Why the club need to challenge JWH's charge

[Rooster_6]

you need to get your eyes checked 6

I suppose the proof was in the pudding - early guilty plea taken, out for 5 weeks

Taking an early guilty plea is more often than not a realisation of the difficulty in getting a charge downgraded & weighing up of the consequences of a longer suspension if you fail.

If you think that proves guilt then you're very naive.

[Guest]

Taking an early guilty plea is more often than not a realisation of the difficulty in getting a charge downgraded & weighing up of the consequences of a longer suspension if you fail.

If you think that proves guilt then you're very naive.

precisely, and the fact they did realise this "difficulty in getting the charge downgraded" suggests that the grading was correct and your Burgess comparison was well wide of the mark

[Andrew Walker]

precisely, and the fact they did realise this "difficulty in getting the charge downgraded" suggests that the grading was correct

Absolute rubbish

[Rooster_6]

precisely, and the fact they did realise this "difficulty in getting the charge downgraded" suggests that the grading was correct and your Burgess comparison was well wide of the mark

It suggests the unpredictable nature of the judiciary wasn't worth risking an extra 2 weeks. That would have been the biggest thing on the clubs mind...

If you truly believe early guilty pleas are exclusively an admittance of guilt then you're more deluded than I ever gave you credit for.

[Guest]

It suggests the unpredictable nature of the judiciary wasn't worth risking an extra 2 weeks. That would have been the biggest thing on the clubs mind...

If you truly believe early guilty pleas are exclusively an admittance of guilt then you're more deluded than I ever gave you credit for.

It also suggests they didn't feel as though they had a good case for a downgrade.

If you can't admit that you are truly clueless.

[Andrew Walker]

It also suggests they didn't feel as though they had a good case for a downgrade.

If you can't admit that you are truly clueless.

Perhaps you could get your source who told you SBW would not play on Monday night To confrm this for you and all of us and end this nonsense once and for all

[Rooster_6]

It also suggests they didn't feel as though they had a good case for a downgrade.

If you can't admit that you are truly clueless.

Of course it also suggests that, if they were confident then they would have challenged. But lack of confidence & weighing up of the consequences doesn't equal guilt like you suggested. That's a very short sighted view.

An early guilty plea does not exclusively suggest the party who entered the plea are guilty or even that they feel like the charge was fair. That's just ignorant crap sprouted by someone who obviously hasn't followed the system.

[Guest]

It suggests the unpredictable nature of the judiciary wasn't worth risking an extra 2 weeks. That would have been the biggest thing on the clubs mind...

If you truly believe early guilty pleas are exclusively an admittance of guilt then you're more deluded than I ever gave you credit for.

The judiciary is unpredictable and yes, often an early guilty plea is taken purely becasue of the lesser suspension given, but I think in this case the club wouldn't had a substantive enough case. What mitigating circumstances are there that conclusively prove that the charge should have been graded careless rather than reckless? It's not that they have to prove that the tackle maybe wasn't reckless so much that they have to prove that it definitely fit into the careless category. I don't think precedent passes muster either.

I'm not an apologist for TTW, but he has a point.

[Guest]

The judiciary is unpredictable and yes, often an early guilty plea is taken purely becasue of the lesser suspension given, but I think in this case the club wouldn't had a substantive enough case. What mitigating circumstances are there that conclusively prove that the charge should have been graded careless rather than reckless? It's not that they have to prove that the tackle maybe wasn't reckless so much that they have to prove that it definitely fit into the careless category. I don't think precedent passes muster either.

I'm not an apologist for TTW, but he has a point.

They should have to prove conclusively that he DID DELIBERATELY make the contact with the head...Rose's head dropped down at the last second....if he deliberately did that, then Jared is a psychic...how would he know that George would drop his face at that exact moment in time? it was careless and deserves 2 weeks..

[Rooster_6]

They should have to prove conclusively that he DID DELIBERATELY make the contact with the head...Rose's head dropped down at the last second....if he deliberately did that, then Jared is a psychic...how would he know that George would drop his face at that exact moment in time? it was careless and deserves 2 weeks..

Spot on, it was careless not reckless.

[Guest]

Both are wrapping arms, not swinging arms.

Just stick to giving us the latest scoops from News Ltd HQ.

6 put aside your battle with The Wheel, and take another look. JWH really throws the arm and whips it. Burgess does nothing of the sort.

[Guest]

6 put aside your battle with The Wheel, and take another look. JWH really throws the arm and whips it. Burgess does nothing of the sort.

I'm with you here Dubai. JWH went in swinging the arm with the intent to smash Fatboy. Regardless of whether Rose stumbled or not, JWH was jumping and had the arm swinging.

Burgess had his arm and shoulder going in together at the same rate. There was no swinging of the arm or jumping into the tackle.

I think the Reckless Grade 1 was right. Not happy with the loading though which bumped up the penalty, but thems the rules.

The only inconsistency I see is the fact that JWH got sent off.

[Guest]

JWH got loading for this due to his previous infringements.

Is this loading now cleared if he does re-offend in the future?

[Guest]

6 put aside your battle with The Wheel, and take another look. JWH really throws the arm and whips it. Burgess does nothing of the sort.

Spot on Dubes. There was no case that would have got him a downgrade. Take the early plea and get on with it. I have also seen worse, but he was reckless. Rose drops his head a little, but if you are banking on a player not dropping his head a little, then you are clearly being reckless. Lets face it, you have a bigger target below the chest to aim than above. You roll the dice, sometimes you pay.

[Rooster_6]

Spot on Dubes. There was no case that would have got him a downgrade. Take the early plea and get on with it. I have also seen worse, but he was reckless. Rose drops his head a little, but if you are banking on a player not dropping his head a little, then you are clearly being reckless. Lets face it, you have a bigger target below the chest to aim than above. You roll the dice, sometimes you pay.

He drops more than his head, he lowers his whole centre of gravity by bending his knees.

It's a tackle that has split opinions down the centre more than any other I can remember which is why it would have been a big risk to take it to the judicary.