Annesley response - judiciary inconsistency

[Spud_Murphy]

Mitchell is an arrogant grub who thinks he is above the laws of the game. He’s obviously a poster boy & the media love him so they continue to conveniently ignore his antics. Anyone remember when he kicked Reynolds in the head last year? And didn’t Reynolds get sent to the bin? Ridiculous.

I love a tough game as much as anyone but for those who think he was hard done by, do they really think his actions are in the spirit of the game?

Really wish Talau belted him (legally) when he had the chance to.

Mitchell and Walker are the two biggest whingers, and two of the biggest heads in the game. In the old days we called them LAIRS, Souths are full of them, starting with their coach. I hope every side kicks their butt.

Yes Souths are fast becoming a very unlikeable team with arrogant thugs like Mitchell, Walker, Gagai & Burgess in their ranks, made even worse being coached by the king of arrogance and smugness himself - whinging Waaayne.

 

[gallagher]

Mitchell is an arrogant grub who thinks he is above the laws of the game. He’s obviously a poster boy & the media love him so they continue to conveniently ignore his antics. Anyone remember when he kicked Reynolds in the head last year? And didn’t Reynolds get sent to the bin? Ridiculous.

I love a tough game as much as anyone but for those who think he was hard done by, do they really think his actions are in the spirit of the game?

Really wish Talau belted him (legally) when he had the chance to.

Mitchell and Walker are the two biggest whingers, and two of the biggest heads in the game. In the old days we called them LAIRS, Souths are full of them, starting with their coach. I hope every side kicks their butt.

Yes Souths are fast becoming a very unlikeable team with arrogant thugs like Mitchell, Walker, Gagai & Burgess in their ranks, made even worse being coached by the king of arrogance and smugness himself - whinging Waaayne.

Yup, I used to be Mitchell fan but not anymore. Drops his bottom lip when things go against him and gets all dirty. Much like his 5/8.

 

[Magpieger]

Good for you Anus-Lee for backing the verdict.
Call me "biased" 😉 but that was borderline a striking charge.
I normally agree with a lot of Gus Gould's take on things but justice was served and Gus is an astronaut.🚀

 

[69-05-41]

I'm sure Souffs will receive more than their fair share of set restarts and penalties for the rest of the season and beyond to appease the scum of the league.

 

[tig_prmz]

I hate this "back in the day" crap.. society has moved forward.

Phil Gould was out there comparing NRL to boxing saying if you get hit in the head in boxing, you don't get an HIA. It's not the lawyers/doctors, it's the Rugby League community taking the thuggish behaviour out of the game.

See how many kids go boxing compared to play NRL. The society is conforming to a soft behaviour. And that's not a bad thing. Any head high hit needs to be dealt with. Sometimes it's unavoidable if the players falls into you which is taken into consideration.

We are trying to make this game more accessible to people of all races/genders. There is a big market of Indians/Asians/Africans/Middle Easterns that still haven't accepted this game because to them it's too brutal and it has negative connotations.

 

[mike]

Good for you Anus-Lee for backing the verdict.
Call me "biased" 😉 but that was borderline a striking charge.
I normally agree with a lot of Gus Gould's take on things but justice was served and Gus is an astronaut.🚀

I did ask him when’s the launch when he twittered that nonsense

 

[hobbo1]

Good for you Anus-Lee for backing the verdict.
Call me "biased" ? but that was borderline a striking charge.
I normally agree with a lot of Gus Gould's take on things but justice was served and Gus is an astronaut.?

I did ask him when’s the launch when he twittered that nonsense


Gus Gould ...astronaut

 

[Newtown]

Favouritism alive and well.

I enjoyed how the Roosters saw their player was up at the judiciary before Micthell, so deliberately used a Mitchell high tackle in the past as part of their 'evidence'. This reminded the panel of Mitchell's history of doing this, and very very likely affected the mindset of the panel in ensuring he got a strong penalty.

And they got their own guy off as well. How good did they go.

With Mitchell, unfortunately all this media kissing of his butt will just reinforce the evident self belief that he was justified in his actions, and you can bet he will continue to play with grubby tactics in his game.

Fittler is now buddy buddy with Mitchell.

 

[2005magic]

To me the question that NRL and Annesley dont seem to be able to answer or even relate to is the basic one of 'what advantage does the transgressed team get on the field in the game?'

