Raidersteve wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:20 pm
So you are trying to suggest that his sole intention in that tackle was all about attacking the eyes rather than trying to stop a try being scored by trying to get under the player to hold him up.
I am suggesting he made a deliberate and concerted effort to attack the eyes after a try was scored, yes.
His success or failure after making that decision matters little to me.
Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
Just like it's hard to claim domestic violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Just like it's hard to claim organised gang violance if the 'victim' denies it.
Except in this case, there is video evidence. The 'victim' can say what he likes, especially when he's clearly stated he's not about that snitching life... the evidence presented will overcome that.
If you're using that standard of proof, Pompey would be pretty much required to have both eyes rolling around in the ingoal area still.
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.
TongueFTW wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:22 pm
Correct decision. Now we need to ensure it doesn’t distract the players, Young wouldn’t have been playing this weekend anyway.
Yeah i dont think this impacts the team, the focus now should be getting into the kid and figuring out how and why this is his nature and trying to help him correct it
He's got a lot of talent, he can play in this league for a long time, and earn a good lot of money, and set him and his (future?) family up.... but he wont last long doing this ****. He's got to get it out of his game and repair his reputation as much as he can
GreenMachine wrote:Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
They could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.
I think it looked dreadful on video, but I think the defence made a good case.
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.
The death knell was the leading question asked of pompey:”should what happens on the field stay on the field?”, to which he replied “yes”...
He was lead straight into an implicit admission that there was wrongdoing but it should be left on the field.
I’d have got him off, Ghabar is a charlatan
GreenMachine wrote:Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
They could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.
I think it looked dreadful on video, but I think the defence made a good case.
Johno wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:28 pm
First view it looked bad, after watching and hearing from the "victim" it still wasnt great but not as bad as first thought.
What is as bad as ever is the damn inconsistency, and again we are on the rough end.
Cotric suspended jurbo stuff all.
Burgess on Farah, Farah reacted, needed treatment HY gets...about the same? We will see
Im hoping this fires up the club and we fire massively for the next few weeks.
My gripe exactly.
Hudson is guilty of being stupid, but the NRL is guilty of being unprofessional.
The inconsistency in the system is laughable.
GreenMachine wrote:Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
They could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.
I think it looked dreadful on video, but I think the defence made a good case.
from all accounts they mounted an extremely good case... the video is the video though and when the victim basically gets on the stand and says "snitches get stiches" whatever he's got to say about the incident gets, rightfully IMO, ignored.
"McGrath argues it points to the need for suspension to act as deterrence to both Young and other players." No it needs to be based on the facts of the case and similar charges (including fines).
GreenMachine wrote:Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
They could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.
I think it looked dreadful on video, but I think the defence made a good case.
from all accounts they mounted an extremely good case... the video is the video though and when the victim basically gets on the stand and says "snitches get stiches" whatever he's got to say about the incident gets, rightfully IMO, ignored.
100%. I like Hudson but he was never getting off here.
No it’s not. The video evidence is clear. We can’t have this **** in the game. Clear intent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let me "grab your eye socket" and show me that you dont react!
The video shows his hands in the area of the eye, it also shows Pompey not reacting. Video footage and photos can be misleading.
Is the dress blue or silver? was it a crow or a rabbit?
I didn’t say he connected. I said he had intent.. he had 2 clear goes at it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
but he has been found guilty of actually doing it, not having intent, you get found guilty of doing something which in this case i dont believe he actually did do it, yes he may have had intent to do it but he didnt actually do it.
players have stayed on the field because they swung a punch and it missed, they intended to do it but were just bad at it, same here
GreenMachine wrote:Well this means that victims evidence is worthless.
What’s the point of the process? Just determine sentence post match and save everyone a Tuesday night late shift.
They could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.
I think it looked dreadful on video, but I think the defence made a good case.
from all accounts they mounted an extremely good case... the video is the video though and when the victim basically gets on the stand and says "snitches get stiches" whatever he's got to say about the incident gets, rightfully IMO, ignored.
I'd argue that there is no inconsistency between Pompey's two statements and both are equally true.
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.
