Greg Inglis to retire in 2020

[GNR4LIFE]

You must have missed my reply to Steve. I conceded if you don’t want to classify it as match fixing, fine. The crux is he was still attempting to sabotage games, while wearing our jersey.

Was Simona charged with attempting to sabotage games…?

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

Why are you still going on about match fixing? I said last night, if you don’t want to call it that, then that’s fine. Yet, you are still dragging it up. It Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing imo. And in regards to my last post, to answer my own question, I don’t think there is a law reagarding the term sabotage. Hence why there was no charge.

 

[diedpretty]

Was Simona charged with attempting to sabotage games…?

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. You are defending him as hard as you defend Brooks when someone bags him for not closing out games. No idea why, given some of the things he has admitted to doing.

I think you're missing the point some people are trying to make - no one is defending what he did - what most are defending is his right to a second chance given the fact that the NRL has given second chances to some of the biggest scumbags in the game. Your argument that he shouldn't get a second chance because he has brought the game into disrepute doesn't hold much water when you compare him to say Inglis. Surely knowingly signing 2 contracts and receiving under the table payments, allegedly beating your missus and being pissed as a newt as an NRL ambassador then driving home and being arrested would have to be considered as bringing the game in to disrepute would it not. And his punishment. Future immortal and a job for life after football.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. You are defending him as hard as you defend Brooks when someone bags him for not closing out games. No idea why, given some of the things he has admitted to doing.

I think you're missing the point some people are trying to make - no one is defending what he did - what most are defending is his right to a second chance given the fact that the NRL has given second chances to some of the biggest scumbags in the game. Your argument that he shouldn't get a second chance because he has brought the game into disrepute doesn't hold much water when you compare him to say Inglis. Surely knowingly signing 2 contracts and receiving under the table payments, allegedly beating your missus and being pissed as a newt as an NRL ambassador then driving home and being arrested would have to be considered as bringing the game in to disrepute would it not. And his punishment. Future immortal and a job for life after football.

I get the point they are making. I just don’t agree. As I have said numorous times, assault and drink driving is worse in general, but in terms of the game, on the field, it doesn’t get much worse than players manipulating the outcome. My original point, that has been lost is that I don’t think you can compare the 2\. I’m not against throwing the book at off field offenders. I just think in terms of the integrity of the game, manipulating results is one of the lowest acts.

 

[diedpretty]

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. You are defending him as hard as you defend Brooks when someone bags him for not closing out games. No idea why, given some of the things he has admitted to doing.

I think you're missing the point some people are trying to make - no one is defending what he did - what most are defending is his right to a second chance given the fact that the NRL has given second chances to some of the biggest scumbags in the game. Your argument that he shouldn't get a second chance because he has brought the game into disrepute doesn't hold much water when you compare him to say Inglis. Surely knowingly signing 2 contracts and receiving under the table payments, allegedly beating your missus and being pissed as a newt as an NRL ambassador then driving home and being arrested would have to be considered as bringing the game in to disrepute would it not. And his punishment. Future immortal and a job for life after football.

I get the point they are making. I just don’t agree. As I have said numorous times, assault and drink driving is worse in general, but in terms of the game, on the field, it doesn’t get much worse than players manipulating the outcome. My original point, that has been lost is that I don’t think you can compare the 2\. I’m not against throwing the book at off field offenders. I just think in terms of the integrity of the game, manipulating results is one of the lowest acts.

And so you don't believe that Inglis has brought the game in to disrepute.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. You are defending him as hard as you defend Brooks when someone bags him for not closing out games. No idea why, given some of the things he has admitted to doing.

I think you're missing the point some people are trying to make - no one is defending what he did - what most are defending is his right to a second chance given the fact that the NRL has given second chances to some of the biggest scumbags in the game. Your argument that he shouldn't get a second chance because he has brought the game into disrepute doesn't hold much water when you compare him to say Inglis. Surely knowingly signing 2 contracts and receiving under the table payments, allegedly beating your missus and being pissed as a newt as an NRL ambassador then driving home and being arrested would have to be considered as bringing the game in to disrepute would it not. And his punishment. Future immortal and a job for life after football.

I get the point they are making. I just don’t agree. As I have said numorous times, assault and drink driving is worse in general, but in terms of the game, on the field, it doesn’t get much worse than players manipulating the outcome. My original point, that has been lost is that I don’t think you can compare the 2\. I’m not against throwing the book at off field offenders. I just think in terms of the integrity of the game, manipulating results is one of the lowest acts.

And so you don't believe that Inglis has brought the game in to disrepute.

I never said he didn’t. I’m not defending him, I haven’t once defended him.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Was Simona charged with attempting to sabotage games…?

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. I find it bemusing why someone who did the things he did is being defended so staunchly.

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. I find it bemusing why someone who did the things he did is being defended so staunchly.

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

Post of the year! Absolutely correct in every sense - and this, my friends, is why lifelong fans are walking away in droves

 

[Tiger_Steve]

Oh and don’t stop at Greenberg. Don’t forget the other bloke whose only apparent agenda is to expand the game to new cities, states and countries with absolute disregard to the rich history of the clubs that built the league and the thicker than blood tribalism that fuels the game.

 

[Russell]

If Inglis is ever made an immortal that will do me.

Not an immortals bootlace. I guess people could play the "odd one out" with a pack of Immortal cards.

If it ever does happen the other immortals should all hand their titles back.

The guy doesn't deserve to be still playing the game - let alone an immortal.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Is sabotage a legal term? It’s like conservatives arguing collusion isn’t a crime. It isn’t, because in legal terms, collusion isn’t a thing. Is sabotage?

