Hudson Young suspended for eight weeks

[Northern Raider]

Good grief, he’s talking to himself again, isn’t he?

Who are you talking to?

[yeh raiders]

Good grief, he’s talking to himself again, isn’t he?

Who are you talking to?

[Billy Walker]

Good grief, he’s talking to himself again, isn’t he?

Who are you talking to?

I’m impressed with Nicks efforts to bring back “good grief” as a thing. Not since Charlie Brown in the Peanuts strip has anyone used the tag line with such commitment!

[zim]

My personal favourite was IHAGF. There's another one with something like 26 letters but I don't have enough of an attention span to

[Seiffert82]

Can't believe he only got 8 weeks.

Whether or not you believe it was unintentional is largely irrelevant. The guy is an idiot for going anywhere near Pompey's eyes. It looked really, really ordinary on replay.

people are paying way too much attention to the way it looked (and their feelings/reaction), and not enough to the logical weight of all the other evidence. This is a typical cognitive bias as we have lots of brain space dedicated to vision, and it looked icky.

But all of the other evidence suggests no gouge. His explanation of trying to hold him up accounts for the visuals (but doesn't seem to match the initial icky feeling, so seems less believable). It was a terrible judiciary decision, from a legal/criminal justice standards viewpoint.

And if he didn't have the prior incident he would never have been found guilty. Which suggests he should never have been found guilty. Prior record helps determine penalty once found guilty. It should not influence verdict.

Sounds reasonable, except for the bit where Young thought it was OK to hold a player up from grounding the ball by sticking his fingers near the bloke's eyes.

I'm sorry, but it's similar to the NRL outlawing players from sliding into tackles with their boots, ala Billy Slater, in an attempt to lodge the ball free from the scorers hands. It's dangerous and it's a terrible look and it's now illegal.

I've never seen a player attempt to hold up the try scorer by shoving his fingers near their eyes. I don't care what the logic is, it's a bad look because it looked pretty **** bad...especially from a player who just got back from a similar suspension.

[Seiffert82]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

[RedRaider]

Boomercm, look at those photos in this thread. What is Young doing wth his right hand?

look at the Cameron Smith photo's from last round. Was he pulling ears?

Again, classic visual bias. And all everyone got at first was the vision and commentators going off in a frenzy. So everyone formed their opinion and said their piece before any other evidence was collected.

Again. I'm not saying I know the truth. Just saying the judiciary did not act anything like a a judiciary should. They all acted like average punters. They obviously get no training or legal grounding.

(fyi - to give some background here... I'm a Dr Clinincal Psychology who has a grounding in the memory research and the fallibility of eye witness testimony. So I'm not that upset as a Raiders fan, but I am upset as a league fan who cares about the principles of judicial decision making. The guilty verdict was embarrassing from a this perspective)

I am not a Doctor (congratulations on that achievement) but I do know that diversion is a classic way to avoid a question. I have been in hundreds of negotiations dealing with contractors over the years and recognize a defensive tactic when I see one. You have simply avoided the question asked: 'What is Young doing with his right hand?' It's likely you really know the obvious answer.

[The Nickman]

My personal favourite was IHAGF. There's another one with something like 26 letters but I don't have enough of an attention span to

IFAMIYWMS

[gerg]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many times people say "it's not his go, he's a good bloke" and he wasn't given a fair trial ... look at those images and the footage of the incident and tell me he's not guilty.
If a player from another club did that to one of our players we would all be screaming for a lengthy suspension.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[zim]

My personal favourite was IHAGF. There's another one with something like 26 letters but I don't have enough of an attention span to

IFAMIYWMS

[The Nickman]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many times people say "it's not his go, he's a good bloke" and he wasn't given a fair trial ... look at those images and the footage of the incident and tell me he's not guilty.
If a player from another club did that to one of our players we would all be screaming for a lengthy suspension.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You also can’t argue it’s not a bloke’s go when it’s his third offence and he clearly has a problem with it.

First offence, yeah maybe, it’s a rush of blood or whatever. But this is a genuine problem. Burying our heads in the sand and blaming the judiciary won’t help us one iota.

[Boomercm]

Boomercm, look at those photos in this thread. What is Young doing wth his right hand?

look at the Cameron Smith photo's from last round. Was he pulling ears?

Again, classic visual bias. And all everyone got at first was the vision and commentators going off in a frenzy. So everyone formed their opinion and said their piece before any other evidence was collected.

Again. I'm not saying I know the truth. Just saying the judiciary did not act anything like a a judiciary should. They all acted like average punters. They obviously get no training or legal grounding.

