Even with all the video evidence you could need, he and they (the roosters) still have the nerve to plead. Not guilty? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The media has said 8 weeks - 8 weeks it will be - same as the hopper trial - guilty and charged by the media. personally i think it deserves more than 8 - lost sight is an awful thing and would end his career straight away.
It was deliberate. You only have to watch the rest of the game to see he was out to deliberatly hurt somebody.
You'd plead guilty to eye gouging would you fLIP? Dunley didn't plead guilty to the spitting charge when all the video evidence pointed towards his guilt. There is a thing called "trying to clear your name".
Lets set the record straigh tby saying I "wouldn't" eye gouge but If I did I would be man enough to admit my fault.
In all seriousness though Cross only really has that option. To plead guilty would have him regarded forever as an eye gouger, not something to be proud of.
I think he should get the rest of the season. Eye gouging is the lowest of the lows. Lower than Hoppa surely. Hoppa only concussed someone - something that can happen in a normal good tackle. Cross put someone's eye at risk. Loss of sight in one eye would ruin his career, and effect him for the rest of his life. Cross must get at least 16 weeks. I cant think of anything worse than eye gouging.
I hope this doesn't open up a can of worms but I'd like to think that Hoppa's bum poke (12 weeks,) was no where near as bad as an eye gouge. If there's anything that brings the game into disrepute, it's an eye gouging incident. That's without considering the risks to the person being attacked.
