Re: Hudson Young referred straight to judiciary
Posted: September 10, 2019, 9:36 pm
The Canberra Raiders Supporters Forum
https://thegh.com.au/forum/
It’s exactly what I’ve said from the word go.Azza wrote:10-12 weeks he's probably gotten off lightly, IMHO
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...cat wrote: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.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:32 pmI didn’t say he connected. I said he had intent.. he had 2 clear goes at it.cat wrote:Let me "grab your eye socket" and show me that you dont react!Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:26 pmNo it’s not. The video evidence is clear. We can’t have this **** in the game. Clear intent.Billy Walker wrote:That’s a poor outcome!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
I dont know 100% but with a direct referral i dont believe loading etc applies
The two statements can be mutually exclusive.T_R wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:35 pmI'd argue that there is no inconsistency between Pompey's two statements and both are equally true.PigRickman wrote: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.T_R wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:26 pmThey could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.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.
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
Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
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.PigRickman wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:38 pmI 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
That would require trying to understand how the this loaded process works.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.
yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:37 pmAhahaha. 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...cat wrote: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.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:32 pmI didn’t say he connected. I said he had intent.. he had 2 clear goes at it.cat wrote:Let me "grab your eye socket" and show me that you dont react!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
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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also consider he did the same thing McGuire only got a fine for.GreenMachine wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:42 pmThat would require trying to understand how the this loaded process works.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.
Beyond my qualifications.
That’s ridiculous. The bloke has been caught 3 times. You can’t let him run around unpunished.cat wrote:yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:37 pmAhahaha. 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...cat wrote: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.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:32 pmI didn’t say he connected. I said he had intent.. he had 2 clear goes at it.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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
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.T_R wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:35 pmI'd argue that there is no inconsistency between Pompey's two statements and both are equally true.PigRickman wrote: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.T_R wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:26 pmThey could just refer it to the video ref and have the suspension underway by halftime.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.
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
Sent from my SM-G975F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I think there is a difference. Once he is found guilty he was always going to get a hefty suspension.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
Yeah... OK. That's a very fair counter.Bay53 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:48 pmI think there is a difference. Once he is found guilty he was always going to get a hefty suspension.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
Doesn’t mean he wasn’t close to being not guilty.
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.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:44 pmThat’s ridiculous. The bloke has been caught 3 times. You can’t let him run around unpunished.cat wrote:yes actually i would, and then leave it up to Ricky and the coaching staff to teach him a lesson the real way.Danaman137 wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:37 pmAhahaha. 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...cat wrote: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.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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.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
I wonder what the witch is up to now, a few players could do with her magic.....PigRickman wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:52 pmthe witch took care of him, he'll retire without a legitimate championship.
God bless her.
Northern Raider wrote: ↑September 10, 2019, 9:55 pmThe 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.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
Yeah but we have Guler and Havili to call on as well. We’re OK to cover his loss.