How wasnt Thurston sent off

[Tiger_Al]

No idea… Should've gone in my opinion.

But then Waterhouse gets sent for something very soft!!!!!!

 

[westTAHger]

if the situation was reversed and thurston was on receiving end of the boot in the face, I would be interested to see, what the eventual outcome, for the player involved would be.

no doubt he would miss a game or two.

the rules should apply to all players, regardless of who they are. :imp:

 

[mtd]

the question isn't why wasn't he sent off, it's why didnt someone deck him and get them both sent off?

 

[ThrillMeTiger]

In the context of the game. Penalty was sufficient.

Agree.

Penalty and move on, he collected the player in the face with his boot - yes, but it was never intentional, the exact same as a player falling into a tackle and being hit high, the penalty is justified but the intent non-existant.

Some people love to over-react, it comes as no surprise however that the Tigers play the Cowboys this week, I suppose that is having no effect on people's opinions on a Wests Tigers forum?? 😕

Over-reacting to a kick in the face?

Sure mate

 

[Benji-Marshall-luvr]

More like, how didnt he get at least one game? :angry:

 

[Yossarian]

Maybe i saw this wrong or maybe i'm not as biased as some people on here - it looked as though Thurston was trying to disloge the ball from Butterfingers by kicking at it - yes that is a penalty and a reportable offence but it didn't look like he intentionally tried to kick him in the face - also later in the game Gidley saved a try by going in with his knees and dislodging the ball

It doesn't matter what his intention was, it was a dangerous act - that's why they have different grades for high tackles depending on whether it was reckless or intentional. Thurston's kick was reckless and it should warrant more demerit points than 75\. If it was deliberate/intentional he'd be looking at a lot longer than a week or two.