If a player is suspended for one week and only one week leading into a Grand Final or possibly a Final, he should be allowed to serve that suspension the following year.

Although it is a suspension, one week implies it was for a relatively minor indiscretion. I agree they should serve a week, but to miss the grand final is awfully tough.

With the way the league is looking to clean up the game, it can be quite easy to slip and infringe on the rules. Perhaps a bit of leniancy from the NRL is the order of the day.

This sort of strict enforcement is heart-breaking for the player and diminishes the game's biggest spectacle - the Grand Final.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Agree.

  • And while we're at it, why not make a similar change to the justice system broadly. Let's ask anyone convicted of an offense when it would be convenient for them to serve their punishment? Yep, that's not a system rife for abuse at all.

    Sterlo is right, not all games are equal. But justice is equal, and that's what matters. Why call for a different rule for Isaac Luke because, ya know, it's inconvenient to him to get punished, while we all sit around gob smacked at Dogs players always seeming to have a different rule for them?
    • I think you’ve answered your own question there, Professor.

      The fact that we do sit gobsmacked at the leniency of Dogs judgements is precisely why Luke should be judged in the same way.

      To adopt a ‘hanging judge’ attitude in one case and a kindergarten teacher’s in another, just doesn’t add up.

      The Dogs have had 10 seasons’ worth of very favourable calls this year to get them where they are.  With Isaac Luke’s suspension, they’re getting another one.

    • Trini, my Dogs example does not point to a "give in and join the rabble" conclusion. Put differently, we should complain about the Dogs and consistency of intent implies if found guilty the time starts now.

      Brett, I agree Isaac Luke should not have been charged. I'm not convicted SBW was put in a dangerous position and SBW said so too! But we should not conflate the two issues of guilty or not guilty with how to serve time if judged guilty.
  • Also suspensions from representative games should not be applied to regular season
  • For minor things that would mean 1 week etc then yes. Carry over points shouldn't determine whether they play either. If it is that technical then surely in can be served the following season.
    However if they commit a serious offence that carries multiple weeks even without carry over points then they should be suspended. To miss a GF over something minor is a travesty IMO.
  • I agree but the penalty should apply to the current game for minor offences
    Eg 10 min sin bin instead of miss next game
    Illegally smashing a roosters player disadvantaged the roosters not the dogs
    Why should the dogs benefit and why should roosters not benefit
    Have the panel review reports immediately and decide on sin bin in current game
  • I agree 100%, Matty Johns made a good point on the weekend  that they should consider a weighting system  depending on the stature of the game IE: club game, City / Country, Origin, Semi's. Final & GF the league a apply weighting value for the importance of that game. Say a club game is weighted at 100points, city/ country 150points, Origin 200points, semi's final 200 points & GF 300points. This way you can still have carry over points but because of the weighting of the game on let's say a grade 1 charge you will still be able to play.

    Whilst Luke tackle was careless I  think he deserves the chance to play in a GF, but there again he did get charged for a similar offence earlier in the season.

  • 100%
  • If they're playing multiple competitions, they can serve a suspension in one competition specifically. There was a Liverpool player earlier in the season who was available for the Premier League but was forced to miss an FA Cup game after he was sent off in the FA Cup competition the previous year.
This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Uncle Wizards Sleeve indigenous elder He/Him replied to Poppa's discussion Players and Values and Judgements to make
"I also like the fact he's not comfortable getting great money and losing every week. He seems to have drive to be a winner and progress his career. He could take 800k and bludge on the wing if he wished. "
10 minutes ago
Uncle Wizards Sleeve indigenous elder He/Him replied to Poppa's discussion Players and Values and Judgements to make
"If you pay 600k for Lomax and get the same improvement as we did from Carty than you have a million dollar player on 600.  Pretty easy to get your point if you're willing , EE. 
Id rather that approach than paying 400k too much for players in…"
14 minutes ago
LB replied to Prof. Daz's discussion R4 V TIGERS: FREUD SAYS ‘WORK THROUGH’ IT, DEAR EELS
"Then again, tired middle opens up the ruck for Api to do his thing.
We will give him space but will halves help him. Our spine is much better with Gutho and Brown in there."
45 minutes ago
JB. Prints of Parra replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"What I could see happening is Lomax to the Chooks and Suaalii to the Eels "
1 hour ago
More…