Greg Inglis to retire in 2020

[JD Tiger]

What proof do you have of NRL bias?

I think he submitted evidence in his final paragraph your honour

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

 

[JD Tiger]

I think he submitted evidence in his final paragraph your honour

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

It's funny, I have a bad habit of following poor performing teams lol, I join forums for all those teams and supporters of all poorly performing teams, that I follow, claim some kind of bias from the administration of their sport as the reason that their team sucks. OMG though the Americans take the cake, there are supporters of the Bengals that believe that the NFL is basically scripted to favour the big market teams. So I am sorry but I might be a little jaded by the "insert sporting organisation here" is bias against our team lol.

I have no idea about the NFL, but rugby league mate clearly does have vested interests. The big money is in Pay TV rights, so the NRL does cater to their wants. They want a game with a Qld team playing Friday night, so that's why the Broncos usually have taken that time slot. Common knowledge. It's not fair to the others, but that's life. There's a hundred more little things like that, not just anti-Wests Tigers, but anti-most teams.

I don't know if anyone believes the NRL is on an even playing ground for all the teams, but if there are some that believe that I bet they are in the minority.

 

[cochise]

I think he submitted evidence in his final paragraph your honour

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I think he submitted evidence in his final paragraph your honour

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

It's funny, I have a bad habit of following poor performing teams lol, I join forums for all those teams and supporters of all poorly performing teams, that I follow, claim some kind of bias from the administration of their sport as the reason that their team sucks. OMG though the Americans take the cake, there are supporters of the Bengals that believe that the NFL is basically scripted to favour the big market teams. So I am sorry but I might be a little jaded by the "insert sporting organisation here" is bias against our team lol.

Everyone loves playing the victim card. It makes their position in life easier to accept when they have someone else to blame besides themselves.

 

[Newtown]

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

I am sure that this will go to court as the NRL cannot pass a judgement against themselves. Importantly it involves a person's livelihood and respect. Let's leave it to the courts to settle this one out.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

That is not evidence of bias.

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg's mouth.
I am certain that the "community" or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn't afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem "past mistakes"….....this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

 

[cochise]

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg's mouth.
I am certain that the "community" or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn't afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem "past mistakes"….....this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

I don't agree with you but your points are fair enough.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg's mouth.
I am certain that the "community" or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn't afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem "past mistakes"….....this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

I don't agree with you but your points are fair enough.

You don't agree that Inglis has been given a hell of a lot more leniency and leeway than Simona was afforded?
That is just one example.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Who cares about Simona. He was fixing games while wearing our jersey. Drawing a long bow bringing him into it.

 

[jadtiger]

Who cares about Simona. He was fixing games while wearing our jersey. Drawing a long bow bringing him into it.

I very much doubt he was "fixing" games.he certainly was putting very small bets on the players marking him to score against him which they failed to do.He was stupid in the extreme and what he was doing with charities was disgraceful but i honestly cant say he was fixing games

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Who cares about Simona. He was fixing games while wearing our jersey. Drawing a long bow bringing him into it.

I very much doubt he was "fixing" games.he certainly was putting very small bets on the players marking him to score against him which they failed to do.He was stupid in the extreme and what he was doing with charities was disgraceful but i honestly cant say he was fixing games

He was manipulating the outcome. That’s match fixing.

 

[Geo]

lol Rubbish..

 

[GNR4LIFE]

lol Rubbish..

Assume you’re talking to me?

Ryan Tandy was classified as a match fixer for betting on a penalty goal .How’s that different to Simona?

 

[Geo]

lol Rubbish..

Assume you’re talking to me?

Ryan Tandy was classified as a match fixer for betting on a penalty goal .How’s that different to Simona?

Because he gave away the penalty and was directly involved in the betting sting of other people on that game and received cash to do,,..Simona was never charged with Match Fixing by the NRL or the courts..never received cash from outside parties to influence the result of a game..he was just an idiot..

 

[Tiger_Steve]

lol Rubbish..

Assume you’re talking to me?

Ryan Tandy was classified as a match fixer for betting on a penalty goal .How’s that different to Simona?

Because he gave away the penalty and was directly involved in the betting sting of other people on that game and received cash to do,,..Simona was never charged with Match Fixing by the NRL or the courts..never received cash from outside parties to influence the result of a game..he was just an idiot..

…....... silence ...........

 

[TheDaBoss]

Full sermons get written in this thread

 

[Red88_Tiger]

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg's mouth.
I am certain that the "community" or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn't afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem "past mistakes"….....this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

Reality is its about how good the player is and what the governing body get out of the relationship.This is human nature and goes right down to grass roots aswell and I don't think it will ever change. IMO.

 

[hobbo]

lol Rubbish..

Assume you’re talking to me?

Ryan Tandy was classified as a match fixer for betting on a penalty goal .How’s that different to Simona?

Because he gave away the penalty and was directly involved in the betting sting of other people on that game and received cash to do,,..Simona was never charged with Match Fixing by the NRL or the courts..never received cash from outside parties to influence the result of a game..he was just an idiot..

…....... silence ...........

Owned !

 

[JD Tiger]

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he's made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don't think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg's mouth.
I am certain that the "community" or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn't afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem "past mistakes"….....this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

Reality is its about how good the player is and what the governing body get out of the relationship.This is human nature and goes right down to grass roots aswell and I don't think it will ever change. IMO.

Back when Carney had repeated infractions at the Raiders, and they were trying to get him to pull his head in, in one of Carney's incidents he was driving, without a licence, possibly under the influence from memory, and the cops tried to pull him over but he drove off. There was a passenger in that car, a younger Raiders player called Steve Irwin. Raiders gave Todd another chance (another few chances) but young Steve who was a up-and-comer got shown the door.

The clubs (and the NRL) don't give one care about fairness, only what is in their best interests. Players, clubs, officials. Whichever. Greg has been in trouble for domestic violence, played under two contracts simultaneously, even drink and drive home drunk after a community rugby league event and still gets commended by the NRL CEO.

For his sake, hope he somehow changes things around, because when his career is over, he won't continue getting the red carpet treatment indefinitely.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

lol Rubbish..

Assume you’re talking to me?

Ryan Tandy was classified as a match fixer for betting on a penalty goal .How’s that different to Simona?

Because he gave away the penalty and was directly involved in the betting sting of other people on that game and received cash to do,,..Simona was never charged with Match Fixing by the NRL or the courts..never received cash from outside parties to influence the result of a game..he was just an idiot..

…....... silence ...........

There’s no point going back and forth. Just look up the definition of match fixing and get back to me.