Western Sharkie
Jaws
It’s the First case lodgedWhen it comes out can we challenge Dale's suspension?
It’s the First case lodgedWhen it comes out can we challenge Dale's suspension?
We currently have the Bermuda triangle of officialdom.When it comes out can we challenge Dale's suspension?
MRC is a weird one. It never gives advantage to the opposition during the game, but the opponents playing in the upcoming weeks get the advantage.We currently have the Bermuda triangle of officialdom.
The refs
The bunker
The MRC
common sense just vanishes in thin air
It’s punishing the offender not rewards by the victim. Punish the offender makes it easier for their next opponents against them, reward victim makes it harder for their opponents against them.MRC is a weird one. It never gives advantage to the opposition during the game, but the opponents playing in the upcoming weeks get the advantage.
So, if you have a hard game and then a bunch of "easier" games, you can try to hurt the other team and if you cop a week or two suspoension so be it.
I do not know the answer to this problem but somehow there needs to be a way to benefit the wronged-side in the current game too.
I know and understand all that but if you are an offender in the current game, I believe the victim should get an advantage too. You take out my player, I am disadvantaged, then MRC gives you x weeks but you played on in my game.It’s punishing the offender not rewards by the victim. Punish the offender makes it easier for their next opponents against them, reward victim makes it harder for their opponents against them.
Think you have to punish offender
In theory, players that warrant a suspension should have got at least 10 in the bin during the game (if not sent off). That benefits the 'victim'I know and understand all that but if you are an offender in the current game, I believe the victim should get an advantage too. You take out my player, I am disadvantaged, then MRC gives you x weeks but you played on in my game.
IMHO, It should be both. Punish the offender but also reward the victim.
But for the offensive team that’s harsher than the week they play someone else instead.In theory, players that warrant a suspension should have got at least 10 in the bin during the game (if not sent off). That benefits the 'victim'
The problem is that there is so much inconsistency between referring and MRC that they are making each other look stupid.
The concept is fine I just can’t see a good/fair way to do it.I know and understand all that but if you are an offender in the current game, I believe the victim should get an advantage too. You take out my player, I am disadvantaged, then MRC gives you x weeks but you played on in my game.
IMHO, It should be both. Punish the offender but also reward the victim.
Yeah, I do not know the answer to that either.But for the offensive team that’s harsher than the week they play someone else instead.
Maybe the 5 they always mention.
The concept is fine I just can’t see a good/fair way to do it.
Yep, Inconsistency is the biggest issue.In theory, players that warrant a suspension should have got at least 10 in the bin during the game (if not sent off). That benefits the 'victim'
The problem is that there is so much inconsistency between referring and MRC that they are making each other look stupid.
Should retire or go to super league right??Can’t be re signed for next year. Should be playing off the bench also for rest of this year and not even be named captain. This bloke is finished. Has been for the past 3 years.
I agree. Poor call. I thought it should have been “challenge retained”.If Wade challenged Braileys knock on, and it was proven right, shouldn't we have kept our challenge?
If seen plenty of times where a team keeps their challenge even though they found a different indiscretion in the play.
Very good point. I missed it during the game.If Wade challenged Braileys knock on, and it was proven right, shouldn't we have kept our challenge?
If seen plenty of times where a team keeps their challenge even though they found a different indiscretion in the play.
Don't feel bad mate, so did the officials.Very good point. I missed it during the game.
Don't feel bad mate, so did the officials.
They will come out say technically it went up for a knock and and the end result was still a knock on. Some BS like that.
It's called interpretation and they pull this card out all the time.Massage the rules to fit their narrative
FTFYIt's called BS and they pull this card out all the time to suit their agenda.
I reckon Sam from Sharkcast would like the hearing held during the game to determine consequences before the game continued.In theory, players that warrant a suspension should have got at least 10 in the bin during the game (if not sent off). That benefits the 'victim'
The problem is that there is so much inconsistency between referring and MRC that they are making each other look stupid.