Well the alleged journalist Neil Breen on 100% Footy just described an unknown number of charges as "grievous" bodily harm... so with that amount of careful attention to detail in the reporting, why would anyone listen to the fake news.... in fact, is this misreporting some sort of defamation?
greeneyed wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 10:30 pm
On 100% Footy... some bloke is saying that the suspension is likely 6-10 weeks. The “some bloke” is the bloke on the panel no one has ever heard of.
By the sounds the Raiders want six, the NRL want 10. Depends on the court proceedings this week.
I find it absolutely insane we are arguing over Jack being able to play the last 3 matches of the season where by then there's a good chance we'll be mathematically out of finals contention..
All getting a softer suspension will do is create a public backlash that will probably result in a punishment longer than the original one...
greeneyed wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 10:30 pm
On 100% Footy... some bloke is saying that the suspension is likely 6-10 weeks. The “some bloke” is the bloke on the panel no one has ever heard of.
By the sounds the Raiders want six, the NRL want 10. Depends on the court proceedings this week.
Lui_Bon wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 10:33 pm
Well the alleged journalist Neil Breen on 100% Footy just described an unknown number of charges as "grievous" bodily harm... so with that amount of careful attention to detail in the reporting, why would anyone listen to the fake news.... in fact, is this misreporting some sort of defamation?
greeneyed wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 10:30 pm
On 100% Footy... some bloke is saying that the suspension is likely 6-10 weeks. The “some bloke” is the bloke on the panel no one has ever heard of.
By the sounds the Raiders want six, the NRL want 10. Depends on the court proceedings this week.
I find it absolutely insane we are arguing over Jack being able to play the last 3 matches of the season where by then there's a good chance we'll be mathematically out of finals contention..
All getting a softer suspension will do is create a public backlash that will probably result in a punishment longer than the original one...
Agreed. But it might be a way of ensuring it isn’t extended beyond ten weeks. Sometimes you’ve got to fake like a soft punishment is hard to avoid the judges going harder. I used to do that all the time as a kid.
Wasn’t the recent plea early? That would indicate the club is trying to ensure he doesn’t miss any games next year, which also makes sense.
I just can’t believe we’re talking in weeks and not months for charges this serious.
greeneyed wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 10:30 pm
On 100% Footy... some bloke is saying that the suspension is likely 6-10 weeks. The “some bloke” is the bloke on the panel no one has ever heard of.
By the sounds the Raiders want six, the NRL want 10. Depends on the court proceedings this week.
I find it absolutely insane we are arguing over Jack being able to play the last 3 matches of the season where by then there's a good chance we'll be mathematically out of finals contention..
All getting a softer suspension will do is create a public backlash that will probably result in a punishment longer than the original one...
Agreed. But it might be a way of ensuring it isn’t extended beyond ten weeks. Sometimes you’ve got to fake like a soft punishment is hard to avoid the judges going harder. I used to do that all the time as a kid.
Wasn’t the recent plea early? That would indicate the club is trying to ensure he doesn’t miss any games next year, which also makes sense.
I just can’t believe we’re talking in weeks and not months for charges this serious.
By my quick calculations 10 weeks would mean he is eligible for round 1 of next season if we include the Broncos match?
When this whole story broke early in the year I think many would have signed off as 10 matches being a best case scenario.
To be fair, 10 weeks is almost half a season so in that sense you sorta are talking about months. I mean it means he wouldn't be playing footy from July 2018 till what march 2019? A lot can happen in that time, we could find success with another fb and suddenly Jack is fighting to get back into the team anywhere he can fit, which could have a knock on to future earnings etc.
Not saying its not deserved or light, I wouldn't know, having no details of it, but might explain why the club are fighting it.
A player out that long is a big interruption especially when they've only just started to see him play good consistent fb play after "investing" in him at the back for a while now. Maybe they are fighting to get him back earlier so that they he gets a few games in before 2019. Or so they can see him with any new halves pairing etc.
Schifty - yep, I would have taken ten weeks for sure. I’ve heard the footage is nasty.
Archer - I was just thinking about Ferguson’s indecent assault charge which put him out of the game for two years. That was a very serious crime too but the two players’ consequences don’t seem to match.
And, in terms of time of career, Ferguson was on the verge of Origin.
So I had never heard of this 100% Footy show until now... so I I just looked it up and saw who panellists were - Phil Gould, Paul Gallen, whoever the **** this Breen fellow is, Ruan Sims (the Jillaroos "star" who stood down from judging the Dally M after it was discovered she didn't even watch the **** game she was judging)... can someone please explain to me why the **** anyone would watch this?
Ruben Daley wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 11:20 pm
Schifty - yep, I would have taken ten weeks for sure. I’ve heard the footage is nasty.
Archer - I was just thinking about Ferguson’s indecent assault charge which put him out of the game for two years. That was a very serious crime too but the two players’ consequences don’t seem to match.
And, in terms of time of career, Ferguson was on the verge of Origin.
Fair point re Fingers but I guess it depends entirely on the severity and case to case, just like the courts sentencing. I can't say if 10 is enough, too much or too light, just speculating as to why the club would fight it and why 10 is still fairly hefty given the point in the season.
Raiders confident Jack Wighton case won't be a distraction
Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart is adamant the Green Machine can overcome the noise of Jack Wighton's looming court date as they look to keep their season from flatlining.
"It wasn't [a distraction against the Broncos], you saw the way we played," Stuart said.
Yes Sticky. We saw the way the Raiders played. So you expect us to believe that after several years of playing in the No 1 jersey and 15 consecutive matches in the FB position this year, that his absence due to off field actions is 'nothing to see here' for the other players. Delusional.
