Player J Jackson was not charged for the crusher tackle against Penrith
that is charge dismissed.
Player Reynolds was cleared on two tripping charges. He was facing two weeks for a dangerous throw. But if Canterbury was to seek a down grade he would have been free to play this Friday.However, he has a broken arm and will be out for some time. As a result, he pleaded guilty to the dangerous throw charge. Which is just airy fairy stuff with no meaning now he is out with a broken arm. They are 'putting on the dog'.
Des Hasler has been handed a $10,000 fine for mentioning the referees. The fine has been termed a suspended fine so DH and Canterbury pay no fine!. Lets call it a Clayton's fine--the fine you have when you don`t have a fine!.
So, with three Canterbury people before the judiciary, none are suspended and none fined. A nice little result, as Arthur Daley would have said. Lets see how other people fare before the judiciary, particularly Junior Paulo who could play against Canterbury if cleared.
Replies
What else is New a bulldogs getting of at the Judiciary
Once again the Dogs get off. A coincidence once again?
Not sure if Des gets a double next time. I feel he should do but being Canterbury would pay the single $10,000.
Anyone else would cop $20,000. That`s my feeling.
The NRL really needs an Integrity Unit to keep an eye on its Integrity Unit and the Judiciary.
LOL at ur conspiracy theories,fekk me, the dogs got fined 50k for running on the field a few mins late in the GF whilst the Bunnies wankfest was going on with the ringing of the bell and the glory glory song playing out before kick off. I'll repeat it, 50k fine........the dogs arent the Darlings of the NRL, u have us mixed up with Bunnies and Roosters.
Are! the Bunnies and the Roosters are the darlings of the NRL! Thus, it is not conspiracy theory at all!, but, fact according to you.
The evidence from Round One would suggest who is the darling and who is not. But it is only Round One, I will keep an eye on the evidence as it accrues.
Eels and Dogs feelings to one side for the moment. What Hasler said was needed to be said by every coach. The referees are deciding who wins the games. Its not good enough. Restricting speech to protect referees is an indication that they are doing something wrong. Unbiased report as all teams are suffering.
I have said all along that the worst thing in Rugby League is the referreeing. It has been that way since 1908. Thats why I proposed doing away with human referees and replacing them with technology. Incidentally, there was a report in the SMH on Monday suggesting that progress is being made in installing computer like chips inside Rugby League balls. This was an essential part of my plan to replace referees. I agree with your point about restricting speech. It could cause more problems than it solves.