Tweet
I think now that Bargass has taken the early plea the NRL is more likely to find JWH guilty , eye for an eye type crap to keep the favourite team happy.
-
-
He's a 50/50 shot IMO.
The application of the games laws are too subjective at the moment and that's why we're seeing such inconsistency from the Match review committee and judiciary this year.
This won't come down to fact it will come down to opinion and going off public opinion it seems to be split so I give him a 50/50 chance at the judicary. -
The Slater incident last year was decided solely by media. He was as guilty as hell. But if it’s a rooster then it’s a different story. The judiciary and refs have always been biased against us.“Soon will the present day order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead”- (Baha’u’llah)Comment
-
Can’t believe burglarise pleaded guilty. Souffs or burgearse decision?Written and published on behalf of the Liberal Party, Queensland
Comment
-
I suspect Bargearse figured he needed the week off anyway.
JWH shouldn't have any charge to answer if they were fair dinkum, but alas..Comment
-
True! What are the odds that JWH would be fine if we were playing the Raiders, however, he will sit out a game against Souths just to square up the fact that Burgess is missing.Originally posted by Jacks Fur Coat View Post
If I was a betting man, I know where I would be putting my money!Comment
-
I have no time for Burgess and in this case (the hair pull) to get one week is about right.Originally posted by woftam View Post
I actually thought Smith's ear pull/grab on Simonsson was a lot worse. Of course Smith just laughed and thought it was a joke. As did Ben Cummins - says a lot!"Do you expect me to talk"? "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die".Comment
-
He was charged for hair pulling... was pretty blatant. What was he going to say in his defence?Originally posted by The Axe View PostComment
-
Surely it won't be difficult to prove the injury was a result of the head clash, and that many similar tackles have gone unpunished this season. MRC a bunch of reactive twats.Comment
-
For a man who’s always innocent, I must admit I’m surprised. He was also caught red handed with dick shots and got off. Whatever he’s said in the past has workedOriginally posted by Rooster_6 View PostWritten and published on behalf of the Liberal Party, QueenslandComment
-
I think he has a chance of getting off, but who knows, either wayWe can beat Souths without Jared.Comment
-
JWH has been charged with being careless, all he has to do is prove he wasn't and he can get the charge dropped. I think he'll get off.
Chook.Comment
-
It was pretty obvious that he did the hair pull... no technicalities there.Originally posted by The Axe View Post
JWH's was an odd hit where he wasn't tackling, didn't brace himself (e.g. a shoulder charge can be bracing yourself with your shoulder) and there were no telltale signs of a high tackle (e.g. forearm to the chin or a shot with the boney part of the elbow).
I'm biased but what's the actual charge? While trying to bust Collins' tackle, Knight's head popped out into the back of JWH's arm. JWH was standing back as a marker, did not brace himself and all the damage done was by the (unfortunate) head knock.
I don't think JWH coulda prevented the contact let alone the head knock. I mean the contact was with the soft side of his elbow... an extremely vulnerable part of his body.Last edited by ism22; 09-08-2019, 01:55 PM.Comment
-
Looking at that hair pulling incident, south's had probably thought there was more to the tackle than just hair pulling, and decided to cut their losses and take an early plea to avoid any more scrutiny.Comment
-
No. A charge is a charge. The original incident is scrutinized. It’s not as if the judiciary would be looking for other indiscretions in the tackle. That’s the match review committees job.Originally posted by easts4eva View PostComment
Comment