Soliola suspended five weeks, Rapana out for one week

[sprintman]

Sol should retire immediately and save everybody a lot of trouble

.. should be ignored by fellow players and club .. cya Sia thanks for the good times but err well you know how it is

Who is the next player on your hit list dude

List is far too long.

[Raidersfan]

Sol should retire immediately and save everybody a lot of trouble

.. should be ignored by fellow players and club .. cya Sia thanks for the good times but err well you know how it is

Who is the next player on your hit list dude

List is far too long.

Sounds like we're on a huge recruitment drive come next season lol

[myanonymoususername]

I think the NRL over complicates things. Really it should be simple. Direct, forceful contact to the head = send off, always. Things like lateness. slippage etc go to determining the punishment at the judiciary.

NRL is a heavy contact sport, played at high speed, and stuff like this is going to happen.

If Sia gets hung out to dry for this one then they are setting a hell of a precedent.

Wont be long before another, worse, much worse hit happens.

Can't argue with any of that. But I do think the NRL sets too low a benchmark on what players need to do to avoid high contact, late contact etc. Too much is being allowed that I don't think is necessary. The game is hard. It will be no less hard if they rub out high shots by penalising them more harshly - message to players, aim a bit lower. Same with late shots, there are many per game that are absolutely avoidable. Most are not damaging but they are still unnecessary and avoidable, so should be penalised out of the game.

My major hate about NRL officiating is that referees, rather than demanding players meet a standard, continually lower the standard they ask players to meet. They massage penalty counts down, not because teams are playing within the rules, but by ignoring clear penalties. And they are selective and inconsistent in doing it. If they just concentrated on officiating to the actual rules, and demanded players not break them, I reckon the game would be much better off. As is stands, the officiating actively encourage cheating because teams know that refs will give up penalising them sooner rather than later in a game. And the successful teams push the limits more than the less successful ones. Seriously if the refs were doing their job, Melbourne would concede 50 penalties a game and invariably have half a dozen sin binned per game. I reckon the game would be well served by a few rounds of refs blowing every single penalty they can find. A few weeks of 50-45 penalty counts would be worth it to completely change how the game is played and what is rewarded.

[Green eyed Mick]

I think the NRL over complicates things. Really it should be simple. Direct, forceful contact to the head = send off, always. Things like lateness. slippage etc go to determining the punishment at the judiciary.

NRL is a heavy contact sport, played at high speed, and stuff like this is going to happen.

If Sia gets hung out to dry for this one then they are setting a hell of a precedent.

Wont be long before another, worse, much worse hit happens.

Can't argue with any of that. But I do think the NRL sets too low a benchmark on what players need to do to avoid high contact, late contact etc. Too much is being allowed that I don't think is necessary. The game is hard. It will be no less hard if they rub out high shots by penalising them more harshly - message to players, aim a bit lower. Same with late shots, there are many per game that are absolutely avoidable. Most are not damaging but they are still unnecessary and avoidable, so should be penalised out of the game.

My major hate about NRL officiating is that referees, rather than demanding players meet a standard, continually lower the standard they ask players to meet. They massage penalty counts down, not because teams are playing within the rules, but by ignoring clear penalties. And they are selective and inconsistent in doing it. If they just concentrated on officiating to the actual rules, and demanded players not break them, I reckon the game would be much better off. As is stands, the officiating actively encourage cheating because teams know that refs will give up penalising them sooner rather than later in a game. And the successful teams push the limits more than the less successful ones. Seriously if the refs were doing their job, Melbourne would concede 50 penalties a game and invariably have half a dozen sin binned per game. I reckon the game would be well served by a few rounds of refs blowing every single penalty they can find. A few weeks of 50-45 penalty counts would be worth it to completely change how the game is played and what is rewarded.

Great post. But it's never going to happen. The NRL wants fast, free flowing football. The onus is on the clubs and their coaches to figure out how to play within the evolving interpretations.

The good coaches go a step further and spend plenty of time finding little gaps in the officiating they think they can exploit. Melbourne have been at the forefront for more than a decade. Maybe because Bellamy is a cheat or maybe because Bellamy understands the NRL's mindset and is pushing the boundaries because that's one of the few places sides can gain an advantage.

Unfortunately, We don't have a good coach. We have a coach who is more concerned with justifying his position to Don and the board than getting results. He's a whiny little **** who needs to drop the victimhood rubbish and step aside for someone with the brains to coach in the current era.