An honest response would have been, 'we are all aware of Jack's situation, but have faith that Brad Abbey will do the job for us'. To flat out say this is not a distraction is utter BS.
Ruben Daley wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 11:20 pm
Schifty - yep, I would have taken ten weeks for sure. I’ve heard the footage is nasty.
Archer - I was just thinking about Ferguson’s indecent assault charge which put him out of the game for two years. That was a very serious crime too but the two players’ consequences don’t seem to match.
And, in terms of time of career, Ferguson was on the verge of Origin.
Fair point re Fingers but I guess it depends entirely on the severity and case to case, just like the courts sentencing. I can't say if 10 is enough, too much or too light, just speculating as to why the club would fight it and why 10 is still fairly hefty given the point in the season.
Yep, fair call. I suppose I’m putting a lot of stock in some of the descriptions of the footage I’ve heard. But, you’re right, I haven’t seen it so it’s hard to know how severe it is and ten weeks is a big ban compared to what we usually see.
The judge in Con Air held Nicholas Cage’s character to a harsher jail penalty because he was a skilled fighter.
I think we all know that Bruckheimer Penal laws are of higher value than Australian Law.
So BJ Mole reveals that Jack will be sent to Jail before flying out to the NRL launch with Paul Cyrus the Virus Gallen and Cameron Smith in Hannibal Lector restraints.
Maybe it is a strategy to ask for less so that the 10 weeks doesn't stretch any further but if not it shows how delusional we are as a club that we'd be up there at HQ plotting whether he'd be available for week 1 or 2 of the finals
If we/he is lucky enough to basically get off scot free and he just misses the back end of 2018 then we have no complaints. Even if he was available the final 1 or 2 rounds it probably wouldn't be worth playing him anyway.
We continue to **** about with blokes that are part of some fraternity. It's infuriating.
Maybe this is where Don Furner truly adds value. I suspect we will never really know how significant the altercation was and certainly won't see the footage. Lots of good media around Jack and what he's doing with PCYC. Strong support for Jack from influential reporters and solid reporting of how NRL as burnt the Raiders in the past. When this first broke it looked grim but I'd say there has been a very successful clean up and PR job here. Not saying I'm comfortable with it, but maybe Jack should be buying his CEO a beer.
It would be the first successful PR job of Don’s career
Even as a man who feels Don is probably not as bad as some make it out to be (though I am firmly in the he’s gotta go camp now), PR has always been one of his biggest flaws
Pigman wrote: ↑July 3, 2018, 1:51 pm
It would be the first successful PR job of Don’s career
Even as a man who feels Don is probably not as bad as some make it out to be (though I am firmly in the he’s gotta go camp now), PR has always been one of his biggest flaws
I'm in the 'time to go Don' camp as well, but I do wonder if there is a significant amount he does that we rightly can't see. It's easy for a CEO to bask in the glory of a successful membership drive or a sponsorship coup, but if there is a pile of work to bury a nasty story or hide some skeletons it isn't visible to the public and is never revealed.
I suspect Jack will cop a ban and regardless what it is, we can speculate all we wish, but we will never truly know if he has been treated with dreadfully harsh hand or if he was kissed by a fairy to still have a career.
Someone mentioned earlier about pleading guilty if its self defence....interesting.
If Jack assaulted some guys for no real reason..he deserves serious punishment.
But if he was acting in self defence and cleaned them up as hes a fit aggressive athlete, minor punishment.
If he went on with the punch up after the guys were done, not good.
What if the guys he was involved with bashed Jack, he dished out punishment but ended up knocked out and taken to hospital. He probably plays against the Broncos and misses no games?
If it were self defence, then there would have been grounds for not guilty pleas. I would have thought self defence isn’t really relevant with guilty pleas... but I’m sure the lawyers on the site could clarify.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
No he resigned, after what i thought was a pretty outrageous witch hunt for what was... an embarrassing incident no doubt but ultimately not a major crime.
I dont think the way he was treated by the media and NRL has aged well. I actually give credit to our club for that, they rightly stood by him as long as they could before the PR aspect became too much to bear.
I mean as a father i'd rather my son come home to tell me he got drunk and had a dog lick peanut butter off his balls for a bit of a lark than to hear he's assaulted 3 blokes, or got done DUI, or committed any form of DV. I dont think what happened to Monnas was fair... but as i always say, fair is a place they judge pigs. Life isnt always fair
Re: Wighton, like GE, im not lawyer but if there was a genuine case for self defence, hard to imagine they wouldnt have played that card looking for a not guilty. The fact they took a guilty plea suggests to me there is no element of self defence in this.
But again, not a lawyer, have not seen the footage and my legal expertise comes from binge watching Boston Legal once a year.
Last edited by Botman on July 3, 2018, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I thought it was pretty well known that Monaghan jumped before the NRL pushed? The Raiders didn't want to but the NRL said "do it or we'll do it for you".
And that's why I was so furious at Pearce's soft suspension.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
He didn’t break any law at the time in the ACT as I recall, but it would have been breaking the law in NSW and the ACT was going to change the law in line with NSW from memory.
greeneyed wrote: ↑July 2, 2018, 7:04 pm
Paul Kent on NRL360 saying the NRL want Jack suspended for 10 weeks, which the Raiders are resisting.
Kent also saying the guilty pleas are indeed a deal with the prosecution (for those claiming there’s no deal... there’s the answer), and part of the deal is the CCTV vision won’t be tendered into evidence. So the only way it will ever hit the media is it is illegally leaked.
Don't we have only 9 matches left?
With the season over we'd be insane not to take this deal. Can probably count one of the trial matches as a suspension as well.
10 matches includes the Broncos game.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
