Mitchells worse than BJ

[OzLuke]

By Mark Levy

Source? Who is Mark Levy?

I looked him up, a guy from 2GB and seems to do stuff with channel nine.

If it is the same Mark Levy he played fullback for the Tigers and Eels.

Two different blokes.

Damien Cook was asked this.morning if he believed Reynolds kick was accidental... He ummed and ahhed, beated around the bush, mentioned his prior tripping incidents and not once said 'yes, accidental'

I noticed on last nights 360 they didn't question cook or Benji about any of it even though just prior they were talking about it. Crawley is an idiot the way he was carrying on

Crawley’s a twat

Didn't he act like a goose when Kent was going at him about it!!! Had no answer except to ignore what Kent was saying.

 

[Moh]

By Mark Levy

Source? Who is Mark Levy?

I looked him up, a guy from 2GB and seems to do stuff with channel nine.

If it is the same Mark Levy he played fullback for the Tigers and Eels.

Two different blokes.

Damien Cook was asked this.morning if he believed Reynolds kick was accidental... He ummed and ahhed, beated around the bush, mentioned his prior tripping incidents and not once said 'yes, accidental'

I noticed on last nights 360 they didn't question cook or Benji about any of it even though just prior they were talking about it. Crawley is an idiot the way he was carrying on

Crawley’s a twat

Didn't he act like a goose when Kent was going at him about it!!! Had no answer except to ignore what Kent was saying.

All Crawley could come up with in the end to Kent's rebuttal was "....well that's just bad luck" (referring to the result of the punishments handed out)

And unfortunately that view of brushing it off is held by everyone in the game, media when it comes to teams like the Tigers.

 

[earl]

BJ hit out in anger, but there was no intent to harm the bloke. He just hit out at whoever was nearby out of frustration. Not good, but not malicious. An act of opportunity.

Dogshot Mitchell clearly had intent to harm Reynolds, you could see the anger in his face. How that wasn't even considered by the judiciary is testament to their inadequacy.


So you make excuses for BJ, yet with LM it’s black and white. A dog shot. Try looking through both eyes instead of one

I wasn't making excuses, I was drawing a comparison. BJ should have gotten into trouble over his action. Comparatively less trouble than Dogshot Mitchell, because his action carried intent.

That's not bias (well maybe calling Mitchell Dogshot Mitchell is showing bias sure), but that's not bias in viewing the two acts.

Dogshot Mitchell's act was sentenced the same as Reynolds act. In your opinion does that seem reasonable?


Yes, cos they were as both as bad as each other. Don’t know how you can condemn one but make excuses for the other

Personally I think Mitchell's was considerably worse.

 

[hugggarz]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

 

[OzLuke]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

how would the nrl have seen it if reynolds was concussed and had a broken jaw from the dog shot?

 

[hobbo1]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

Lawrence was first in ...

 

[Speed2burn]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

Because we are soft. Even in the penrith game we got bullied all game...the only player that showed an ounce of aggression was BJ now he’s sitting out for it
(Deservedly so)

 

[hugggarz]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

Lawrence was first in ...

True he was, but it looked to me that Rowdy was trying to protect Grub on the ground more than go after Latrell.

 

[stevied]

To some it all up, and as I said before, the League wants Latrell to be one of the faces of the game, one of the excitement machines, entertainers etc, and as such, want him on the field. They couldn't give two hoots about Reynolds, just another battler at the end of his career.....Mitchell is a protected species, Reynolds disposable. All of this takes precedence, of course, over impartial and fair judicial procedures.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

BJ hit out in anger, but there was no intent to harm the bloke. He just hit out at whoever was nearby out of frustration. Not good, but not malicious. An act of opportunity.

Dogshot Mitchell clearly had intent to harm Reynolds, you could see the anger in his face. How that wasn't even considered by the judiciary is testament to their inadequacy.


So you make excuses for BJ, yet with LM it’s black and white. A dog shot. Try looking through both eyes instead of one

I wasn't making excuses, I was drawing a comparison. BJ should have gotten into trouble over his action. Comparatively less trouble than Dogshot Mitchell, because his action carried intent.

That's not bias (well maybe calling Mitchell Dogshot Mitchell is showing bias sure), but that's not bias in viewing the two acts.

Dogshot Mitchell's act was sentenced the same as Reynolds act. In your opinion does that seem reasonable?


Yes, cos they were as both as bad as each other. Don’t know how you can condemn one but make excuses for the other

Personally I think Mitchell's was considerably worse

And I’m sure you will tell me that it has nothing to do with the fact he’s an opposition player ?‍♂️

 

[Russell]

Of course the media have to take some blame for not turning up the heat. They had a field day with BJ, spread his face all over the back page of most eastern state rags and gave him prime time on television making him out to be a thug. Yet with Latrell they basically accept the league’s ruling. The NRL will do nothing unless they are shamed

Spot on....one is a thug act and the other is defending his teammate....what a spin!!!!

If either of them were on the street they would've both been locked up.....but Mitchell's is the true meaning of coward punch because reynolds wasn't even facing the same way

But you can make an argument LM was defending his teammate. Who was BJ defending when he cheap shotted Edwards?

I find it difficult to think that LM was defending his teammate.There was no reason at all for LM to coat hang Reynolds at all. I find it much easier to believe that LM was on angry pills throughout the match and knew he could get away with almost anything.

He takes the same pills as Walker - I think they share them.

 

[earl]

BJ hit out in anger, but there was no intent to harm the bloke. He just hit out at whoever was nearby out of frustration. Not good, but not malicious. An act of opportunity.

Dogshot Mitchell clearly had intent to harm Reynolds, you could see the anger in his face. How that wasn't even considered by the judiciary is testament to their inadequacy.


So you make excuses for BJ, yet with LM it’s black and white. A dog shot. Try looking through both eyes instead of one

I wasn't making excuses, I was drawing a comparison. BJ should have gotten into trouble over his action. Comparatively less trouble than Dogshot Mitchell, because his action carried intent.

That's not bias (well maybe calling Mitchell Dogshot Mitchell is showing bias sure), but that's not bias in viewing the two acts.

Dogshot Mitchell's act was sentenced the same as Reynolds act. In your opinion does that seem reasonable?


Yes, cos they were as both as bad as each other. Don’t know how you can condemn one but make excuses for the other

Personally I think Mitchell's was considerably worse

And I’m sure you will tell me that it has nothing to do with the fact he’s an opposition player ?‍♂️

I try to be objective. BJ was just stupid and it wasn't going to hurt anyone. Latrell went hard with a cheap shot. It's a subjective opinion but I try not to take into account which team was playing.

 

[Needaname]

I tend to disagree.
Really.
Your all reacting to the damage of the impact.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and so after Edwards getting back up your going off about it like BJ wouldn’t hurt a fly.
That may have been the outcome of this particular incident. However and I can’t speak for the players mindset, but it was a grubby shot, and completely unnecessary.
In the case of Mitchell. His intention was to grab Reynolds and shake him up a bit. He didn’t fly in punching him. He came from behind and threw his arm around him and as a result clocked him in the Jaw.
Would we be downplaying the BJ incident if Edwards was a step closer and received a king hit from him?
Would we be talking about the Latrell incident if Reynolds didn’t crouch over Cambell Graham at that exact moment.
Think about it. Really.

 

[Tcat]

Of course the media have to take some blame for not turning up the heat. They had a field day with BJ, spread his face all over the back page of most eastern state rags and gave him prime time on television making him out to be a thug. Yet with Latrell they basically accept the league’s ruling. The NRL will do nothing unless they are shamed

Spot on....one is a thug act and the other is defending his teammate....what a spin!!!!

If either of them were on the street they would've both been locked up.....but Mitchell's is the true meaning of coward punch because reynolds wasn't even facing the same way

But you can make an argument LM was defending his teammate. Who was BJ defending when he cheap shotted Edwards?

I think that neither were defending their team mates at all. They were both acting like self entitled thugs and were solely out for revenge and any chance for a cheap shot. Both are paying for it, we just got shafted a little harder.

 

[TCL]

Was just looking at this a bit closer earlier and 100% agree - it is worse and had the greater potential to be a lasting injury to the guy on the receiving end.

But something else I noticed as well was the only guy who came in afterwards that wanted to really give Latrell a piece of his mind (and maybe more) was Doueihi. I'm liking this guy more and more each week.

Lawrence was first in ...

Cause it took Doueihi 10mins to get there.

 

[mike]

In case anyone forgets...

[Wests Tigers vs Latrell Mitchell](https://photos.michaelstapleton.com.au/Michaels/2020/20200710-Wests-Tigers-vs-Latrell-Mitchell/i-6BnSVwb/A)