Rugby League is a game of 1000 little contests. The side that wins these little battles usually wins the game. Until we have a coach with the ability to strategise a way to win these little contests with the talent he has at his disposal we will continue to struggle. Last year the interpretations and the opposition strategies weren't good enough to contain us but while our big boys were pretending to be boxers or enjoying an extended holiday, the rest of the competition were watching footage and practicing. They were identifying areas the refs weren't policing and figuring out how best to combat our style.

If Sticky had half the coaching skills of Bellamy he would have expected sides to catch on. It's not like it's anything new. Austin was crushing sides in 2015, but in 2016 every side had done their homework. They realised by assuming Austin was going to run and defending accordingly they could completely shut him down. Austin didn't develop his game to combat the extra attention and has been a shadow of his 2015 self ever since. Raiders 2017 are like Austin since 2015. We don't know what to do. The talent is still there but the coach is out of ideas and is looking for someone or something to blame.

[gangrenous]

Moment of impact
He isn't ANYWHERE near half his height!! Unless slater is about 7ft tall Hahaha

You're fighting too hard pigman. He's pretty damn close to half his height there. Not far enough off for ridicule certainly. You say 7ft? So that means his head is 3.5ft off the ground? So 15cm in it? Easy tiger.

Soliola should have been sent off. Soliola should have a long stint on the sidelines. There are mitigating factors in the falling Slater (and for what it's worth Soliola isn't even looking at him). I don't think these should matter very much at the judiciary, but historically they have and so they should here. Archer seems to be treating the Raiders differently again here.

[TongueFTW]

All sports have areas of "grey" where some discretion has to be exercised (football/soccer for example on what constitutes a free kick/penalty/yellow/red card) but Rugby League is essentially the only game where the result is a function of how the referee chooses to enforce the rules of the game. Think of the number of areas where it is completely up to how the referee feels - holding down in the ruck, standing in front of the 10, strip penalties. The entire flow/momentum of the game is decided by the referee, and sub-conscious bias plays a huge role - that is, "Melbourne are so good at the wrestle" = "Melbourne are not penalised for holding down too long". There were some times on Saturday night where Melbourne players were 3 metres in front of the 10m when defending their own line, and on the play we scored I think it was Chambers who was 6m offside. The Raiders were guilty of it too when the Storm were attacking their line.

It is honestly a deadset lottery as to whether you are penalised for certain things. Leilua gets pinged for giving someone a face massage on the ground, when there are at least 5 or 6 of those a game that go unpenalised. He then gets penalised for being a blocker when players are constantly changing their line to block opposition wingers. The NRL add to the problem by going through absolutely stupid periods where they suddenly decide to "focus" on penalising something - classic examples being when they suddenly decided to penalise teams for running in front of the player kicking at the kickoff (this happens now at least once or twice a game now).

[Botman]

Soliola should have been sent off. Soliola should have a long stint on the sidelines. There are mitigating factors in the falling Slater (and for what it's worth Soliola isn't even looking at him).

So we're in total and complete agreement then!
Another triumph, greeny!

[gangrenous]

Soliola should have been sent off. Soliola should have a long stint on the sidelines. There are mitigating factors in the falling Slater (and for what it's worth Soliola isn't even looking at him).

So we're in total and complete agreement then!
Another triumph, greeny!

Almost, I think you're overcompensating against some legitimate arguments about inconsistency that are valid.

[hrundi89]

The refereeing is poor overall and deserves criticism.

[The Nickman]

Great post. But it's never going to happen. The NRL wants fast, free flowing football. The onus is on the clubs and their coaches to figure out how to play within the evolving interpretations.

The good coaches go a step further and spend plenty of time finding little gaps in the officiating they think they can exploit. Melbourne have been at the forefront for more than a decade. Maybe because Bellamy is a cheat or maybe because Bellamy understands the NRL's mindset and is pushing the boundaries because that's one of the few places sides can gain an advantage.

Unfortunately, We don't have a good coach. We have a coach who is more concerned with justifying his position to Don and the board than getting results. He's a whiny little **** who needs to drop the victimhood rubbish and step aside for someone with the brains to coach in the current era.

Rugby League is a game of 1000 little contests. The side that wins these little battles usually wins the game. Until we have a coach with the ability to strategise a way to win these little contests with the talent he has at his disposal we will continue to struggle. Last year the interpretations and the opposition strategies weren't good enough to contain us but while our big boys were pretending to be boxers or enjoying an extended holiday, the rest of the competition were watching footage and practicing. They were identifying areas the refs weren't policing and figuring out how best to combat our style.