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. I find it bemusing why someone who did the things he did is being defended so staunchly.

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

I’m not disputing any of that, re Inglis. On Simona, does he deserve a second chance? If so, why?

 

[westTAHger]

Who would be faster over the length of the footy field Greg Inglis or Tim Somona ?

 

[Russell]

Who would be faster over the length of the footy field Greg Inglis or Tim Somona ?

Grubs are not fast at all.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

If Inglis is ever made an immortal that will do me.

Not an immortals bootlace. I guess people could play the "odd one out" with a pack of Immortal cards.

If it ever does happen the other immortals should all hand their titles back.

The guy doesn't deserve to be still playing the game - let alone an immortal.

I agree but I’ll mention one thing: Andrew Johns.

 

[jirskyr]

Wondering how the GI thread got to 6 pages - oh derailed by a battle of semantics about Tim Simona.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

Well good at least you realise now your orignal claim that Simona was a match fixer was utterly ridiculous…as many others have pointed out...

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. I find it bemusing why someone who did the things he did is being defended so staunchly.

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

I’m not disputing any of that, re Inglis. On Simona, does he deserve a second chance? If so, why?

On face value, no Simona doesn't deserve a 2nd chance. What he did was disgraceful. However dual-contract signing fraudsters/wife bashers etc shouldn't have been given a 2nd chance either.
So I guess on the flipside, if maggots such as Inglis are running around each week earning squillions, Simona should 100% be allowed to play.

 

[Harvey]

Inglis has been signed as an Uber ambassador

 

[Russell]

If Inglis is ever made an immortal that will do me.

Not an immortals bootlace. I guess people could play the "odd one out" with a pack of Immortal cards.

If it ever does happen the other immortals should all hand their titles back.

The guy doesn't deserve to be still playing the game - let alone an immortal.

I agree but I’ll mention one thing: Andrew Johns.

I'll just say, one more thing Steve - I knew someone would bring that up - not performance enhancing drugs, not a cap cheat, not a wife basher and I don't think DUI to a level of this grub.

 

[Tiger_Steve]

If Inglis is ever made an immortal that will do me.

Not an immortals bootlace. I guess people could play the "odd one out" with a pack of Immortal cards.

If it ever does happen the other immortals should all hand their titles back.

The guy doesn't deserve to be still playing the game - let alone an immortal.

I agree but I’ll mention one thing: Andrew Johns.

I'll just say, one more thing Steve - I knew someone would bring that up - not performance enhancing drugs, not a cap cheat, not a wife basher and I don't think DUI to a level of this grub.

Well I can’t disagree with that. Fair point

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I don’t think it’s utterly ridiculous at all. Doesn’t make what he did do any better even if it wasn’t classified as match fixing. I find it bemusing why someone who did the things he did is being defended so staunchly.

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

I’m not disputing any of that, re Inglis. On Simona, does he deserve a second chance? If so, why?

On face value, no Simona doesn't deserve a 2nd chance. What he did was disgraceful. However dual-contract signing fraudsters/wife bashers etc shouldn't have been given a 2nd chance either.
So I guess on the flipside, if maggots such as Inglis are running around each week earning squillions, Simona should 100% be allowed to play.

It shouldn’t be a case of if Inglis can play, why can’t Simona. Maybe the NRL are doing something right with Simona, regardless of the politics around it. Simona sure isn’t deserving of the sympathetic figure he’s being painted as in comparison to Inglis.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

The original argument was highlighting how Greg Inglis was treated differently than other players when it came to being punished for indiscretions. Simona was just one example.
Simona is a maggot for ripping off charities, no doubt.
But Inglis is a maggot who should of been punted from the NRL many years ago for signing a deliberately false/fraudulent contract. He was given a 2nd chance. After this lifeline he beat his partner, after which he definitely should of been punted from the game. Yet again he was given another chance…....which he rewarded the NRL with his DUI and speeding episode. And then gets given a friggin character reference after all this??
Simona (amongst others) weren't given a 2nd chance let alone a 3rd and 4th complete with a glowing reference from nitwit, spineless Greenberg.
Not defending Simona, just highlighting blatant, disgraceful double standards and inequality.
And the probability that after repeated major indiscretions Inglis will be given a Testimonial, continue to play Origin and Test matches, likely nominated as an Immortal and generally be hailed as a role model by the NRL is downright embarrassing and disgusting.

I’m not disputing any of that, re Inglis. On Simona, does he deserve a second chance? If so, why?

On face value, no Simona doesn't deserve a 2nd chance. What he did was disgraceful. However dual-contract signing fraudsters/wife bashers etc shouldn't have been given a 2nd chance either.
So I guess on the flipside, if maggots such as Inglis are running around each week earning squillions, Simona should 100% be allowed to play.

It shouldn’t be a case of if Inglis can play, why can’t Simona. Maybe the NRL are doing something right with Simona, regardless of the politics around it. Simona sure isn’t deserving of the sympathetic figure he’s being painted as in comparison to Inglis.

Simona was only ever mentioned as an example.
Substitute him for Todd Carney if that suits.
Why was Carney banned from the NRL when Inglis hasn't been? Carney didn't sign a fraudulent contract. Carney didn't get charged with beating a female. Yet he got booted. And Inglis hasn't.
The double standards within the NRL are the argument people are rightly putting forward.
Certain minority groups aren't happy to be pigeonholed as a minority until it suits them to be a minority. Because then you can play the victim card and the scared, PC-riddled NRL bow and scrape to that. It's pathetic.
Scumbags (especially repeat serious offenders) have no right to be afforded the luxury of representing a professional sporting organisation. The word "professional" is used very loosely when it comes to the muppet show that is the NRL.