Class Action Vs Shayne Hayne

LeichhardtTiger

LeichhardtTiger

Well-known member
There is in Negligence Law a provision for a law suit where your personal amenity is affected by the adverse decision of another person. As Tigers fans our personal amenity was destroyed by the negligent act of Shayne Hayne when he refused to check with the Video Referee over the Nofo try. The game was a joke after that moment. I'm no Legal eagle but I had previously contacted Slater and Gordon over a similar poor refereeing decision to see if there was a case to run this claim. They agreed that it had legs but the outcome would be that no one would become a referee and sport would crash to a halt. I don't care about that outcome - if it's wrong then it's wrong. David Smith should fix this mess. Shayne Hayne is an absolute joke. Our Season is over and the money has spoken. Sack a bloke for the season for having a bet but keep Hayne is a kick in the Nads to all League fans. It's sick Mr Smith. You have stuffed this game big time. LET's Sue Hayne folks! Let's do it - I am sick of CORRUPTION!
 
they refer everything else even if it is only 10% chance….had a massive bearing on outcome. T9 make matters worse he gives them a soft penalty to piggyback them up the field. They are onto him....they dont call him hometown Hayne for nothing, I was at SOO 2 in 2013 when he turned the game into a farce. If possession is 55% vs 45% you have buckleys
 
@LeichhardtTiger said:
There is in Negligence Law a provision for a law suit where your personal amenity is affected by the adverse decision of another person. As Tigers fans our personal amenity was destroyed by the negligent act of Shayne Hayne when he refused to check with the Video Referee over the Nofo try. The game was a joke after that moment. I'm no Legal eagle but I had previously contacted Slater and Gordon over a similar poor refereeing decision to see if there was a case to run this claim. They agreed that it had legs but the outcome would be that no one would become a referee and sport would crash to a halt. I don't care about that outcome - if it's wrong then it's wrong. David Smith should fix this mess or F.U.C.K. Off! Shayne Hayne is an absolute joke. Our Season is over and the money has spoken. Sack a bloke for the season for having a bet but keep paying a P.R.I.C.K. like Hayne is a kick in the Nads to all League fans. It's sick Mr Smith. You have stuffed this game big time. LET's Sue Hayne folks! Let's do it - I am sick of CORRUPTION!
Click to expand...

It does not have legs. Slater and Gordon were bullshitting you. I assume they asked for a $100,000 retainer.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
 
If the NRL can heavily suspend or sack a player for bringing the game into disrepute then why can't the NRL heavily suspend or sack a referee for bringing the game into disrepute?
 
@Newtown said:
If the NRL can heavily suspend or sack a player for bringing the game into disrepute then why can't the NRL heavily suspend or sack a referee for bringing the game into disrepute?
Click to expand...

All the sackings and suspensions you speak of have been because of off field incidents. Now, if someone can just get a pic of Hayne trying to pee into his mouth, then we might have a chance to be rid of him! Photoshop anyone? :mrgreen:
 
@Flippedy said:
@Newtown said:
If the NRL can heavily suspend or sack a player for bringing the game into disrepute then why can't the NRL heavily suspend or sack a referee for bringing the game into disrepute?

All the sackings and suspensions you speak of have been because of off field incidents. Now, if someone can just get a pic of Hayne trying to pee into his mouth, then we might have a chance to be rid of him! Photoshop anyone? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I am sure that a lot of people would say that he was doing something much more lewd.
 
No Southern - they were seriously interested - I wrote to them and they rang me back in two days. They understood the situation. I explained the COST i.e. the money that was involved - Balmain vs St George at Leichhardt Oval in the early 2000's - Saints interchanged a player incorrectly and scored (sorry memory a bit vague but it was a pretty blatant error.that the refs allowed). I explained that people in the stadium (Leichhardt Oval) had their amenity ruined by the decision. I calculated the monetary cost of the loss of amenity by simply counting the attendance fees. In a crowd of 15,000 at least 10,000 were Tigers fans. At an average of $8 dollars per head we are talking about $80,000 lost amenity.(And that was a lot of money back then). Anyway they agreed that it had legs because of the negligence amenity rule but they felt the ramification for sport was too great in that no one would want to become a ref if the risk of litigation over such a ruling was mandated.
 
@LeichhardtTiger said:
No Southern - they were seriously interested - I wrote to them and they rang me back in two days. They understood the situation. I explained the COST i.e. the money that was involved - Balmain vs St George at Leichhardt Oval in the early 2000's - Saints interchanged a player incorrectly and scored (sorry memory a bit vague but it was a pretty blatant error.that the refs allowed). I explained that people in the stadium (Leichhardt Oval) had their amenity ruined by the decision. I calculated the monetary cost of the loss of amenity by simply counting the attendance fees. In a crowd of 15,000 at least 10,000 were Tigers fans. At an average of $8 dollars per head we are talking about $80,000 lost amenity.(And that was a lot of money back then). Anyway they agreed that it had legs because of the negligence amenity rule but they felt the ramification for sport was too great in that no one would want to become a ref if the risk of litigation over such a ruling was mandated.
Click to expand...

Mate you are either lying or they are taking the piss. Trust me I do it for a living. I never say never in law but in this case … never.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
 
@LeichhardtTiger said:
No Southern - they were seriously interested - I wrote to them and they rang me back in two days. They understood the situation. I explained the COST i.e. the money that was involved - Balmain vs St George at Leichhardt Oval in the early 2000's - Saints interchanged a player incorrectly and scored (sorry memory a bit vague but it was a pretty blatant error.that the refs allowed). I explained that people in the stadium (Leichhardt Oval) had their amenity ruined by the decision. I calculated the monetary cost of the loss of amenity by simply counting the attendance fees. In a crowd of 15,000 at least 10,000 were Tigers fans. At an average of $8 dollars per head we are talking about $80,000 lost amenity.(And that was a lot of money back then). Anyway they agreed that it had legs because of the negligence amenity rule but they felt the ramification for sport was too great in that no one would want to become a ref if the risk of litigation over such a ruling was mandated.
Click to expand...

Mate you are either lying or they are taking the piss. Trust me I do it for a living. I never say never in law but in this case … never.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
 
I said to mate at the time, we will get beaten by plenty so this blunder will sound like sour grapes if we complain.The bottom line it was a massive momentum swing at the time.

I dont think we would have won but it is the arrogance of the guy. The NRL has to act and act hard, he made a blunder in not reviewing try and it ended up in a 12 point turn around.

The trouble the NRL has, if they sack him, who do they replace him with
 
@southerntiger said:
@LeichhardtTiger said:
No Southern - they were seriously interested - I wrote to them and they rang me back in two days. They understood the situation. I explained the COST i.e. the money that was involved - Balmain vs St George at Leichhardt Oval in the early 2000's - Saints interchanged a player incorrectly and scored (sorry memory a bit vague but it was a pretty blatant error.that the refs allowed). I explained that people in the stadium (Leichhardt Oval) had their amenity ruined by the decision. I calculated the monetary cost of the loss of amenity by simply counting the attendance fees. In a crowd of 15,000 at least 10,000 were Tigers fans. At an average of $8 dollars per head we are talking about $80,000 lost amenity.(And that was a lot of money back then). Anyway they agreed that it had legs because of the negligence amenity rule but they felt the ramification for sport was too great in that no one would want to become a ref if the risk of litigation over such a ruling was mandated.

Mate you are either lying or they are taking the piss. Trust me I do it for a living. I never say never in law but in this case … never.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No Southern I'm not lying - what a stupid comment! It's precisely what happened - what do you do for a living W.A.N.K.ING.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,126 (members: 9, guests: 1,117)
Back
Top