If Sticky had half the coaching skills of Bellamy he would have expected sides to catch on. It's not like it's anything new. Austin was crushing sides in 2015, but in 2016 every side had done their homework. They realised by assuming Austin was going to run and defending accordingly they could completely shut him down. Austin didn't develop his game to combat the extra attention and has been a shadow of his 2015 self ever since. Raiders 2017 are like Austin since 2015. We don't know what to do. The talent is still there but the coach is out of ideas and is looking for someone or something to blame.

Spot on, GeM. Absolutely nailed it.

[Raidersfan]

^^^
Agree GeM ..
.. the first part could be the subject of questions at a referees presso

.. the second part needs to be addressed by the coaching staff come 2018

[Pete Cash]

What bothers me (if we are whinging about the way the rules are interpreted) is the 50 or so professional fouls a game.

Its not a good look for half the penalties to be clearly deliberate so teams can reset their line. It used to amuse me when the roosters started doing it and it allowed their fans to act like martyrs with boo hoo we are so penalised.

Also as an aside its almost worth giving away a few in the first half because i reckon it makes the refs less likely to penalise you in the second half

Anyways 5 minute sin bin should be brought in for the obvious i am going to just hold this bloke down on tackle 1 so we can reset the line penalty. We do it plenty so its not a raiders fan v the world thing. I just hate how cynical the play is

[greeneyed]

Canberra Raiders Jordan Rapana takes a one week suspension for shoulder charge

Jordan Rapana will take the early Guilty plea for his Grade One shoulder charge on Nelson Asofa-Solomona. This means Rapana will be unavailable for Saturdays match against South Sydney. He will be available again in round 22 against Cronulla.

Read more: http://www.raiders.com.au/news/2017/07/ ... mmitt.html

[Matt]

Looks like Oldfield will get his debut cap after all... just a week late, and with 2 debut jersey's.

[Woodgers]

I think the NRL over complicates things. Really it should be simple. Direct, forceful contact to the head = send off, always. Things like lateness. slippage etc go to determining the punishment at the judiciary.

NRL is a heavy contact sport, played at high speed, and stuff like this is going to happen.

If Sia gets hung out to dry for this one then they are setting a hell of a precedent.

Wont be long before another, worse, much worse hit happens.

Can't argue with any of that. But I do think the NRL sets too low a benchmark on what players need to do to avoid high contact, late contact etc. Too much is being allowed that I don't think is necessary. The game is hard. It will be no less hard if they rub out high shots by penalising them more harshly - message to players, aim a bit lower. Same with late shots, there are many per game that are absolutely avoidable. Most are not damaging but they are still unnecessary and avoidable, so should be penalised out of the game.

My major hate about NRL officiating is that referees, rather than demanding players meet a standard, continually lower the standard they ask players to meet. They massage penalty counts down, not because teams are playing within the rules, but by ignoring clear penalties. And they are selective and inconsistent in doing it. If they just concentrated on officiating to the actual rules, and demanded players not break them, I reckon the game would be much better off. As is stands, the officiating actively encourage cheating because teams know that refs will give up penalising them sooner rather than later in a game. And the successful teams push the limits more than the less successful ones. Seriously if the refs were doing their job, Melbourne would concede 50 penalties a game and invariably have half a dozen sin binned per game. I reckon the game would be well served by a few rounds of refs blowing every single penalty they can find. A few weeks of 50-45 penalty counts would be worth it to completely change how the game is played and what is rewarded.

Great post. But it's never going to happen. The NRL wants fast, free flowing football. The onus is on the clubs and their coaches to figure out how to play within the evolving interpretations.

The good coaches go a step further and spend plenty of time finding little gaps in the officiating they think they can exploit. Melbourne have been at the forefront for more than a decade. Maybe because Bellamy is a cheat or maybe because Bellamy understands the NRL's mindset and is pushing the boundaries because that's one of the few places sides can gain an advantage.

Unfortunately, We don't have a good coach. We have a coach who is more concerned with justifying his position to Don and the board than getting results. He's a whiny little **** who needs to drop the victimhood rubbish and step aside for someone with the brains to coach in the current era.