(fyi - to give some background here... I'm a Dr Clinincal Psychology who has a grounding in the memory research and the fallibility of eye witness testimony. So I'm not that upset as a Raiders fan, but I am upset as a league fan who cares about the principles of judicial decision making. The guilty verdict was embarrassing from a this perspective)

I agree with you Boomercm, but I feel the bigger question here is as a Dr Clinical Psychology do you visit the GH to satisfy your interest in the Raiders or to study some of the posters here? I bet there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to start making sense of some on here....

I had this strange dream last night. I had a few beers with some mates and had an 'engaging debate' about the HY decision. When I got home I got on my favourite fan site and used my work credentials to try and win the very same argument. I woke slightly embarrassed...

[Dr Zaius]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many times people say "it's not his go, he's a good bloke" and he wasn't given a fair trial ... look at those images and the footage of the incident and tell me he's not guilty.
If a player from another club did that to one of our players we would all be screaming for a lengthy suspension.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You also can’t argue it’s not a bloke’s go when it’s his third offence and he clearly has a problem with it.

First offence, yeah maybe, it’s a rush of blood or whatever. But this is a genuine problem. Burying our heads in the sand and blaming the judiciary won’t help us one iota.

I'd definitely say it is his go. His go is gouging eyes.

[Boomercm]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many times people say "it's not his go, he's a good bloke" and he wasn't given a fair trial ... look at those images and the footage of the incident and tell me he's not guilty.
If a player from another club did that to one of our players we would all be screaming for a lengthy suspension.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You also can’t argue it’s not a bloke’s go when it’s his third offence and he clearly has a problem with it.

First offence, yeah maybe, it’s a rush of blood or whatever. But this is a genuine problem. Burying our heads in the sand and blaming the judiciary won’t help us one iota.

Back to a regular argument and away from judicial process...

Two questions:
(1) If he is such a well practised eye gouger, and he was deliberately taking the opportunity to have a double crack at an eye gouge on a completely defenceless player.... why didn't Pompey react in any way? How did he come out of it completely unscathed?

(2) In the souths game there was some niggle. But the Warriors game was like a dead rubber. We barely gave a sh*t and nor did they. Paps aside, the whole team (including HY) looked disengaged for most of it. Where does the motivation for him to gouge this bloke come from? Especially given its a try so def going to be reviewed... and the obvious consequences with his history.

It makes no sense, aside from HY being a really really really dumb c*nt. I just don't see it. The boys would not have rallied around him like they have if this was the case.

[The Nickman]

Billy, I'm not arguing with you and your alts any further... all the logical and reasonable posters on the Greenhouse agree with me, a whole bunch of people I've never seen even post before this discussion (except Billy) disagree with me. That's all I need to close out this "debate".

[gerg]

We all agree there was dangerous contact to the face, right?

So all we're missing is whether there was contact with the eye in that...




I mean you guys can believe that this action had no contact with the eye that if you want, but i'm not in the business of buying Bull to exonerate a three time eye gouger. The judiciary isn't burdened by some requirement to find the man guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".

in fact as per the NRL judicary Code Of Procedures:
Onus and Standard of Proof

72. In every case, the Judiciary Counsel bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

--

The balance of probability is contact with the eye was made, and it was deliberate and dangerous.
1-2-3 stikes, you're out.

Seriously...you simply can't defend those screenshots.

Hopefully the guy learns his lesson and never does it again.

Exactly. It doesn't matter how many times people say "it's not his go, he's a good bloke" and he wasn't given a fair trial ... look at those images and the footage of the incident and tell me he's not guilty.
If a player from another club did that to one of our players we would all be screaming for a lengthy suspension.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You also can’t argue it’s not a bloke’s go when it’s his third offence and he clearly has a problem with it.

First offence, yeah maybe, it’s a rush of blood or whatever. But this is a genuine problem. Burying our heads in the sand and blaming the judiciary won’t help us one iota.

Back to a regular argument and away from judicial process...

Two questions:
(1) If he is such a well practised eye gouger, and he was deliberately taking the opportunity to have a double crack at an eye gouge on a completely defenceless player.... why didn't Pompey react in any way? How did he come out of it completely unscathed?

(2) In the souths game there was some niggle. But the Warriors game was like a dead rubber. We barely gave a sh*t and nor did they. Paps aside, the whole team (including HY) looked disengaged for most of it. Where does the motivation for him to gouge this bloke come from? Especially given its a try so def going to be reviewed... and the obvious consequences with his history.

It makes no sense, aside from HY being a really really really dumb c*nt. I just don't see it. The boys would not have rallied around him like they have if this was the case.

Who knows, who cares.
How can you look at those images and say to yourself 'it's not worthy of suspension?'

