Hudson Young suspended for eight weeks

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

kona_dream
Glenn Lazarus
Posts: 307
Joined: May 13, 2010, 2:31 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by kona_dream » September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm

greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:34 pm
@danginnane on Twitter

Prosecution recommends Hudson Young be handed a 10-12 week ban (1000-1200 pts) for an intentional gouge.

Up to panel to decide if it was careless, reckless or intentional.
With loading etc that would be like 20 weeks.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44656
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by The Nickman » September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm

Azza wrote:10-12 weeks he's probably gotten off lightly, IMHO
It’s exactly what I’ve said from the word go.

Now excuse me while I Shadowboxer my way out of here for the night.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm

10-12 weeks is the right, fair and consistant number give this seasons events
i hope in 2020 this type of thing is punished more harshly
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

Danaman137
David Grant
Posts: 722
Joined: February 29, 2016, 8:09 pm
Favourite Player: Clinton Schifcofske
Location: Canberra

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Danaman137 » September 10, 2019, 9:37 pm

cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:32 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:26 pm
Billy Walker wrote:That’s a poor outcome!
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
Ahahaha. So you’d rather the judiciary say “better luck next time kiddo, get back out there and give it another go, we’ll ping you then”. Jesus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:38 pm

kona_dream wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm
greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:34 pm
@danginnane on Twitter

Prosecution recommends Hudson Young be handed a 10-12 week ban (1000-1200 pts) for an intentional gouge.

Up to panel to decide if it was careless, reckless or intentional.
With loading etc that would be like 20 weeks.
I dont know 100% but with a direct referral i dont believe loading etc applies
they hand out punishment based on the incident itself and the facts of the case... if they come back with 12 weeks, it'll be 12, not 12+ loading
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
GreenMachine
Clinton Schifcofske
Posts: 516
Joined: April 13, 2005, 2:22 pm
Favourite Player: Laurie Daley

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by GreenMachine » September 10, 2019, 9:40 pm

T_R wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:35 pm
PigRickman wrote:
T_R wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:26 pm
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.

I also think Young is an utter idiot.

Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
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.

Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
The two statements can be mutually exclusive.

I don’t understand how anyone (apart from an ex footballer sitting on a panel) could insist otherwise.

It doesn’t excuse Hudson’s stupidity, just shows how grossly incompetent and inconsistent the process is.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 9:41 pm

How is this one deemed to be twice as bad as the Gurgess one when the recipient didn’t even notice it.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

kona_dream
Glenn Lazarus
Posts: 307
Joined: May 13, 2010, 2:31 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by kona_dream » September 10, 2019, 9:41 pm

PigRickman wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:38 pm
kona_dream wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm
greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:34 pm
@danginnane on Twitter

Prosecution recommends Hudson Young be handed a 10-12 week ban (1000-1200 pts) for an intentional gouge.

Up to panel to decide if it was careless, reckless or intentional.
With loading etc that would be like 20 weeks.
I dont know 100% but with a direct referral i dont believe loading etc applies
they hand out punishment based on the incident itself and the facts of the case... if they come back with 12 weeks, it'll be 12, not 12+ loading
Yes the panel has asked for a 10-12 week ban including loading. The post above said 1000 - 1200 point which is a very different charge.
I just cannot for the life of me see how this is anywhere near as bad as Burgess on Wobbie.

User avatar
GreenMachine
Clinton Schifcofske
Posts: 516
Joined: April 13, 2005, 2:22 pm
Favourite Player: Laurie Daley

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by GreenMachine » September 10, 2019, 9:42 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:41 pm
How is this one deemed to be twice as bad as the Gurgess one when the recipient didn’t even notice it.
That would require trying to understand how the this loaded process works.
Beyond my qualifications.

cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11185
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by cat » September 10, 2019, 9:43 pm

Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:37 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:32 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:26 pm


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
Ahahaha. So you’d rather the judiciary say “better luck next time kiddo, get back out there and give it another go, we’ll ping you then”. Jesus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.