Rugby League is a game of 1000 little contests. The side that wins these little battles usually wins the game. Until we have a coach with the ability to strategise a way to win these little contests with the talent he has at his disposal we will continue to struggle. Last year the interpretations and the opposition strategies weren't good enough to contain us but while our big boys were pretending to be boxers or enjoying an extended holiday, the rest of the competition were watching footage and practicing. They were identifying areas the refs weren't policing and figuring out how best to combat our style.

If Sticky had half the coaching skills of Bellamy he would have expected sides to catch on. It's not like it's anything new. Austin was crushing sides in 2015, but in 2016 every side had done their homework. They realised by assuming Austin was going to run and defending accordingly they could completely shut him down. Austin didn't develop his game to combat the extra attention and has been a shadow of his 2015 self ever since. Raiders 2017 are like Austin since 2015. We don't know what to do. The talent is still there but the coach is out of ideas and is looking for someone or something to blame.

Yep, really good post GEM. Bang on.

[Woodgers]

I just don't think a player should be sent from the field if you can't be sure the actual incident is deliberate foul play. The fact that Slater was slipping and the images posted are conclusive that he was when he was hit makes it pretty difficult for the officials to say that is was a deliberate act of foul play. The more alarming thing was that it was late and the images we have don't look good but like a lot of things in the game when things are moving at full speed it looks very different to still images.

People have said what if it was Bromwich on Cotric and I say the same thing. If Cotric is slipping it's difficult to conclusively say that it is a deliberate act to hit a bloke in the head when his head wouldn't have been there otherwise.

The 'human' factors associated with incidents like this are likely to influence the outcome. If say Tapine was the tackler there, i'd be more suspicious that it was a deliberate act. I think the refs get to know the players a bit, say a few years ago if Jamie Lyon say catches a bloke high the refs are probably going to be more lenient than if Matai does it over the other side of the field, because they pick up on the players over time. Sia seems like one of the least likely blokes in the NRL to deliberately hit someone in the head, i'd pick virtually every one in our side to have a brain snap before him.

I think it was Nickman who said it probably deserves some weeks regardless because it is reckless. Again I wouldn't normally put Sia Soliola and reckless in the same sentence but this is where we've landed. The NRL has always been a reactive rather than proactive organisation, if they can react to something and make an example they probably will and we're hardly at the top of their Christmas card list so they won't be doing us any favours like they would if this was an important player during the Origin series. It is what it is and sitting Sia down for a fair stint ticks that box about appeasing concerned Mums and trying to drive participation.

Out of all this my biggest fury is at Tony Archer. Surely he isn't allowed to do what he has done and basically influence the judiciary before the trial has even occurred. That's not his space and he should know better than making a statement because now the NRL have no choice but to treat the matter as a send off offence despite what evidence the defence may bring. That's an utter disgrace. I'm not the type to write grievance letters but I feel like writing to Greenberg about this. The thing is though that I'd be completely wasting my time and even if he agreed he wouldn't do anything so even as a paying customer I feel absolutely helpless to even be heard on the matter. As an aside Archer is doing an awful job, the standard of officiating across the board is pathetic. Watching him bumble and weasel the explanation of some of the calls that are made is a sight to behold, it's like a parody.

[Botman]

Enough with the deliberate stuff
As per the rule book... which I consider to be a pretty solid source on the matter

A player can be sent off if the play is reckless or careless

In terms of a send off it actually doesn't matter one iota if it was deliberate, and again that's according to the actual laws of the game

[Raidersfan]

^^^
Good post Woodgers .. agree.

Slater falling dramatically in the space of a meter, Sia's arms no higher than Slaters ribs, fast pace action where Slater is known to change directions, a high profile player being concussed and Sia is all of a sudden committed murder due to Archer's intervention.

[Raidersfan]

Enough with the deliberate stuff
As per the rule book... which I consider to be a pretty solid source on the matter

A player can be sent off if the play is reckless or careless

In terms of a send off it actually doesn't matter one iota if it was deliberate, and again that's according to the actual laws of the game

According to the rule book a player shall be called offside if he starts within the 10m zone from the ruck.

[greeneyed]

Interesting shots from @addman72 on Twitter. Certainly doesn't look like a player intentionally aiming for a head high tackle. Careless or reckless perhaps, but not intentional.


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[dubby]

Yeah it was late.
Yeah it was high.
Yeah Slater was falling.

But.
Referees Boss singling it out before the Match Review Committee reviews it.
Media carrying on like Slater is dead.
Referred straight to the judiciary - when foes that ever happen?

