Was 4 matched for Montoya who called Kyle Feldt a "f****t" too much? was it too little? or was it just about right, opinion is divided as it is such a touchy topic thought do we believe what he received was good enough or not?

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

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I didn't see the game, did Feldt make a complaint?

    • Apparently after the game he did not sure 100% sure on that though, got heard on the refs mic.

      • If he made a complaint fair enough, but I hate that the refs are mic'd up for all to hear. These sort of things should be dealt with internally without public knowledge. Has he been given the opportunity to apologize for something said in the heat of the moment? 4 matches is a pretty stiff penalty in my view.  

  • LB, obviously a sensitive subject, so will tread carefully, but:

    Montoya - 4 weeks - For verbally abusing an opposition player in the heat of battle, granted he did use a very poor choice of word.

    NAS - 0 weeks, 0 penalty - For trying to seriously injure a player while their head was turned.

    Campbell - 0 weeks, 0 - penalty - For breaking & puncturing Russell's lungs.

    Junior - 1 week, sin bin & penalty - For smashing someone in the shoulder so hard, their head whiplashed into it afterwards but they did not require an HIA from an independant Doctor.

    Which of these incidents had the least impact on the game, the players team, physical well being, or ability to play the game in future weeks?

    They should ask Russell & Maka which they'd have preferred to be on the end of.

    If Montaya had a history of doing this, if he went out of his way to attack gay players, then some education there is definitely needed. But is that the case, or was this just a mistake (a stupid one nontheless)? He's apologised and looks as though he genuinely was sorry for it.

    I just cant respect anything the NRL / MRC do at the moment, they've 100% lost it, and desperate attempts to be seen 'doing the right thing' to the public is just further embarrassment after what they've missed lately.

    • Sorry but I can't let go of the Junior tackle, they replayed it a bunch of times on 360 last night whist discussing it and couldn't reach a unanimous verdict amongst the panel. They were saying that during a game a players head is contacted numerous times throughout a match which goes without punishment - the issue arises with the MRC when the contact is "forceful".

      Having watched it numerous times there is an argument that it was Brimson's head that made forceful contact with Junior's shoulder given the initial point of contact was shoulder to shoulder, the speed that Brimson was moving at and that Junior was more or less stationary when the tackle was made. As everyone has said - whiplash. I guess I have to leave it and move on but it's got me beat why we didn't dispute this one. 

      • Understand where you are coming from Adam, and when it comes down to purely the incident itself - 100% agree.

        I can understand not fighting it purely because in todays game, they see anything relating to contact with the head as black & white with no extenuating circumstances. I don't think we would've won, especially with the MRC trying to back the decision of a sin bin despite the independant Doctor seeing no need for an HIA.

        But if you feel we would've won, 100% respect your opinion on it. This is also the issue (as others have raised) with this ridiculous system of you can accept less of a punishment by pleading guilty. Players should not be tempted to accept something they dont agree with purely because it could cost them another week if they fight it. What a cop out that is from the NRL / MRC.

         

  • IMO , if by saying the word " f.gg.t " he did so intending the player be potentially demeaned for his sexuality then , yes , Montoya deserved the 4 weeks penalty at a minimum . Though I guess he would never admit that was his thinking though .   Otherwise , if that word was chosen in haste and not meant to be a reflection of Montoya 's opinon about Feldt's sexuality then the penalty seems very harsh , a public apology should suffice surely . Crikies footy guys are grown men , so whatever happened to the saying " sticks and stones ......". . ??? 

    • See i've been around footy fields a lot in terms of park footy, you hear that word and others alot and i would say 99/100 times that say that word simply to say they are weak or as a term to disgruntle the other player, not to knock their sexuality.

      If a player is gay then you say it then fair game for that player to receive punishment, same if you use a racist term to a player of a different race.

  • Well that's light considering I was banned for almost 4 months for using the four lettered version.

    As for calling someone that on the field, big fucking deal, Jesus soon they'll ban talking as anyone can be offended by anything if they so choose. 

    Everyone has a right to be or to not be offended but where do we draw the line on common sense? I don't think Montoya really gives a shit either way it's just a sledge FFS.

    Is Feldt even gay? And if he is why would he be worried by that sledge?

    End of the day this shit stops if people stop giving it air time. Move on....

    • The NRL is full of shit. Montoya should have got a 1 week ban and a five grand fine.

      Bryan Fletcher called Dean Widders a Black C and all he got was a five grand fine and lost his captaincy at the bunnies. The bunnies, a club with a huge Aboriginal fan base! This was worthy of a 4 week ban, if any.

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Mathew Clarke replied to Speech's discussion Jai Field available for NRL
"Speed and a little X factor would be exactly what the doctor ordered for the Eels backline. A Radradra esk player would be perfect."
5 minutes ago
Mathew Clarke replied to LB's discussion Most impressive and disappointing: Trial week 2 v Gold Coast
"I think Lussick is just a little slow due to being over in the Super League which is a little slower but will come good. It will be a good battle between him and hands which is what we want. It seems we finally have a number of people pushing for…"
10 minutes ago
CarloEEL2 replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Won't stay a fan favourite if he is letting every man , his dog and its litter through though 🤔"
29 minutes ago
JEELman replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"First sentence nails it. Eels power brokers won't want to lose a fan favourite though. Sivo, Sivo, Sivo = more money through the gates."
43 minutes ago
BEM replied to LB's discussion Most impressive and disappointing: Trial week 2 v Gold Coast
"Mostly good things from that trial.but still som concerns.
Our backs are nothing to write home about, our hookers are definitely mid tier and our defence is still shit.
Other than that, not to bad at all."
46 minutes ago
BEM replied to Speech's discussion Jai Field available for NRL
"That's exactly what we need."
50 minutes ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Speech's discussion Jai Field available for NRL
53 minutes ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Exactly "
1 hour ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Cannot understand why they didn't look for some backs but continually focus on forwards. Doesn't make sense "
1 hour ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Sometimes as I don't live locally "
1 hour ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Yep have to agree "
1 hour ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Well said and absolutely agree👍"
1 hour ago
Bup replied to Eli Stephens's discussion Sivo gets 3 weeks for high shot is this a good or bad thing lol ?
"Spot on , both our centres don't seem to be big on defensive comminication.Thats always a worry.
Teams that have continuity throughout the year with centre and wing combinations not only have better defensive structures but end up on the pointy end…"
1 hour ago
Coryn Hughes replied to LB's discussion Most impressive and disappointing: Trial week 2 v Gold Coast
"I think Paulo looks more mobile this year he's definitely dropped some kegs.
The ball movement once they get the fast play the ball and off load is good to see aswell it means we are going to be harder to defend.
Fowards passing to fowards beautiful…"
1 hour ago
Speech replied to LB's discussion Most impressive and disappointing: Trial week 2 v Gold Coast
"You are being harsh with Lussick. The team was slick early and that was when he was on the field. It was also very humid. The big concern is depth same as last year. If we get another injurt or suspension while Sivo is out we are in a bit of trouble."
1 hour ago
Poppa replied to Uncle Wizards Sleeve indigenous elder He/Him's discussion Bali ?
"I remember this " i'm pretty certain" it was all made in Hoolywood.
They don't make like this anymore Sluggo"
1 hour ago
More…

 

What am I missing here?

For the past three seasons at least, opposition teams have gone to our wing on the tryline and found at least 20 meters of unmarked territory. they just stroll over for a try. Again today. What's going on? If I can see it surely a coach can see it…

Read more…
28 Replies · Reply by Cumberland Eel 3 hours ago
Views: 1048

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>