Should not the first response to a offence when detected either by referee, sideline touchies or the bunker is........ I dont understand that something as blatant and in the open as Mitchell's actions was not picked up and action taken. Thats lax to me and no obvious answer to that was given. If video footage was good enough for post match review, for chrissake why was t not picked up and acted on at the time? Officials have been let off the hook again.

Also as a side comment - Mitchell was going to get 4 weeks anyway if he was unsuccessful in appealling, why was there no extra penalty eg even 1 more week applicable for going ahead with the appeal? Of course Souths would appeal if there was no extra penalty involved with a failed attempt. You would be nuts not too.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

To me the question that NRL and Annesley dont seem to be able to answer or even relate to is the basic one of 'what advantage does the transgressed team get on the field in the game?'

Should not the first response to a offence when detected either by referee, sideline touchies or the bunker is........ I dont understand that something as blatant and in the open as Mitchell's actions was not picked up and action taken. Thats lax to me and no obvious answer to that was given. If video footage was good enough for post match review, for chrissake why was t not picked up and acted on at the time? Officials have been let off the hook again.

Also as a side comment - Mitchell was going to get 4 weeks anyway if he was unsuccessful in appealling, why was there no extra penalty eg even 1 more week applicable for going ahead with the appeal? Of course Souths would appeal if there was no extra penalty involved with a failed attempt. You would be nuts not too.

It was only 3 weeks if he took the early plea. So he got an extra week out of the challenge

 

[tigger]

To me the question that NRL and Annesley dont seem to be able to answer or even relate to is the basic one of 'what advantage does the transgressed team get on the field in the game?'

Should not the first response to a offence when detected either by referee, sideline touchies or the bunker is........ I dont understand that something as blatant and in the open as Mitchell's actions was not picked up and action taken. Thats lax to me and no obvious answer to that was given. If video footage was good enough for post match review, for chrissake why was t not picked up and acted on at the time? Officials have been let off the hook again.

Also as a side comment - Mitchell was going to get 4 weeks anyway if he was unsuccessful in appealling, why was there no extra penalty eg even 1 more week applicable for going ahead with the appeal? Of course Souths would appeal if there was no extra penalty involved with a failed attempt. You would be nuts not too.

My understanding of the system is that you don't get extra for unsuccessfully challenging, you get a discount for pleading guilty.

So the charge plus penalty for history amounted to a 4 week ban. He could have a gotten a 25% discount for an early guilty plea.

 

[2005magic]

To me the question that NRL and Annesley dont seem to be able to answer or even relate to is the basic one of 'what advantage does the transgressed team get on the field in the game?'

Should not the first response to a offence when detected either by referee, sideline touchies or the bunker is........ I dont understand that something as blatant and in the open as Mitchell's actions was not picked up and action taken. Thats lax to me and no obvious answer to that was given. If video footage was good enough for post match review, for chrissake why was t not picked up and acted on at the time? Officials have been let off the hook again.

Also as a side comment - Mitchell was going to get 4 weeks anyway if he was unsuccessful in appealling, why was there no extra penalty eg even 1 more week applicable for going ahead with the appeal? Of course Souths would appeal if there was no extra penalty involved with a failed attempt. You would be nuts not too.

It was only 3 weeks if he took the early plea. So he got an extra week out of the challenge

Thank you. Id read / understood it as 4 weeks whether he appealled or not. Much appreciated.

Cheers

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

To me the question that NRL and Annesley dont seem to be able to answer or even relate to is the basic one of 'what advantage does the transgressed team get on the field in the game?'

Should not the first response to a offence when detected either by referee, sideline touchies or the bunker is........ I dont understand that something as blatant and in the open as Mitchell's actions was not picked up and action taken. Thats lax to me and no obvious answer to that was given. If video footage was good enough for post match review, for chrissake why was t not picked up and acted on at the time? Officials have been let off the hook again.

Also as a side comment - Mitchell was going to get 4 weeks anyway if he was unsuccessful in appealling, why was there no extra penalty eg even 1 more week applicable for going ahead with the appeal? Of course Souths would appeal if there was no extra penalty involved with a failed attempt. You would be nuts not too.

It was only 3 weeks if he took the early plea. So he got an extra week out of the challenge

Thank you. Id read / understood it as 4 weeks whether he appealled or not. Much appreciated.

Cheers

SOUFFS should have been fined $10k for a frivolous challenge he was never going to get reduction to much rubbish in his game and it's finally caught up with him all we can look forward to is him going again and a longer suspension