It's a deadset stitch up, purely because it was that cat Slater involved.

If that was Aiden Sezer would any of these media types paid as much attention or been as adamant in their opinion?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Woodgers]

Enough with the deliberate stuff
As per the rule book... which I consider to be a pretty solid source on the matter

A player can be sent off if the play is reckless or careless

In terms of a send off it actually doesn't matter one iota if it was deliberate, and again that's according to the actual laws of the game

Mate this is part of the problem. You're trying to point score in an argument based on 'rigid' rulings that can't always apply to a game where you are going to get grey areas sometimes. What does reckless and careless even mean in the context of a bloke with a whistle because both words are open massively to interpretation?

The best officials in any sport police the rules but use their better judgement in the grey space. They have to because it's the only way.

Now I'm not even going to pretend that I have my referee qualifications or have even reffed a junior game, but I'm telling you that if I was a referee I'm not sending a player from the field where I can't be sure he's intentionally stepped outside the bounds of the rules. It's a contact sport, players are going to get injured and most do through processes within the laws of the game each week that have nothing to do with interpretation.

[Raidersfan]

^^^
those pics indicate first contact just above Slaters elbow. I would not even classed this as careless or reckless .. it is a pure accident primarily due to Slater having dipped below the usual target area .. it happened in less than a second from releasing the ball.

What astounds me is how some Raiders supporters can join the media circus and crucify Sia.

[The Nickman]

I still maintain that it shouldn't have been a send-off because Slater was falling, however he should get 4-6 weeks because it was late, high, a swinging arm, it knocked Billy Slater out and he played no further part in the match!!

[Raidersfan]

I still maintain that it shouldn't have been a send-off because Slater was falling, however he should get 4-6 weeks because it was late, high, a swinging arm, it knocked Billy Slater out and he played no further part in the match!!

The evidence clearly shows it is not high nor a swinging arm. You can argue the lateness but if you review it you will see why CH9 will only show the slow-mo .. it happened in less than a second.

[raiderskater]

Yeah it was late.
Yeah it was high.
Yeah Slater was falling.

But.
Referees Boss singling it out before the Match Review Committee reviews it.
Media carrying on like Slater is dead.
Referred straight to the judiciary - when foes that ever happen?

It's a deadset stitch up, purely because it was that cat Slater involved.

If that was Aiden Sezer would any of these media types paid as much attention or been as adamant in their opinion?

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Of course not.

[Woodgers]

I still maintain that it shouldn't have been a send-off because Slater was falling, however he should get 4-6 weeks because it was late, high, a swinging arm, it knocked Billy Slater out and he played no further part in the match!!

But doesn't one cancel out the other at least somewhat? The slip turned it into high and the injury. I'm not 100% convinced it is a swinging arm though, we only use that term when someone is hit in the head but I look at players such as Joel Thompson and he tackles like that 100% of the time. So my point here is do we call it a swinging arm if someone is collected across the chest?

I'm sure the GH has had debates in the past about whether the resulting injury is a factor in the punishment.

[Dr Zaius]

The refs boss speaking out. The MRC refusing to grade it. The media hysteria. It's a good old fashioned witch hunt. This has absolutely nothing to do with it involving a Raiders player and absolutely everything to do with it involving Billy Slater. Anyone who says that different is either lying or has their head up their bum.

[Botman]

Enough with the deliberate stuff
As per the rule book... which I consider to be a pretty solid source on the matter

A player can be sent off if the play is reckless or careless

In terms of a send off it actually doesn't matter one iota if it was deliberate, and again that's according to the actual laws of the game

Mate this is part of the problem. You're trying to point score in an argument based on 'rigid' rulings that can't always apply to a game where you are going to get grey areas sometimes. What does reckless and careless even mean in the context of a bloke with a whistle because both words are open massively to interpretation?

The best officials in any sport police the rules but use their better judgement in the grey space. They have to because it's the only way.

Now I'm not even going to pretend that I have my referee qualifications or have even reffed a junior game, but I'm telling you that if I was a referee I'm not sending a player from the field where I can't be sure he's intentionally stepped outside the bounds of the rules. It's a contact sport, players are going to get injured and most do through processes within the laws of the game each week that have nothing to do with interpretation.

Point scoring? Im just telling you the actual rules! haha
You cant say it's not a send off because it's not deliberate when the rules specifically dictate it doesnt need to be deliberate to be a send off. That's not point scoring, it's facts.

