Rads Suspended

[redwhiteblue]

Yeah this ain't looking good. Fark the nrl for putting Creagh on there aswell, that's another vote against rads instantly. Bs how this system works

I swear they pluck these names out of a hat.

[redwhiteblue]

Radley’s counsel James McLeod is now giving his submission. He accepts Radley was “clumsy” and it “wasn’t a good tackle” but argues there was only low force.
“It’s not a forearm, it’s not a stiff-arm, it’s not a clenched fist as my friend suggested - it’s a grabbing action,” McLeod says.

He posits that the photo referenced earlier by McGrath was not taken at the point of first impact and says there was merely “incidental glancing contact” rather than a “flush” blow.

“[Radley’s] wrongdoing is limited to someone who got out of position threw out an arm, tried to grab the ball-carrier and got it slightly wrong,” he says.

[Thirteen]

I swear they pluck these names out of a hat.

I’d like to think so cause if it was decided that an x-Saints player should be on the panel tonight than that’s just ridiculous.

[King Salvo]

Radley team arguing it "brief, fleeting , glancing contact". And now McLeod is back to the Rapana and Mitchell tackles.

Victor Radley team arguing the “only thing he got wrong at speed” was putting his arm out. There is no “launching, swinging, or clenched fist” they claim

mmm




Radley’s counsel James McLeod is now giving his submission. He accepts Radley was “clumsy” and it “wasn’t a good tackle” but argues there was only low force.

“It’s not a forearm, it’s not a stiff-arm, it’s not a clenched fist as my friend suggested - it’s a grabbing action,” McLeod says.

He posits that the photo referenced earlier by McGrath was not taken at the point of first impact and says there was merely “incidental glancing contact” rather than a “flush” blow.

“[Radley’s] wrongdoing is limited to someone who got out of position threw out an arm, tried to grab the ball-carrier and got it slightly wrong,” he says.

[ROC181]

Roosters and ex Roosters in trouble. What's doin Trent?

[redwhiteblue]

Is like to think so cause if it was decided that an x-Saints player should be on the panel tonight than that’s just ridiculous.

Just like Garlick. Surely there has to be some sort of conflict of interest. I have to declare it all the time in my line of work.

[milanja]

Radley team arguing it "brief, fleeting , glancing contact". And now McLeod is back to the Rapana and Mitchell tackles.

Victor Radley team arguing the “only thing he got wrong at speed” was putting his arm out. There is no “launching, swinging, or clenched fist” they claim

mmm




Radley’s counsel James McLeod is now giving his submission. He accepts Radley was “clumsy” and it “wasn’t a good tackle” but argues there was only low force.

“It’s not a forearm, it’s not a stiff-arm, it’s not a clenched fist as my friend suggested - it’s a grabbing action,” McLeod says.

He posits that the photo referenced earlier by McGrath was not taken at the point of first impact and says there was merely “incidental glancing contact” rather than a “flush” blow.

“[Radley’s] wrongdoing is limited to someone who got out of position threw out an arm, tried to grab the ball-carrier and got it slightly wrong,” he says.

a grab usually means your fingers are out, poor defence there.

[King Salvo]

Watching the video of Rapana’s grade-one careless high tackle from last year, Radley’s counsel James McLeod argues the Raider “has done more wrong” than Radley and is “at least the same level of blameworthiness”. He says Rapana struck Daniel Alvaro with greater force and his “execution was poorer”.

McLeod believes it’s “telling” that opposing counsel McGrath has opted to show examples of grade one offences instead of grade two.

He submits there are no characteristics of a grade two offence in Radley’s tackle, saying it lacked the necessary force, flush contact and culpability.

On the Latrell Mitchell example, McLeod says the Souths star was in a better position to effect a tackle than Radley and he then elevated himself off the ground - unlike Radley - to hit Garner.

[King Salvo]

Watching the video of Rapana’s grade-one careless high tackle from last year, Radley’s counsel James McLeod argues the Raider “has done more wrong” than Radley and is “at least the same level of blameworthiness”. He says Rapana struck Daniel Alvaro with greater force and his “execution was poorer”.

McLeod believes it’s “telling” that opposing counsel McGrath has opted to show examples of grade one offences instead of grade two.

He submits there are no characteristics of a grade two offence in Radley’s tackle, saying it lacked the necessary force, flush contact and culpability.

On the Latrell Mitchell example, McLeod says the Souths star was in a better position to effect a tackle than Radley and he then elevated himself off the ground - unlike Radley - to hit Garner.

not sure Radley's counsel has made a case especially saying how NRL Counsel is showing grade 1's as an examples - mmm he was advocating Radley's tackle wasn't in that category one would say reason for showing them

[King Salvo]

Deliberation time

[mightyrooster]

The suspense is killing me!

[BUDDY]

I have never refreshed Twitter for such a long period but the Dragons and Souffs supporters are keeping me entertained.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Get Munster to try on the bra!

[milanja]

Decision at 9pm, they won’t want to make Latrell wait later than that.

[milanja]

Get Munster to try on the bra!

Lol