Sam Burgess late hit on cherry

[globaleagle]

I emailed the nrl. I will let you all know if there is even a response beyond the 'we have passed your comments on," rubbish.

Yes......

Not even an acknowledgement of my email.

s'funny how they acknowledge all my other ones.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Yes......

Not even an acknowledgement of my email.

s'funny how they acknowledge all my other ones.

No shock GE.
I emailed the Sea Eagles on 30 April and asked if the club proposed to get an explanation of the decision.
They replied as follows:






(no reply)

 

[globaleagle]

There is more noise between saturn and it's inner most ring than from the nrl and or Manly!

SCIENCE NERD SEGUE FTW!

 

[globaleagle]

*sigh* Link for the great unwashed

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/2f4ceabd2d540fcc10a0d7c8db1c81ae

 

[globaleagle]

I emailed the nrl. I will let you all know if there is even a response beyond the 'we have passed your comments on," rubbish.

I got a reply today from the nrl.

But I'm sure you're all too busy reading the tipping comp update to read it.

😛

more later

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

This is GE's reply from NRL:

"We value all feedback, but in this case we won't give you any explanation because we feel you are talking through your hat."

 

[globaleagle]

Ok...here goes.

Good morning,

I was very disappointed and concerned to hear about the NRL's incorrect decision regarding an off the ball, deliberate hit on an unsuspecting player. Namely Sam Burgess on Daly Cherry-Evans.

It's apparent that no one but Michael Buettner sees this as anything other than an illegal hit.

I'm trying to grow the game over here in Canada and yet I continually find myself having to justify incorrect mrc and judiciary decisions to a skeptical public.

This was a deliberate hit aimed to injure and one can only assume that with the tests coming up, DCE's health and safety was sacrificed in order for Burgess to be available for England.

I would hope that this is not the case.

The game needs to be bigger than these petty tribal allegiances for it to grow.

I am just so...so disappointed as a fan of the game to see what transpired over the weekend. I hold the nrl to a high standard and sincerely hope that for all our sakes, you can do better moving forward.

Thanks for your time.

g to the e to the you can't touch this shizzle!

Reply:

Dear g to the e to the you can't touch this shizzle!
Thanks for your email.

Every incident is looked at individually and the circumstances considered when it comes to determining whether a charge is necessary. To ensure consistency and fairness in penalties awarded by the Match Review Committee, penalties are awarded according to a pre-determined points system. In looking at how they grade an incident of foul play, the MRC looks, among other things, at the nature and force of the contact.

The MRC examined the incident you refer to but did not believe it warranted a charge or further review.

It is worth noting that player Burgess was given a concerning act notice by the Match Review Committee for his contact with player Cherry-Evans.

As much as you have every right to disagree with the MRC's decision please be assured that their decisions are not influenced by any consideration other than what they thought was the appropriate ruling.

Each and every tackle in every match is reviewed for illegal misconduct and we are constantly monitoring and changing rules for the safety of our athletes. The current system is one which is supported by players, coaches and officials of the game and our tough stance on dangerous plays means that players are not only penalised for dangerous play but also the potential to cause injury as well.

We share your concerns and be assured that player safety and wellbeing remains a key priority for us.

Thanks again for taking the time to write to us and for your dedicated support of Rugby League.

Kind regards

 

[StuBoot]

A f%*king "concerning act notice"?
WTF?
They have been quoted publicly that Burgess was moving across in cover defence, didn't change his line and didn't look at DCE so it didn't warrant any further action but know you get this response.

Why not say that in the first place when they were asked?
Um, because then they'd be effectively saying that he did do something wrong.

Concerning Act notice - now known as the big Sam clause.

 

[Blucky]

Anyone know what a "Concerning Act Notice" is ?

Does it contain grading points that count towards future infringements ?
Is there a cash penalty attached to it ?
Does he have to reply in writing ?
Does he have to attend a judiciary ?

or
Is it something they made up to make it look like they are coming down hard on Burgess, while still letting him play ?

 

[The '47ers]

Anyone know what a "Concerning Act Notice" is ?

Does it contain grading points that count towards future infringements ?
Is there a cash penalty attached to it ?
Does he have to reply in writing ?
Does he have to attend a judiciary ?

or
Is it something they made up to make it look like they are coming down hard on Burgess, while still letting him play ?

The 2nd part lol

 

[MissKate]

I guess it is a bit like the 'warning' letter he received after getting let off for a squirrel grip a couple of years back. Most probably put to one of two uses in the burgess' toilet

 

[globaleagle]

They replied...to their credit.

But I did send them a second email querying why I should do their surveys if they wont engage me as a fan.

So I don't know if their response was due to my 'tanty' or if they were just busy.

Either way....they realised I obviously run the northern hemisphere and responded before I sent the Toronto wolfpack down there to sort them out. (lol)

I don't know what the concerning act notice means....if it is like a warning or whatever. In the scheme of things I am glad the nrl responded at least.

 

[Shoe1]

I wasn't joking when I wondered about the"stern letter" from the nrl early in this thread.

I recalled that they did this before. It is a crock.

 

[HappilyManly]

Concerning Act - zero weeks

Contrary Contact - two weeks

Proof positive that Chez is not a d ickhead in the eyes of the NRL

 

[Little Grubber Kick]

And guess what, even with all this clear evidence, 90-95% (the herd), will just go on eating the grass like it's no big deal.

BTW that second play is called a thumb drive.....
variations include

 

[Harvies elbow]

So judging by their response it wasn't a shoulder charge off the ball ??

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I'm still waiting for a reply from Sea Eagles...

 

[Dan]

You should issue them with a concerning act notice

 

[Lord Eagleton]

Every incident is looked at individually and the circumstances considered when it comes to determining whether a charge is necessary.

This opening line blew me away! Says it all really. Basically they reserve the right to be subjective (with their biased motives) on whatever incidents land on their desk. I know the game is not always black & white but they are hiding behind this to hand down rulings which suit their agenda. Fking biased pricks they are. NRL, biased one day, even more biased the next. At least they provide us with a laugh. Its funny how badly they are run

 

[Go manly]

They actually answered which surprised me but what did not surprise me was the blah blah blah answer

The protection of burgess is astounding

Any way
GOOD stuff GE
You actually forced some movement from the NRL

Bet they were peeved for having to break up their fay & answer rather than draw circles on the white board