The you're telling if you were a referee you're not sending a player from the field where you can't be sure he's intentionally stepped outside the bounds of the rules doesn't actually change that fact. What you or I would or wouldnt do, given neither of us are accredited officials, nor have we reffed even a mini league game isn't particularly relevant to what options were available to the official.

Grey area's do exist and officials do have to use their judgement, that's fine. The referee's job here is to use that judgement and officiate the game within the confines of the laws of the game.
In this instance, there isnt a lot of grey area to be honest. It's a very late, swinging arm, that makes clear contact with the head/neck area.
It's a penalty, it's on report and the the judgement comes in to deciding whether it was worthy of a send off. Forget about it being deliberate or not, that it wasnt deliberate doesnt mean he cant be sent.

So the send off is in play, in spite of the fact it wasn't deliberate.
So now you just look at the incident and ask was the referee's judgement this incident was not worthy of a send off correct? And based on what i've seen, if you're a Raiders fans you've got about a 50% of thinking that was bad judgement. If you're not a Raiders fan that figure probably swells to much closer to 90+% who think the referee exercised poor judgement not to send off Sia.

So i think that probably tells a bit of a story. If the vast majority (and whether it's 75%, 80%, 90% or what ever, we can all surely agree the vast majority feel it was a send off) of bums on seats feel it was a send off, then i tend to think they've got it right (especially since that's exactly how i felt when i first saw it), over those with a... ahem... vested interest in arguing against a send off

[dubby]

I expected a send off.

What's irritating me more is the intense media beat up and hyperbole of people on both sides.

He'll go for 4 weeks

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

I still maintain that it shouldn't have been a send-off because Slater was falling, however he should get 4-6 weeks because it was late, high, a swinging arm, it knocked Billy Slater out and he played no further part in the match!!

The evidence clearly shows it is not high nor a swinging arm. You can argue the lateness but if you review it you will see why CH9 will only show the slow-mo .. it happened in less than a second.

Well it was high, it smacked him around the head and knocked him out!

[Raidersfan]

The refs boss speaking out. The MRC refusing to grade it. The media hysteria. It's a good old fashioned witch hunt. This has absolutely nothing to do with it involving a Raiders player and absolutely everything to do with it involving Billy Slater. Anyone who says that different is either lying or has their head up their bum.

Absolutely .. the chances of Sia getting a fair hearing is near zero. He will be charged on the basis of appeasing Archer, CH9 and the rest of the media circus (and a few on this forum).

[The Nickman]

I still maintain that it shouldn't have been a send-off because Slater was falling, however he should get 4-6 weeks because it was late, high, a swinging arm, it knocked Billy Slater out and he played no further part in the match!!

But doesn't one cancel out the other at least somewhat? The slip turned it into high and the injury. I'm not 100% convinced it is a swinging arm though, we only use that term when someone is hit in the head but I look at players such as Joel Thompson and he tackles like that 100% of the time. So my point here is do we call it a swinging arm if someone is collected across the chest?

I'm sure the GH has had debates in the past about whether the resulting injury is a factor in the punishment.

It cancels it out somewhat, but the rules for the better part of two decades have put the onus on the tackler to not hit the ball-player high, regardless of whether they're slipping. I think the fact he's slipping will help the defence somewhat, but to the extent he gets 4-6 rather than 8-10.

And as for the injury affecting the punishment debate, we've definitely had this debate and I remain staunch in my opinion that it should absolutely have an impact on the ruling. Just like if I run someone over in my car, it's an entirely different offence if I kill them, whether it's an accident or not. The same should apply to foul play, and I'm fairly certain it does.

[The Nickman]

The refs boss speaking out. The MRC refusing to grade it. The media hysteria. It's a good old fashioned witch hunt. This has absolutely nothing to do with it involving a Raiders player and absolutely everything to do with it involving Billy Slater. Anyone who says that different is either lying or has their head up their bum.

Absolutely .. the chances of Sia getting a fair hearing is near zero. He will be charged on the basis of appeasing Archer, CH9 and the rest of the media circus (and a few on this forum).

Really?? They're going to throw the book at Sia based on the opinion of Pig and myself??

Well I never!!

[dubby]

Also, the reaction from archer is unprofessional. Along with other offenses which haven't earned the ire of this one.

All in all its just another occasion of how amateur the nrl can be

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk