken eye socket ? do we live with a 4-6 week suspension for him ?? Of course not. I'm fine with the current arrangement, it's a contact sport and sometimes you get unlucky.

I think you’ll find the gravity of the injury is taken into account ( or should have been) under new regulations introduced a few years ago. Kent referred to that fact on NRL 360 tonight as another example of NRL incompetence.Thats why the NRL racing to come up with a grading is ridiculous also. Should have been referred to the judiciary without grading for a decision as a lot of commentators have been saying.The gravity of the injury has been part of the AFLs judiciary process for years as well.

I agree with you in terms of careless or even reckless football related incidents the injury sustained should have less relevance. But a deliberate non football act that causes damage - the resultant injury should definitely be taken into account.

You only need to intend to do grievous bodily harm to be charged with murder if the victim dies. The general criminal law tenant that you take your victim as they come should apply here also. It is a deliberate act intending to harm the player and the result of that deliberate act should be reflected in the consequences.

 

[Chip and Chase]

I think you’ll find the gravity of the injury is taken into account ( or should have been) under new regulations introduced a few years ago. Kent referred to that fact on NRL 360 tonight as another example of NRL incompetence.Thats why the NRL racing to come up with a grading is ridiculous also. Should have been referred to the judiciary without grading for a decision as a lot of commentators have been saying.The gravity of the injury has been part of the AFLs judiciary process for years as well.

Wasn't aware of that new "rule". Still leaves that subjective assessment as to how deliberate the act was and what loading the resultant injury should attract, and as we know the NRL is hopelessly inconsistent when it comes to subjectivity.