The judiciary should just focus on each case individually and the facts and the facts show there is no way he actually made contact with his eye

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 9:43 pm

GreenMachine wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:42 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:41 pm
How is this one deemed to be twice as bad as the Gurgess one when the recipient didn’t even notice it.
That would require trying to understand how the this loaded process works.
Beyond my qualifications.
Also consider he did the same thing McGuire only got a fine for.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 129259
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by greeneyed » September 10, 2019, 9:44 pm

NRL counsel is suggesting a penalty range between 10 and 12 games – including loading from his previous charges, depending on whether the panel finds Young's conduct reckless or highly careless.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/09/10/jud ... ng--evans/
Image

Danaman137
David Grant
Posts: 722
Joined: February 29, 2016, 8:09 pm
Favourite Player: Clinton Schifcofske
Location: Canberra

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Danaman137 » September 10, 2019, 9:44 pm

cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:37 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:32 pm
cat wrote: 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
Ahahaha. So you’d rather the judiciary say “better luck next time kiddo, get back out there and give it another go, we’ll ping you then”. Jesus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.

The judiciary should just focus on each case individually and the facts and the facts show there is no way he actually made contact with his eye
That’s ridiculous. The bloke has been caught 3 times. You can’t let him run around unpunished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kona_dream
Glenn Lazarus
Posts: 307
Joined: May 13, 2010, 2:31 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by kona_dream » September 10, 2019, 9:44 pm

If I remember Burgess, he had prior recent Eye gouge charge and previous non related offences and was a hell of a lot worse than this one.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 129259
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by greeneyed » September 10, 2019, 9:45 pm

@mrchrisnico on Twitter

Nick Ghabar says ‘very top range’ penalty for Hudson Young should be no more than NINE MATCHES ...
Image

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:45 pm

T_R wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:35 pm
PigRickman wrote:
T_R wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:26 pm
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.

I also think Young is an utter idiot.

Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
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.

Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Then perhaps we should have hired you. You and I can and will argue almost anything. By the panel isnt obliged to buy our Bull, however well it's presented.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 9:46 pm

greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:45 pm
@mrchrisnico on Twitter

Nick Ghabar says ‘very top range’ penalty for Hudson Young should be no more than NINE MATCHES ...
Which is exactly what Gurgess got for a far worse eye gouge. They have a very solid argument on that one.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:46 pm

The club itself is begging for 9 matches.

Game. Set. Match.

Those arguing for a not guilty can hold the L haha

FWIW, given the above post by NR, if G.Burgii got 9, i'd be ok with Young getting 9 too. This has always felt to me as a like for like sort of case.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

Bay53
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5635
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Bay53 » September 10, 2019, 9:48 pm

PigRickman wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:46 pm
The club itself is begging for 9 matches.

Game. Set. Match.

Those arguing for a not guilty can hold the L haha
I think there is a difference. Once he is found guilty he was always going to get a hefty suspension.

Doesn’t mean he wasn’t close to being not guilty.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:48 pm

FYI, this is why the Roosters said no to not letting us go first!
No chance any of you would sign up to let someone jump the **** que and hold you you 2 hours!! haha
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:49 pm

Bay53 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:48 pm
PigRickman wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:46 pm
The club itself is begging for 9 matches.

Game. Set. Match.

Those arguing for a not guilty can hold the L haha
I think there is a difference. Once he is found guilty he was always going to get a hefty suspension.

Doesn’t mean he wasn’t close to being not guilty.
Yeah... OK. That's a very fair counter.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11185
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by cat » September 10, 2019, 9:49 pm

Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:44 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:37 pm
cat wrote:
Danaman137 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:32 pm


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
Ahahaha. So you’d rather the judiciary say “better luck next time kiddo, get back out there and give it another go, we’ll ping you then”. Jesus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.

The judiciary should just focus on each case individually and the facts and the facts show there is no way he actually made contact with his eye
That’s ridiculous. The bloke has been caught 3 times. You can’t let him run around unpunished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He isnt going "unpunished" , as I said I am sure Ricky and the coaching staff will have plans for young Young to do and things he needs to prove before he is let anywhere near a first grade jumper again.

But he should not be made an example of or heavily suspended based on the evidence in this case, its that simple. The video shows his hand near Pompey's eye , it also shows Pompey not react, as I said get someone to grab your eye socket and see how you react, Pompey wouldn't have been expecting it so he would of reacted even more then you.

