Because hiring top legal representation would come out of Penn's pocket.
Tof Sipley
- Thread starter Kiwi Eagle
- Start date
Rafferty
Mug punter
Sips should of went in Pro see, stated that given Manly are to miserable to stump up representation for me, I’m hear to defend myself, I’m pleading guilty without an admission of guilt, on the grounds I was not conciously cognitive at the point of impact, I can’t recall the tackle and believe had I not been impaired by the head Knock, I would not have finished in the position I found myself in………..
It’s weak as piss, the club doesn’t go in a defend our players, especially when there was mitigating circumstances such as could have been argued in this instance.
It’s weak as piss, the club doesn’t go in a defend our players, especially when there was mitigating circumstances such as could have been argued in this instance.
stoodamire
Bencher
Counter argument. He did pass his HIA.
If he was knocked out, should’ve been Cat 1. He could’ve made an argument there.
They also seemed to punish on the outcome of the injury too.
If he was knocked out, should’ve been Cat 1. He could’ve made an argument there.
They also seemed to punish on the outcome of the injury too.
Aren’t we sponsored by lawyers? They are all over my beautiful supporters gear and now I’m getting nothing for advertising them for free.
Couldn’t Toff use legal aid? Surely there’s an up and coming young lawyer who is mad for the Sea Eagles.
Nike
Reserve Grader
The club is so bad at dealing with the NRL it's almost comical not challenging this. There were clear grounds to argue the circumstances the offensive occured in (he was ****ing unconscious) that could've avoided the entire hip-drop line of questioning altogether. Nevermind all potential precedents and intangible benefits it could provide us with a winning edge in the future.
Oh wait what's that? An early guilty plea so he gets 4 weeks instead of 5, and Scott saves a buck? No brainer! Tof being out for 4 or 5 rounds is negligible at this point. Seriously are they for ****ing real?
@Scott Penn sell the ****ing club already, if you were trying to make a buck you missed the high water mark.
Oh wait what's that? An early guilty plea so he gets 4 weeks instead of 5, and Scott saves a buck? No brainer! Tof being out for 4 or 5 rounds is negligible at this point. Seriously are they for ****ing real?
@Scott Penn sell the ****ing club already, if you were trying to make a buck you missed the high water mark.
Nike
Reserve Grader
Not to double post but how does a reportable incident that results in a 4 week ban only get 10 in the bin when it's committed?
Correct me if I'm wrong but it would've made more sense if he got sent since it was such a bad offence? Or the judiciary has punished the outcome and not the incident.
I know injuries are and should be taken into consideration somewhat, and he probably deserves a short ban, but the inconsistency from the NRL and Manly's allergy to ever contesting them is so beyond played out.
I thought no one liked us and we didn't care? Doesn't really feel like it.
/rant over
Correct me if I'm wrong but it would've made more sense if he got sent since it was such a bad offence? Or the judiciary has punished the outcome and not the incident.
I know injuries are and should be taken into consideration somewhat, and he probably deserves a short ban, but the inconsistency from the NRL and Manly's allergy to ever contesting them is so beyond played out.
I thought no one liked us and we didn't care? Doesn't really feel like it.
/rant over
..."Despite accepting evidence that Sipley may have been "stunned" after his head connected with Feagai's shoulder in the initial contact between the pair, the panel felt a deterrent was needed to help eradicate hip drop tackles from the game...."
So the panel accept he was stunned but chose now, against a manly player to send this deterrent.
Wouldn't it have been better to send this deterrent when it was a bone fide hip drop?
Surely they're not scared of suspending a star of the game?
"I'm sorry someone knocked you out but you did fall onto a public road so here's your ticket for jaywalking."
I understand why Toff simply accepted the ban as this judiciary seem to take the line of "We're offended you've come to us, you should have taken your medicine." And they rarely reduce gradings, etc. (Understand toff was referred straight to them). It's time to change the panel.
So now if an opposition player is knocked out, throw him in front of one of our own so he gets a few weeks for 'tripping'.
I'm just glad I follow other sports.
#amateurhour
So the panel accept he was stunned but chose now, against a manly player to send this deterrent.
Wouldn't it have been better to send this deterrent when it was a bone fide hip drop?
Surely they're not scared of suspending a star of the game?
"I'm sorry someone knocked you out but you did fall onto a public road so here's your ticket for jaywalking."
I understand why Toff simply accepted the ban as this judiciary seem to take the line of "We're offended you've come to us, you should have taken your medicine." And they rarely reduce gradings, etc. (Understand toff was referred straight to them). It's time to change the panel.
So now if an opposition player is knocked out, throw him in front of one of our own so he gets a few weeks for 'tripping'.
I'm just glad I follow other sports.
#amateurhour
If you mean shaw and partners...they're financial consultants.
If you mean kfc....(lol)
The '47ers
Your resident two-headed Queenslander
4 wks, honestly speechless
deanm
Bencher
Double demerits ?
Says he was represented...
Prominent Sydney lawyer Nick Ghabar represented Sipley
www.foxsports.com.au
Panel members were told to ignore elements of the comparable.... (ffs)
“The MRC view this tackle as at the top of the scale of careless dangerous contact,”
- then they need to be sacked if they can't see toff was dazed from a high hit. what a crock of poop.
the panel of Tony Puletua and Greg McCallum deliberating for just 11 minutes
- that's hardly a 'panel'. a gaggle of morons
Judiciary counsel Patrick Knowles asked the panel to consider a four-match ban given the MRC felt the need to refer the tackle as a deterrent to other players to improve their technique.
- that is grossly unfair (again) to arbitrarily decide to use this tackle as the line in the sand, as well as not using a typical hip drop, but one where Toff was dazed on his way down.
Total inept or corrupt decision making every step of the way.
Prominent Sydney lawyer Nick Ghabar represented Sipley
Manly enforcer loses at judiciary after breaking rival’s leg, Storm star found not guilty in two mins
Manly enforcer loses at judiciary after breaking rival’s leg, Storm star found not guilty in two mins
www.foxsports.com.au
Panel members were told to ignore elements of the comparable.... (ffs)
“The MRC view this tackle as at the top of the scale of careless dangerous contact,”
- then they need to be sacked if they can't see toff was dazed from a high hit. what a crock of poop.
the panel of Tony Puletua and Greg McCallum deliberating for just 11 minutes
- that's hardly a 'panel'. a gaggle of morons
Judiciary counsel Patrick Knowles asked the panel to consider a four-match ban given the MRC felt the need to refer the tackle as a deterrent to other players to improve their technique.
- that is grossly unfair (again) to arbitrarily decide to use this tackle as the line in the sand, as well as not using a typical hip drop, but one where Toff was dazed on his way down.
Total inept or corrupt decision making every step of the way.
Users who are viewing this thread
2020 Ladder
| Team | P | W | D | L | PD | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulldogs | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 98 | 14 |
| 2 | Storm | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 70 | 10 |
| 3 | Raiders | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 46 | 10 |
| 4 | Warriors | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | -18 | 10 |
| 5 | Broncos | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 54 | 8 |
| 6 | Sharks | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 41 | 8 |
| 7 | Dragons | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 8 |
| 8 | Rabbitohs | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | -36 | 8 |
| 9 | Cowboys | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | -42 | 8 |
| 10 | Dolphins | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 28 | 6 |
| 11 | Sea Eagles | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 20 | 6 |
| 12 | Tigers | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 6 |
| 13 | Titans | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | -36 | 6 |
| 14 | Knights | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | -60 | 6 |
| 15 | Panthers | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -10 | 4 |
| 16 | Roosters | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -80 | 4 |
| 17 | Eels | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | -107 | 4 |
