Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Kenilworth Tiger

George Burgess - 9 game suspension

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hullfan said:

Hull fc will have him

The trouble with people getting high and mighty over Burgess is that there are always a lot of facials in the tackle/ruck. Has been for years.  And has has been said someone else was given completely let off for similar/same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The trouble with people getting high and mighty over Burgess is that there are always a lot of facials in the tackle/ruck. Has been for years.  And has has been said someone else was given completely let off for similar/same thing.

There is a big difference between a 'facial' and what Burgess did. His fingers were pushed into the eyes if his opponent, that is gouging pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DavidM said:

Basically despite having the cast of Ben Hur officiating a game they don’t have confidence to make big calls for some reason . The officials can spot a penalty like hawk eye even if no one else can see it , and other picky things but the big calls - tries and foul play they lose their bottle and hand it over to the VR , stand around with their finger in their ear waiting to be told what to do . It’s just refereeing by remote control now , and they’ve got into a mindset of checking everything as a comfort blanket , with the new buzz word being “ confirm “ . Do they not see how ridiculous that is ... confirm what ? What we’ve  seen , called and are describing to you . The VR takes away officiating the game , and they gladly let it which is sad . I’ll still take what I and 99% of fans still watch ... decisions made for right or wrong and we all get home by quarter to five and argue them all night

I’ve honestly never seen the problem with VR.  You used to get some real howlers; they are by and large done away with.  Seems a good thing to me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There is a big difference between a 'facial' and what Burgess did. His fingers were pushed into the eyes if his opponent, that is gouging pure and simple.

Was the opponent blinded?  What about the other incident that everyone says was the same... But got away.  Was that opposing player blinded?

A facial can indeed cover a multitude of sins.  And they happen a lot.  How much margin of error is there to what is called a gouge?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

Was the opponent blinded

Really, that's your comeback on a player pushing his fingers into another players eyes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked deliberate to me, but proving intent is difficult.

Quite simple way to sort it out, you put your hand in a players face it is your problem if you come into contact with an eye, if you do then off, intended or not.

The video quite clearly showed a finger in contact with the eye. When Burgess returns he should be made to play the next 5 games wearing an eye patch.

  • Like 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if his fingers were as  skilful at keeping hold of possession as they are at playing the keyboards on the oppositions  retina he may get more respect as a player.

  • Haha 1

the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence but the crows are just as black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Padge said:

Looked deliberate to me, but proving intent is difficult.

Quite simple way to sort it out, you put your hand in a players face it is your problem if you come into contact with an eye, if you do then off, intended or not.

The video quite clearly showed a finger in contact with the eye. When Burgess returns he should be made to play the next 5 games wearing an eye patch.

Proving intent is irrelevant to proving guilt.

The NRL judiciary code of practice states " However, it is not necessary for Judiciary Counsel to prove that the action was deliberate because the offence will also be proved where the conduct is found by the Panel to have been reckless or careless."

https://www.qrl.com.au/siteassets/documents-and-policies/2017/nrl-judiciary-code-of-procedure-2017---final---qrl-edition.pdf

He may have argued for a reduced ban if he could prove it was not intentional but he could not have proved innocence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Proving intent is irrelevant to proving guilt.

The NRL judiciary code of practice states " However, it is not necessary for Judiciary Counsel to prove that the action was deliberate because the offence will also be proved where the conduct is found by the Panel to have been reckless or careless."

https://www.qrl.com.au/siteassets/documents-and-policies/2017/nrl-judiciary-code-of-procedure-2017---final---qrl-edition.pdf

He may have argued for a reduced ban if he could prove it was not intentional but he could not have proved innocence.

 

That was my point, proving intent is difficult but there was definitely a poke in the eye, which to me looked intentional, but proving intent is difficult.

The ban is based on the recklessness of his actions, if intent could also be proven then his ban could be a lot longer.

 

  • Like 1

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com

Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007

Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

There is a big difference between a 'facial' and what Burgess did. His fingers were pushed into the eyes if his opponent, that is gouging pure and simple.

