How long will Quade get?

[Godfrey]

Come on, you can do better than that. It can be your new project for the next 3 weeks.

 

[Slim 293]

That is where you are totally wrong. His arm/hand never went above the top of the shoulder.
View attachment 2574

 

[Karl]

It doesn't deserve any suspension. He got 10 minutes in the bin. It was penalized. It was not intentional, the tackled player dipped significantly into the impact, which wasn't that high anyway.

 

[cyclopath]

As I posted a few pages back, high, probably reckless (a bit), YC was enough - if only to mitigate the woeful inconsistency of the whole citing and judicial process.
Just a question for all the anatomists. If the impact was not high, i.e. chest / shoulder - why was Barnes concussed?
I'm not suggesting the degree of effect on the player should dictate punishment, but from a biomechanical viewpoint I find it, at the very least, curious.

 

[Slim 293]

As I posted a few pages back, high, probably reckless (a bit), YC was enough - if only to mitigate the woeful inconsistency of the whole citing and judicial process.
Just a question for all the anatomists. If the impact was not high, i.e. chest / shoulder - why was Barnes concussed?
I'm not suggesting the degree of effect on the player should dictate punishment, but from a biomechanical viewpoint I find it, at the very least, curious.

 

[RugbyReg]

didn't Hooper get off a suspension because he was concussed? I remember QC (Quade Cooper) staggering around after being hit late. Clearly concussed. Didn't know what he was doing.

 

[emuarse]

As I posted a few pages back, high, probably reckless (a bit), YC was enough - if only to mitigate the woeful inconsistency of the whole citing and judicial process.
Just a question for all the anatomists. If the impact was not high, i.e. chest / shoulder - why was Barnes concussed?
I'm not suggesting the degree of effect on the player should dictate punishment, but from a biomechanical viewpoint I find it, at the very least, curious.

I thought he hit the back of his head on the ground when he fell.Most of Cooper's impact was from his left shoulder on Barnes upper body causing him to topple backwards with Cooper on top of him.

 

[cyclopath]

I was hoping for something more feasible than The Magic Loogie, Slim!!
But yeah, I had noticed your post.

 

[Ignoto]

Aggravating factors:
(c) any other off-field aggravating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

Fuck me, why should this come into consideration of what happened on the field?

After the whole Stradbroke Island affair, drinking at the Victory with Kurtley and previous misdemeanour's committed in the past decade, it wouldn't surprise me to see Quade given a year long suspension.

But then they have the same thing for mitigation factors

Mitigating Factors (f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

Tell the QRU to compile a feel-good video of all the work he does for the fans and all the free and signed jersey's he sends out to his twitter followers.



No wonder there's so much inconsistency with the Judiciary, the whole thing leaves it up to the discretion of the panel.

 

[emuarse]

Slim, there's a subtlety to your recent posts I can't pick up.
I never was a prop (proponents of innermost knowledge and beer brands)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I really wonder how many of the posters would be as "sympathetic" if this exact situation arose during The Rugby Championship, except the tackler was the Darkness #7, and the tackled player was Gold #10.

I just can not see so much support for and defence of the tackle if it was Sir Richie that was the one about to front judiciary.

 

[Karl]

That's a bad example. Sir Ritchie needs about 20 Yellows for No reason just to even out his Infraction Karma.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Fair Point. Forgot about the Cloak of Invisibility. He wouldn't have been caught in the first instance.

Lets suggest that the tackler was #5 A. Williams (Blues).

 

[FrankLind]

I really wonder how many of the posters would be as "sympathetic" if this exact situation arose during The Rugby Championship, except the tackler was the Darkness #7, and the tackled player was Gold #10.

I just can not see so much support for and defence of the tackle if it was Sir Richie that was the one about to front judiciary.

Hugh you should know better than to disrespuct the King. If, by some miracle, he did enter the judiciary room, there would be playing of trumpets, a red carpet, and the citing commissioner would bow.

 

[TOCC]

Intelligent contribution slim, the facetiousness evident in your posts since the Brumbies missed the finals has risen ten fold

 

[Slim 293]

Intelligent contribution slim, the facetiousness evident in your posts since the Brumbies missed the finals has risen ten fold

Eh, not a Seinfeld fan huh?

 

[Mr Doug]

What bemuses me is that the judiciary will make a decision within 24 hours of now, but that this thread will be still at it in a week's time.

Yes emuarse, that's one of the benefits of living in a country that allows "freedom of speech"!

BTW, I don't feel comfortable with a judiciary chaired by a Queenslander ruling on a case invoving a Queensland player, if that in fact is the situation here. It could give rise to the prospect of comments suggesting "perceived bias".

 

[Braveheart81]

If Quade gets suspended, I think this thread will feature on the first page of threads until The Rugby Championship starts.

If Adam Byrnes and Tom Carter could somehow become involved (maybe Jamie Pandaram could ask them for their opinions on the matter), the thread might still be going next year.

 

[Slim 293]

If Quade gets suspended, I think this thread will feature on the first page of threads until The Rugby Championship starts.

If Adam Byrnes and Tom Carter could somehow become involved (maybe Jamie Pandaram could ask them for their opinions on the matter), the thread might still be going next year.

Not to mention the splinter threads it will create.......

 

[Linebacker_41]

Yes emuarse, that's one of the benefits of living in a country that allows "freedom of speech"!

BTW, I don't feel comfortable with a judiciary chaired by a Queenslander ruling on a case invoving a Queensland player, if that in fact is the situation here. It could give rise to the prospect of comments suggesting "perceived bias".

Hey Mr D - I refer you to my previous post. Paul Tully has never ever helped the Reds with a lenient sentence. His record over the many years as a Judicial Officer is clear.

We (being Reds) have been dudded a few times over the years by the judicial officer in charge of this one. (I believe it is Paul Tully) Not to say Paul Tully is against Qld more that he rules very much by the book and tends to show his home state very little loyalty. IMO other countries quite often get favourable decisions whether by chance or design.