I was wondering who in recent times has been suspended for longer than 9 weeks?? (That's not ASADA drug related)Just saw an article saying how lenient Ezra’s suspension is compared to recent suspensions then go on to name Spencer, Pearce, Carney etc rather than the most obvious recent in Trindall. Standard rugby league journalism.
James Graham 12 matches in 2012 for biting Billy Slater and Travis Burns 12 matches for a high tackle and chicken wing in the same game also in 2012. Travis never played NRL again.I was wondering who in recent times has been suspended for longer than 9 weeks?? (That's not ASADA drug related)
Spencer was 8
Pearce was 8 (I think?)
Carney sacked after about a million previous incidents
Was thinking more about off field incidents where the NRL have complete control on how long to suspend rather than reportable incidents where they have the judiciary.James Graham 12 matches in 2012 for biting Billy Slater and Travis Burns 12 matches for a high tackle and chicken wing in the same game also in 2012. Travis never played NRL again.
Longest was Danny Williams 2004 - 18 matches for a king hit on Mark O'Neill.
Was thinking more about off field incidents where the NRL have complete control on how long to suspend rather than reportable incidents where they have the judiciary.
To be fair, Wighton had five separate assault charges plus extra.Norman got 8 weeks for running a chemist out of his pocket.
Wighton got 10 matches for carrying on.
I hear ya GazFirstly I asked a question - not made an accusation, although I can see how you might take it that way.
Your brief appears to suggest penalties or fines in this case should reflect the extent or severity of injuries caused by the incident. (Minor injuries shouldn’t double the penalty)
I think you will find that most investigators will take into account the cause, in particular the root cause of an incident or accident that led to those injuries to determine if a penalty or fine is justified. The size of the penalty or fine, if at all, will usually result from that investigation.
Ezra has done extremely well with the powers that be and in my opinion anyone fobbing this off as minor are kidding themselves.
I wonder why you continue to express your animosity towards Ezra mate. Reckon you should give it a rest. He’s done some pretty dumb shit & he will have to learn from it. Let him.
There are far worse things committed by other NRL players yet, they have been put under the mat & the dumb **** media is going on & on about Ezra nonstop.
He wants the cap space backI wonder why you continue to express your animosity towards Ezra mate. Reckon you should give it a rest. He’s done some pretty dumb shit & he will have to learn from it. Let him.
There are far worse things committed by other NRL players yet, they have been put under the mat & the dumb **** media is going on & on about Ezra nonstop.
Then in that case, the club should’ve done that starting with Milford. He literally stole money from the club for those many years & the club just let him. After 2015, 2016(not entire season though), he stopped turning up & refused to be coached by Locky.I think goat is making a different point to most. He's not commenting on the accident at all. It was a great opportunity for the club to move on someone who's on way, way too much money.
Reckon for season 2025, we’re ok but for 2026 season and beyond( with Adam retiring & few others not extended), we will have decent cap space so the current coaching staff can plan things astutely based on it.He wants the cap space back
Other than being our pots for his first big contract year, sure… that doesn’t make what we’re doing with Ezra correctThen in that case, the club should’ve done that starting with Milford. He literally stole money from the club for those many years & the club just let him. After 2015, 2016(not entire season though), he stopped turning up & refused to be coached by Locky.
Well said john1420I hear ya Gaz
My comment that minor injuries shouldn’t double the penalty, actually wasn't an indication that I think that penalties / fines should reflect the extent or severity of injuries caused, it was just a reply to those people saying it justifies the difference in suspension between Mam and others.
I am genuinely caught between two schools of thought with that. On the one hand, I think the action should entirely determine the penalty - the logic being the difference between a drunk (for example) driver losing control of his vehicle, crossing onto the wrong side of the road and causing no damage, and a drunk driver losing control of his vehicle, crossing onto the wrong side of the road and killing someone, is nothing but pure luck, or happenstance. Given the thing that they did wrong was identical, why should the penalties be different?
But I totally understand the other side of the argument that the outcome determines the penalty, and that is the way our court system works, so it also makes sense that it applies elsewhere. I am genuinely happy with 9 weeks for Ezra (he should have received a hefty fine from the NRL too, not sure if that's still to come) I think it's a fair penalty for what he did when viewed in isolation.
I also don't think anyone is fobbing it off as minor, non-Bronco fans are in an uproar over it for being too light, and I can't think of anyone here saying the incident is minor?
My issue is purely the lack of a system to guide penalties. A system where someone or some panel, looks at an incident and thinks "yeah I reckon that's worth x weeks and x dollars" isn't a system at all. Take the Mam incident out of it, and think of the Leniu racism slur. He got 8 weeks. Who here has any confidence that the next person to use a racial slur will also get 8 weeks? I certainly don't, and that is my issue.