Question on Concusion

Question on Concusion

Post by dechuck » Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:48:52



Quote:



> > yes I saw the video footage and maybe it wasn't totally conclusive ( but
> > pretty damming) but hey what is good for the goose is good for the
gander
> if
> > a NZ player can get off a charge because the evidence is not conclusive
> why
> > shouldn't an aussie. Kip and MR Scebe are out and out hypocrites in
their
> > views

> Give it a bone, butt***a. Flavell *didn't* get off - Dunning did. It's
just
> another example of softcock convicts who have to protect their players
> because they have no depth to field three teams, let alone four.

> We can afford to dump players who aren't performing, who aren't
conforming,
> but O'Neill's paradise is falling down around his ears. You paid too much
to
> import some half-arsed chumps from league, and now you're paying the

price.

calm down take a pill take a couple  and wake up when you can watch the WC
in Australia

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> --
> Mr Scebe
> Losers always whine about their 'best'.
> Winners go home and *** the prom queen".
> ~Sean Connery in "The Rock"

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by dechuck » Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:48:01


Quote:



> reckless tackle

> > > > I'm sorry when I was doing my reckless tackle my
> finger
> > > ended up in his eye,
> > > > it seems that NZ judiceries can also let players off
> for
> > > strange reasons,
> > > > imagine your ranting and raving if an Australian
> player
> > > had his charge
> > > > reduced like this

> > > Did you see the video footage? I doubt it because he was
> > > originally given a 1 year ban on the evidence of a
> newspaper
> > > photo - the television footage of the match did not show
> it
> > > at all. It certainly looked bad - the only reason the
> ban
> > > was overturned was because of video footage shown by
> North
> > > Harbour. This proved that it could not have been
> > > deliberate - very dodgy to convict on the basis of a
> photo.
> > > And I am no apologist for the thug - I think he got all
> he
> > > desreved. I don't know that anywhere else would have
> dealt
> > > more harshly.

> > yes I saw the video footage and maybe it wasn't totally
> conclusive ( but
> > pretty damming) but hey what is good for the goose is good
> for the gander if
> > a NZ player can get off a charge because the evidence is
> not conclusive why
> > shouldn't an aussie. Kip and MR Scebe are out and out
> hypocrites in their
> > views

> You had access to the North Harbour video analysis? Because
> there was no clear TV coverage of the incident at all - and
> the North Harbour evidence was never shown on TV in New
> Zealand! You must have some good contacts :)

no I only saw what was shown on TV in Australia, so Flavell was found guilty
of a lesser charge because of evidence, fine I have no problem with that but
the likes of Kip and Mr Scebe seem to have a problem if this applies to an
Australian.   HYPOCRITES

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Cheers, MAtt


 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Matt Neilso » Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:10:47


Quote:

> > > yes I saw the video footage and maybe it wasn't
totally
> > conclusive ( but
> > > pretty damming) but hey what is good for the goose is
good
> > for the gander if
> > > a NZ player can get off a charge because the evidence
is
> > not conclusive why
> > > shouldn't an aussie. Kip and MR Scebe are out and out
> > hypocrites in their
> > > views

> > You had access to the North Harbour video analysis?
Because
> > there was no clear TV coverage of the incident at all -
and
> > the North Harbour evidence was never shown on TV in New
> > Zealand! You must have some good contacts :)

> no I only saw what was shown on TV in Australia, so

Flavell was found guilty
Quote:
> of a lesser charge because of evidence, fine I have no

problem with that but
Quote:
> the likes of Kip and Mr Scebe seem to have a problem if
this applies to an
> Australian.   HYPOCRITES

> > Cheers, MAtt

OK - fair enuff. Were you surprised Dunning wasn't cited for
his clear punch early in that game though? Do you think that
action resulted in his "concussion" later on? (I didn't see
where he got the knock to the head)

Cheers, Matt

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by dechuck » Wed, 05 Mar 2003 19:16:05


Quote:



> > > > yes I saw the video footage and maybe it wasn't
> totally
> > > conclusive ( but
> > > > pretty damming) but hey what is good for the goose is
> good
> > > for the gander if
> > > > a NZ player can get off a charge because the evidence
> is
> > > not conclusive why
> > > > shouldn't an aussie. Kip and MR Scebe are out and out
> > > hypocrites in their
> > > > views

> > > You had access to the North Harbour video analysis?
> Because
> > > there was no clear TV coverage of the incident at all -
> and
> > > the North Harbour evidence was never shown on TV in New
> > > Zealand! You must have some good contacts :)

> > no I only saw what was shown on TV in Australia, so
> Flavell was found guilty
> > of a lesser charge because of evidence, fine I have no
> problem with that but
> > the likes of Kip and Mr Scebe seem to have a problem if
> this applies to an
> > Australian.   HYPOCRITES

