Blair ought to be acquitted

[subsbligh]

The definition which I posted is the definition from the rule book. It makes no reference to wrapping both arms.

Where are you looking mate.

ta

Brent

Unfortunately mate (my jaded view) is that the judiciary form seems a bit more arbitrary. We think it was bad therefore we'll fit the definition somehow.

A bit like the video referees not understanding the burden of proof of "conclusive" and just making the TRY/NO TRY call based on their interpretation of the video evidence (which personally I think sits somewhere higher than "balance of probabilities" but lower than "beyond reasonable doubt").

Every week I blow up royal about it when I'm sitting with my mates, a try is awarded on field, the video ref takes 7 looks at it and determines that it somehow takes 7 different reviews and angles to say something is "conclusive" (all the while 3 or 4 seasoned commentators can't form an aligned view of evidence, suggesting in itself there is not a conclusive call one way or the other as between reasonable minds (or in fact expert minds) based on the video evidence).

There might be suggestive or persuasive evidence, but no "conclusive evidence" exists, therefore revert to on-field ref and live with it.

GI Origin II try was the classic case in point.

 

[Morkel]

**** it. The difference in pleading guilty & unsuccessfully fighting it is that he'll be missing for the Dragons game and have 10 less carry-over points. I say fight it. The possibility of him being found not guilty, and the judiciary knowing that we won't just bend over whenever the NSW feel pressured, is enough potential reward to offset the risk.

 

[jarro65]

Early guilty plea taken...so two week freshen up for Blair.

Might be a good thing actually.

 

[Battler]

Elgey was hurt so Blair has to go (judiciary logic). Bennett must have decided he needed the rest.

 

[Alec]

On the plus side, 2 weeks of not getting him and Thaiday mixed up.

 

[Sproj]

It is actually a good thing in that we see what we would be like should another injury occur to one of our key front rowers.

On that note, I have been Doddgy's biggest critic but goodness me he is looking fit and running with purpose I had never seen before lately. Another left-over problem from the great Griffin regime?

 

[Mosyzlak]

On the plus side, 2 weeks of not getting him and Thaiday mixed up.

Rabs can't get it right, just calls it as Blair every time!

 

[Waynesaurus]

[sarcasm] Surely he should have got at least 3 to 4 weeks, you only get 2 weeks if you pick a guy up after the whistle has blown then dump him on his head. [/sarcasm]

 

[Sproj]

[sarcasm] Surely he should have got at least 3 to 4 weeks, you only get 2 weeks if you pick a guy up after the whistle has blown then dump him on his head. [/sarcasm]

It just means that if you are going to do something wrong, do it with intent, make it reckless and its all good. Make a mistake and shame on you!!

 

[Dexter]

Def a shoulder charge for mine, he does tuck his arm and he gets him high and late. Forget all the BS about wrapping arms and what interpretation the rule us meant to have, just look at the tackle. If that was on one of the Broncos by an opponent I'd be calling for a penalty and suspension.

 

[K-Style]

What about Galloway on Hunt? Shoulder to face. Not head clash.

Interesting reading here (according to these guys Hunt should have been charged):

https://www.reddit.com/r/nrl/comments/3dx2qu/ben_hunt_vs_keith_galloway/

 

[Battler]

What about Galloway on Hunt? Shoulder to face. Not head clash.

Interesting reading here (according to these guys Hunt should have been charged):

https://www.reddit.com/r/nrl/comments/3dx2qu/ben_hunt_vs_keith_galloway/

Neither deserve suspension, but Hunt wasn't hurt, so the judiciary don't care. Beau Scott pulls off worse shots on a weekly basis and never cops a suspension.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Ultimately the club has probably made the right decision, Blair was probably due for a rest anyway, but how that tackle ever got charged as grade 2 is a disgrace and shows that the MRC changes their interpretation of the rules pretty much every week.

 

[Dexter]

Ultimately the club has probably made the right decision, Blair was probably due for a rest anyway, but how that tackle ever got charged as grade 2 is a disgrace and shows that the MRC changes their interpretation of the rules pretty much every week.

They really seem to grade things on outcomes.

In the match review committee’s official guidelines, it states: ‘‘When required to ascribe a grading for an offence, the match-review committee shall have regard to ... Whether an opposition player was injured in the incident giving rise to the charge.’’
As Glenn Jackson explained in the Sydney Morning Herald last year: ‘‘Effectively, the match reviewers cannot charge a player as a result of the injuries, but once he is charged, they can attach a higher grading as a result of them.’’




This discussion has been had a few times on here but they should grade the tackle no matter what with the aim of prevention not how bad the injury was. A good example was the spear tackle on Boyd in state of origin a few years ago compared to Mackinnon. That should have got 6 months minimum but was graded as a 2 whereas we all know the circumstance on Mackinnon .

 

[Brent81]

Just saw Buettner's attempt to justify this charge.

Fucking joke.

Bloke couldn't couldn't read the hungry hungry catipiller let alone a rule book.

A grade stitch up.

 

[Big Pete]

How many weeks did Papalii get for his 'shoulder charge' gone wrong on Plum?

 

[Brent81]

How many weeks did Papalii get for his 'shoulder charge' gone wrong on Plum?

Funny you should ask Pete....it rhymes with **** all!

 

[Brent81]

Ps Buettner concedes that the contact was head on head...shoulder charge requires contact with the shoulder or upper arm.....and they wonder why we don't trust the NRL?