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

It's called trolling gerg, and it's pretty easy to do when you're a master at it.

[gangrenous]

I had this strange dream last night. I had a few beers with some mates and had an 'engaging debate' about the HY decision. When I got home I got on my favourite fan site and used my work credentials to try and win the very same argument. I woke slightly embarrassed...

Shake it off Dr.Boom. You’re alright

(2) In the souths game there was some niggle. But the Warriors game was like a dead rubber. We barely gave a sh*t and nor did they. Paps aside, the whole team (including HY) looked disengaged for most of it. Where does the motivation for him to gouge this bloke come from? Especially given its a try so def going to be reviewed... and the obvious consequences with his history.

It makes no sense, aside from HY being a really really really dumb c*nt. I just don't see it. The boys would not have rallied around him like they have if this was the case.

You might recall Wighton putting a blatant shoulder charge on in a dead rubber too.

[Billy Walker]

Billy, I'm not arguing with you and your alts any further... all the logical and reasonable posters on the Greenhouse agree with me, a whole bunch of people I've never seen even post before this discussion (except Billy) disagree with me. That's all I need to close out this "debate".

You make me laugh Nicko - I’ve got no aliases and have never posted on here under any other name. But in any case why see this as a competition or a battle? I think it’s been a really interesting discussion. The bottom line is HY is serving an 8 week ban and nothing you, me or anyone else says will change that. I’ve think people have put forward some really interesting views on both sides. You, Red, Pig and others have made a strong case that he should have got more and maybe isn’t a great fit with club culture. GE has made some great points about the NRL needing to clean up any attacks on the head or face. I think Dr Boom and others have provided great arguments as to why he should have got off. It’s not a discussion to be won or lost and I don’t think anyone is trolling. Isn’t this how forums are supposed to work? We kick around different views on things we have an interest in to kill time between games?

[Botman]

I think you should shut up.

[The Nickman]

Hey Billy were you at the game tonight? Did you get to catch up with anyone else from the forum? Anybody else able to vouch for you as a person?

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

[gerg]

Hey Billy were you at the game tonight? Did you get to catch up with anyone else from the forum? Anybody else able to vouch for you as a person?

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

Free beer.... I'm Spartacus.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Billy Walker]

Hey Billy were you at the game tonight? Did you get to catch up with anyone else from the forum? Anybody else able to vouch for you as a person?

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

Sounds good to me!

[T_R]

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

It's me. I'm Billy.

[The Nickman]

Hey Billy were you at the game tonight? Did you get to catch up with anyone else from the forum? Anybody else able to vouch for you as a person?

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

Sounds good to me!

Hooray!

[Billy Walker]

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

It's me. I'm Billy.

No I’m Eugene!

[zim]

So do trials and world club challenge count for this?

8 Week suspension
1) Finals Week 1 v Melbourne
2) Finals Week 3 v Souths
3) Grand Final v Roosters
4) World club challenge ?
5) Trial 1
6) Trial 2
7) Round 1 2020
8) Round 2 2020

Returns round 3.

[Botman]

I have vague memories that you can only use 1 trial game to count for suspensions?
I know that was the rule many years ago, may have changed though.

So week 3 or 4 depending on that.

[The Nickman]

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

It's me. I'm Billy.

Haven't I shouted you enough beers already under the "T_R" persona??

[T_R]

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

It's me. I'm Billy.

Haven't I shouted you enough beers already under the "T_R" persona??

I remember buying you some quality craft beer for lunch, then you driving your car into a cement barrier.

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

[The Nickman]

Maybe I’ll see you at the grand final? Happy to shout you beers all night, pal

It's me. I'm Billy.

Haven't I shouted you enough beers already under the "T_R" persona??

I remember buying you some quality craft beer for lunch, then you driving your car into a cement barrier.

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

Exactly. So now we're even.

[greeneyed]

‘Can’t sleep at night’: Canberra Raiders rookie Hudson Young opens up on eye gouge ban

It will be a long NRL off-season for Canberra thinking about what could have been in 2019, but nobody will be working harder than suspended youngster Hudson Young. He was the forgotten man in the grand final last Sunday.

“Missing the games during the season then doing it again, you sit at home and you can’t sleep at night and you’re just thinking what if I didn’t do it,” Young said.

Read more: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 9ed67d917e

[-PJ-]

At least you have your vision...pelican !

[Billy Walker]

Interesting language he used there. Words to the effect I did it then I did it again... hmm

Hope the lad bounces back but he’s an interesting one it seems

[Neeeegz]

If he does it again after all the club and players have rallied behind him, I want him shot out of a cannon. Don't give a **** where he lands.
Hopefully he pulls his head in. It's not part of the game, never has been.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk