king_sirro
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 7,592
Player laying on the ground, he comes over and KICKS him in the heads causing facial injuries, if thats not a send off offence what is?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
@willow said:Hopefully the judiciary see it for what it was. I can't believe Gould is saying it was a reflex action, he deliberately stuck his leg out and Williams came up with blood on his mouth. A dirty act from a constantly whingeing player.
@innsaneink said:@willow said:Hopefully the judiciary see it for what it was. I can't believe Gould is saying it was a reflex action, he deliberately stuck his leg out and Williams came up with blood on his mouth. A dirty act from a constantly whingeing player.
So youre saying you think he intended to kick williams in the mouth as opposed to trying to kick the ball out?
@innsaneink said:He deserved a kick in the head the way hes marking Inglis….he should never play again
@innsaneink said:He deserved a kick in the head the way hes marking Inglis….he should never play again
@Danos said:In the context of the game. Penalty was sufficient.
@innsaneink said:Same as the fact Thurstons a QLDer, as you are?
@JRD said:Didnt merritt get suspened this year for using his foot when somebody was scoring a try?
@Zaibatsu said:@Danos said: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??
@Zaibatsu said:@Danos said: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??