User avatar
Azza
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6865
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Azza » September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm

Think it's a fair outcome. Also can I say Brett Finch is a lousy commentator, was an average player and his hysteria at the time was completely over the top.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 129259
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by greeneyed » September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm

@timrobinsonfox on Twitter

Deliberating:
NRL Councel requests Intentional charge and 10-12 week suspension.
Nick Ghabar says Hudson Young’s contact was careless and low level 5-6weeks.
George Burgess tackle referred too by both parties, so was Young’s previous offence.
@FOXSportsNews #NRL  @RaidersCanberra
Image

User avatar
GreenMachine
Clinton Schifcofske
Posts: 516
Joined: April 13, 2005, 2:22 pm
Favourite Player: Laurie Daley

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by GreenMachine » September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm

The club will try to get less than 9.
What other options are there now that the Kangaroo Court ruled as advised.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:52 pm

Azza wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm
Think it's a fair outcome. Also can I say Brett Finch is a lousy commentator, was an average player and his hysteria at the time was completely over the top.
the witch took care of him, he'll retire without a legitimate championship.
God bless her.
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 9:55 pm

greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm
@timrobinsonfox on Twitter

Deliberating:
NRL Councel requests Intentional charge and 10-12 week suspension.
Nick Ghabar says Hudson Young’s contact was careless and low level 5-6weeks.
George Burgess tackle referred too by both parties, so was Young’s previous offence.
@FOXSportsNews #NRL  @RaidersCanberra
The Gurgess incident has effectively set the standard IMO. Repeat offender referred straight to the judiciary gets 9 weeks. Do it again and you can sit out 12 months.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11185
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by cat » September 10, 2019, 9:55 pm

PigRickman wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:52 pm
Azza wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm
Think it's a fair outcome. Also can I say Brett Finch is a lousy commentator, was an average player and his hysteria at the time was completely over the top.
the witch took care of him, he'll retire without a legitimate championship.
God bless her.
I wonder what the witch is up to now, a few players could do with her magic.....

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10413
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Toviii » September 10, 2019, 9:55 pm

Image
I don't know, his eye look pretty sore here
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 9:56 pm

Toviii wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:55 pm
Image
I don't know, his eye look pretty sore here
Both eyes are closed. Maybe he got the other one too
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26501
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Botman » September 10, 2019, 9:57 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:55 pm
greeneyed wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:51 pm
@timrobinsonfox on Twitter

Deliberating:
NRL Councel requests Intentional charge and 10-12 week suspension.
Nick Ghabar says Hudson Young’s contact was careless and low level 5-6weeks.
George Burgess tackle referred too by both parties, so was Young’s previous offence.
@FOXSportsNews #NRL  @RaidersCanberra
The Gurgess incident has effectively set the standard IMO. Repeat offender referred straight to the judiciary gets 9 weeks. Do it again and you can sit out 12 months.

Yeah i think that's a really fair and balanced point. Hudson does go in a second time, so it wont shock me to see it slightly higher, but 9 vs 10 isnt a game changer for me, anything more than 12 is probably wrong based on precident. I think 9 is the right answer
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
edwahu
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19264
Joined: January 13, 2005, 5:22 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by edwahu » September 10, 2019, 9:57 pm

The 10-12 weeks includes a 100% loading suggested by the NRL Counsel. Apparently it's optional in this scenario.

I actually don't think it's a 6 week penalty on the offence alone, at least relative to others. I mean his last one was a lot worse.

Bay53
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5635
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Bay53 » September 10, 2019, 9:59 pm

Disappointing. He might not have been the first choice this week but realistically over a 3-4 week finals campaign we are probably going to lose someone and he would have got a run.

cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11185
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by cat » September 10, 2019, 10:01 pm

and meanwhile Kane Evans has fallen asleep..........

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23932
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary

Post by Northern Raider » September 10, 2019, 10:02 pm

Bay53 wrote:
September 10, 2019, 9:59 pm
Disappointing. He might not have been the first choice this week but realistically over a 3-4 week finals campaign we are probably going to lose someone and he would have got a run.
Yeah but we have Guler and Havili to call on as well. We’re OK to cover his loss.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

Post Reply