So was McGuire's and yet he was let off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Davo5 said:

So was McGuire's and yet he was let off.

So you're saying that Burgess should have been let off as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So you're saying that Burgess should have been let off as well?

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago, the Aussies quite rightly banned Steve Norton for life, for the same offence. A more fitting punishment for something that simply does not belong in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Padge said:

Looked deliberate to me, but proving intent is difficult.

Quite simple way to sort it out, you put your hand in a players face it is your problem if you come into contact with an eye, if you do then off, intended or not.

The video quite clearly showed a finger in contact with the eye. When Burgess returns he should be made to play the next 5 games wearing an eye patch.

Yes but if the judiciary are ignoring carelessness and only looking to the outcome then all they are doing is ignoring all contact that involves an eye, but still injure the head.  But regularly we see players suffering concussion protocols that must have involved the head... yet they are rarely penalised and are regarded as accidental.

If the idea is to encourage a minimum of danger to the head then all contact no matter if no outcome should be penalised... but it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not hit first incicdent. I would ban him for 18 Weeks and $50.000. Its a a serious offence that could easily blind somebody. The game must come down hard on such things in my opinion. 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Padge said:

Looked deliberate to me, but proving intent is difficult.

Quite simple way to sort it out, you put your hand in a players face it is your problem if you come into contact with an eye, if you do then off, intended or not.

The video quite clearly showed a finger in contact with the eye. When Burgess returns he should be made to play the next 5 games wearing an eye patch.

My opinion is its quite difficult to prove, but conversely its also pretty difficult to disprove so will the burden of proof be on Burgess then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty happy handing out huge punishments without intent being proven. I don't really see it as something we need to get bogged down in.

He did it, for the 2nd time in 9 months. He can swear on his kids' life all he wants, he has committed possibly the worst offence on a Rugby field twice. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Future is League said:

If he leaves the NRL i would suggest the Catalans.

Your suggesting Catalan, to Burgess? What will you tell him about the club and we're they're are heading?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I am pretty happy handing out huge punishments without intent being proven. I don't really see it as something we need to get bogged down in.

He did it, for the 2nd time in 9 months. He can swear on his kids' life all he wants, he has committed possibly the worst offence on a Rugby field twice. 

The league seem quite happy to pass over on high tackles.  The whole ethos of the NZ team last year seemed to be based on head high tackles and the general idea was that this is ok let's keep the game flowing!  And all that was "intent" not "accidental".

Yet at the same time we have all this concussion protocol business.  I can agree that players are lazy with tackles and need to be trained and penalised out of it.

But accusers and judiciary are being one sided in this, other things happen which are ignored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The league seem quite happy to pass over on high tackles.  The whole ethos of the NZ team last year seemed to be based on head high tackles and the general idea was that this is ok let's keep the game flowing!  And all that was "intent" not "accidental".

Yet at the same time we have all this concussion protocol business.  I can agree that players are lazy with tackles and need to be trained and penalised out of it.

But accusers and judiciary are being one sided in this, other things happen which are ignored.

 

I think there are a whole host of areas where we appear to want to excuse foul play rather than come down hard on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, saints10coach said:

Years ago, the Aussies quite rightly banned Steve Norton for life, for the same offence. A more fitting punishment for something that simply does not belong in the game.

That's the first time I've ever heard of that. Are you sure you're not confusing him with another player?

Edited by deluded pom?

rldfsignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think there are a whole host of areas where we appear to want to excuse foul play rather than come down hard on it. 

Was just watching SL Show and in the last minute of the game Saints got a deserved penalty for a head high hit from Wire player.  Quite deliberate from what I saw. Just a penalty, but it deservesd more.  Why not 9 matches.  I believe there is very little consistancy especially when some penalties are based on 'careless' contact and are severely censured.  

And whilst on it... I fail to see what the basis is against the Wire player who is supposed to have some sort of suspect running technique. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...