Rads Suspended

[NorthChook]

Buzz Rothfield column just out. Storm admitted Munster used the incident to get a free interchange. He wasn’t hurt at all. They were surprised Rads got sin binned.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m seething over this.
Munster takes a dive. Admits it. Rads will probably now miss games and it puts our team at a real disadvantage.
Seriously! What’s going on with the game when this type of rorting the rules is acceptable.

Apparently we can use this Storm admission as evidence at the judiciary if we appeal

[JAF]

The Storm should get 2 competition points docked for bringing the game into disrepute ...

[Rooster1908]

Shouldn't Munster be charged with something, .not sure what , maybe being a d@#k and the storm should be stopped if the points ,

[King Salvo]

That wont matter as the judiciary wont take into account any press reports or witness statements and or testimony of the fouled player on behalf of the charged player.

[Grant Hedger]

There’s a level of haphazardness in the NRL decision-making that is alarming. There’s something very wrong with the way the game is being administered. There’s clear and deliberate bias to certain teams. Rules are being made up on the run to get certain results. The NRL has an agenda which favors the clubs that will supposedly help them.

[Kramer]

This is what Rothfield wrote about in the Dt.


Munster was a tactical one,” admitted Storm general manager Frank Ponissi, “There was nothing wrong with him. He said Radley hardly got him.

“To be brutally honest we were surprised Radley was sin-binned.”

Radley has since been hit with a Grade 2 careless high tackle charge and risks missing three games if he fights the charge.

Surely the judiciary will now have to take Ponissi’s comments into account.

Lets hope they do.

[zac]

credit to the storm for owning up to the ruse i guess but it does show how stupid the decision was.

will be hard for the judiciary to ignore

[Rooster_6]

As suggested they have made the NRL look like mugs by admitting he took a dive and overplayed it. Radley should be challenging his charge now with this new information.

[ism22]

That wont matter as the judiciary wont take into account any press reports or witness statements and or testimony of the fouled player on behalf of the charged player.

If what the media's said is true then I think a 2nd look at the tackle will make it pretty clear what's happened.

For example if Munster's stepped him, intentionally swung his head backwards to feign contact and then gone down claiming he needs an HIA then it'll be pretty damn obvious to them.

End of the day if he didn't do an HIA, then this was really poor game management! Why didn't the ref demand he be cleared for his own welfare? IMO Storm should be fined and reprimanded (dare I say threatened with a deduction of competition points as it's becoming a habit).

[milanja]

As suggested they have made the NRL look like mugs by admitting he took a dive and overplayed it. Radley should be challenging his charge now with this new information.

the storm play chess, while the NRL play checkers.

[JB_Cloey]

Shouldn't Munster be charged with something, .not sure what , maybe being a d@#k and the storm should be stopped if the points ,

King Wally gave Munster the 3 Dally Ms.

He should have given him an Oscar instead.

[Keith]

We must contest this.

[ccfc bondi]

There’s a level of haphazardness in the NRL decision-making that is alarming. There’s something very wrong with the way the game is being administered. There’s clear and deliberate bias to certain teams. Rules are being made up on the run to get certain results. The NRL has an agenda which favors the clubs that will supposedly help them.

I've been saying for years the NRL's introduction of new rules has been haphazard. I don't know about deliberately favouring certain clubs, but it certainly does. At the least, they don't think things through. There was a column a few weeks ago, I think by Bill Harrigan, about the unforeseen consequences of new rules. V'landy's is the worst! He just hears something some of the public want and just does it. 6 again is a disaster! Two point field goals? That's really only going to help Souffs, maybe one or two others, I don't know. And as Robbo said, seven tackles from a 22 metre tap is just arbitrary (not that Vlandys brought that in).

There is only one rule which has been in existence for yonks but was only rediscovered in the 2000s, which should go. I hate the rule where a player puts his foot over the sideline or dead ball line when catching the ball and that makes the kicker the one that has put it out on the full. As far as I'm concerned, if you catch it before it touches the ground, YOU are responsible for putting the ball out.

[ism22]

the storm play chess, while the NRL play checkers.

I always think the Storm are luddites... however, the NRL is desperate to have a competitive Melbourne-based team so they turn a blind eye.

IMO most of the Drizz' tactics are stupid shyte that any other team would get penalised for once and then stop doing. The NRL giving the Drizz a blind eye every frigging time makes it seem as though Bellamy (who s*cked as an Origin coach) is a next-level kinda genius.

I reckon other coaches would come up with such 'innovations' on a regular basis if they were allowed to.

I've been saying for years the NRL's introduction of new rules has been haphazard. I don't know about deliberately favouring certain clubs, but it certainly does. At the least, they don't think things through. There was a column a few weeks ago, I think by Bill Harrigan, about the unforeseen consequences of new rules. V'landy's is the worst! He just hears something some of the public want and just does it. 6 again is a disaster! Two point field goals? That's really only going to help Souffs, maybe one or two others, I don't know. And as Robbo said, seven tackles from a 22 metre tap is just arbitrary (not that Vlandys brought that in).

There is only one rule which has been in existence for yonks but was only rediscovered in the 2000s, which should go. I hate the rule where a player puts his foot over the sideline or dead ball line when catching the ball and that makes the kicker the one that has put it out on the full. As far as I'm concerned, if you catch it before it touches the ground, YOU are responsible for putting the ball out.

IMO they change the rules too much without there being any problems to fix. They then progressively roll out interpretations of the new rules by favouring some teams and dissing others.

Happens in all sports though, and pros need to learn to deal with it rather than dwell on it.

For example in my mixed netball, it's a social comp so they're loose on some rules (i.e. honest mistakes such as a bit of skidding with your feet after a catch) and harder on some rules (e.g. contact). However, they're overly generous to some really rough/grubby players. For example when I'm shooting there's always people slapping my arms and pushing me because I'm bigger and more athletic than most (including people who aren't allowed to be under the net). Whereas (EVERY team seems to have one)... there's always some 4'8 woman who's about 4'8 wide who you've gotta stand back 5m from (even if she doesn't have the ball) and gift at least 5 (totally illegal) steps towards the net for shooting because they'll have a cry if you out-compete them. For the first couple of games I got really annoyed because you'd see this completely hopeless, obese, idiot just sitting there taking 20 shots (uncontested) until they finally scored. However, we've now learned to block it out and focus on what's in our control.

To me no matter what the level, there will always be stupid stuff like that which you've gotta ignore. I find that if I focus on that kinda stuff then it psyches me out. Whereas if I just ignore it and focus on other stuff... I'll score so many more points than them that it doesn't matter one bit.

[Larry Long Balls]

What a disgrace. Mitchell really is a low human being.