> > > Cheers, MAtt

> OK - fair enuff. Were you surprised Dunning wasn't cited for
> his clear punch early in that game though? Do you think that
> action resulted in his "concussion" later on? (I didn't see
> where he got the knock to the head)

must admit I didn't see the incident which is why I didn't comment on it
 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Matt Neilso » Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:31:23


Quote:






> > > > > yes I saw the video footage and maybe it wasn't
> > totally
> > > > conclusive ( but
> > > > > pretty damming) but hey what is good for the goose
is
> > good
> > > > for the gander if
> > > > > a NZ player can get off a charge because the
evidence
> > is
> > > > not conclusive why
> > > > > shouldn't an aussie. Kip and MR Scebe are out and
out
> > > > hypocrites in their
> > > > > views

> > > > You had access to the North Harbour video analysis?
> > Because
> > > > there was no clear TV coverage of the incident at
all -
> > and
> > > > the North Harbour evidence was never shown on TV in
New
> > > > Zealand! You must have some good contacts :)

> > > no I only saw what was shown on TV in Australia, so
> > Flavell was found guilty
> > > of a lesser charge because of evidence, fine I have no
> > problem with that but
> > > the likes of Kip and Mr Scebe seem to have a problem
if
> > this applies to an
> > > Australian.   HYPOCRITES

> > > > Cheers, MAtt

> > OK - fair enuff. Were you surprised Dunning wasn't cited
for
> > his clear punch early in that game though? Do you think
that
> > action resulted in his "concussion" later on? (I didn't
see
> > where he got the knock to the head)

> must admit I didn't see the incident which is why I didn't
comment on it

good anwer :) - I would love to know how he received his
concussion because he may have set himself up with his early
cheap shot on one of the opposition.

cheers, MAtt

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Kip » Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:15:14



Quote:
>so it is OK for judiciaries to give the player the benefit of the doubt is
>it

Where the rules allow.
 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by William A. T. Clar » Sat, 08 Mar 2003 03:08:25


Quote:

> I thought it was a policy that if a player was knocked out or concussed
> he would then have a mandatory two week rest.  Against the
> Blues Rogers, Whitaker & Dunning were either concussed/knocked out and
> yet they played the following week. What is the ARU policy on
> this ?

> --
> Will Sutton
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/willsutton/folding.html

It's only enforced to prevent the possibility of more permanent brain
damage. It is waived in the case of props, since for them that
particular horse has clearly left the barn already.

William Clark

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Zigg » Sat, 08 Mar 2003 05:59:32



Quote:


> > I thought it was a policy that if a player was knocked out or concussed
> > he would then have a mandatory two week rest.  Against the
> > Blues Rogers, Whitaker & Dunning were either concussed/knocked out and
> > yet they played the following week. What is the ARU policy on
> > this ?

> > --
> > Will Sutton
> > http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/willsutton/folding.html

> It's only enforced to prevent the possibility of more permanent brain
> damage. It is waived in the case of props, since for them that
> particular horse has clearly left the barn already.

Quite correct - I'm surprised that fans don't already know this!
 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Mr Sceb » Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:04:48



Quote:
> It's only enforced to prevent the possibility of more permanent brain
> damage. It is waived in the case of props, since for them that
> particular horse has clearly left the barn already.

We may be props, but at least we know to only hit the send button once,
softcock.

--
Mr Scebe
Losers always whine about their 'best'.
Winners go home and *** the prom queen".
~Sean Connery in "The Rock"

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by William A. T. Clar » Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:12:23


Quote:



> > It's only enforced to prevent the possibility of more permanent brain
> > damage. It is waived in the case of props, since for them that
> > particular horse has clearly left the barn already.

> We may be props, but at least we know to only hit the send button once,
> softcock.

> --
> Mr Scebe
> Losers always whine about their 'best'.
> Winners go home and *** the prom queen".
> ~Sean Connery in "The Rock"

Excuse me - you have a newsreader problem, because it only shows once on
either of my readers.

You really must be a prop.

William Clark

 
 
 

Question on Concusion

Post by Jon Chapma » Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:11:04

The ARU policy on this is that they will keep their players playing until
such time as they are caught keeping their players playing.

At which point they will blame every other nation for having a weak position
on keeping their players playing.

Make sense?


Quote:
> I thought it was a policy that if a player was knocked out or concussed he

would then have a mandatory two week rest.  Against the
Quote:
> Blues Rogers, Whitaker & Dunning were either concussed/knocked out and yet

they played the following week. What is the ARU policy on
Quote:
> this ?

> --
> Will Sutton
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/willsutton/folding.html