Update on Danny's hearing

[Gostorm]

Irrespective of any appeal outcome this has now set a precedence for all high tackles with most players staying down even more so to exaggerate the injury/shock. The judiciary has now raised the bar and will have to live with it time and time again as with league there will always be high tackles and retaliations/paybacks. The ball is now in the NRL's court so lets see how they play the game.

As for Danny I personally thought when taken in context with Bird's incident maybe between 8 and 12 weeks would have sufficed.

It will be interestinf if an appeal is made and the result or the severity is totally different. That would make a mockery of the judiciary in respect of not giving considerations to the medical evidence.

[clock off]

Lots of comment on Fox Sports tonight (Thursday) on the Danny Williams sentance.

Russell Fairfax was on Fox Sports News. He thought Danny's defence was pretty good and was astounded by the severity of the sentance. Fairfax thought that Danny should get six weeks.

On the Main Game, all commentators bar one (Bulldog) thought the penalty was too severe. The main criticism was that the judiciary listened to expert neurological testimony in Danny's defence for six hours, from three of the most eminent neurologists in Australia, and while they all spoke in Danny's defence the judiciary still came up with the most severe penalty demanded by the prosecution! Apparently, the prosecution expert witness agreed with the defence witnesses, but the NRL panel (3 former fowards) just ignored all this evidence and handed out the 18 weeks. And Danny pleaded guilty for which there is usually some concession. What would he have copped if he had said not guilty? Again the majority on Main Game thought that Danny should have got about 6 weeks, given the evidence.

As for Danny, he just said that he was very disappointed and is weighing up his options.

APPEAL

[Surandy]

I am convinced that Danny's defence was a farce. From all reports the judiciary took absolutely no notice of it.

It seems to me that they had decided on his suspension long before last night's hearing even started.

On the plus side I've nearly managed to get some idiot on rleague banned for flaming me over my criticism of the length of the suspension.

[clock off]

Surandy, do you mean the League United forum?

Since Danny's incident it has been pretty hard to find a storm avatar in their Melbourne Storm forum. Just a lot of dills from other clubs coming over to bag Danny & his supporters. Theyre entitled to their opinion of course, but I enjoy ignoring dills.

[Surandy]

Surandy, do you mean the League United forum?

Since Danny's incident it has been pretty hard to find a storm avatar in their Melbourne Storm forum. Just a lot of dills from other clubs coming over to bag Danny & his supporters. Theyre entitled to their opinion of course, but I enjoy ignoring dills.

I've been posting the odd post on LU but I definitely meant Rleague in my earlier post. Mattp abused me coz I criticised the length of Danny's suspension. So I criticised him for flaming me, and then a heap of others criticised him too, including the moderators.

[Thunderstruck]

Ahh.. the old World of Rugby League Grandstand. I don't go there anymore

[OZRHINO]

OK,

Everyone is going to hate me ( even more ) for this, but seriously, how long did you expect him to go for? 3 weeks? 8 weeks? 12 weeks?
I think it was fully warranted. Yes, it is a very long time, but what he did was deplorable.
His actions were shown not just on the inside back page of the Herald Sun ( when was the last time we got coverage there? ) the Age, the news in the UK and many other places Rugby League is struggling to gain a foothold.
I think his sentence sends a strong message out that thuggery is not tolerated in this game and will show parents that this is not acceptable in the game and that it IS a safe game for their kids to play.

If he would have got 5 weeks - what message would that have sent? C'mon, if it was a Wests Tigers player who knocked out Williams/Kearns/Kearney you know you would all agree it was a fair penalty.

What makes me laugh is that people who sit around me at the game scream blue murder and demand sendings off for the most petty of things that opposition players do - and are probably on here complaining about the Williams sentence. You have to look at it both ways.

[steaming stormer]

Everyone is going to hate me ( even more ) for this, but seriously, how long did you expect him to go for? 3 weeks? 8 weeks? 12 weeks?
I think it was fully warranted. Yes, it is a very long time, but what he did was deplorable.
His actions were shown not just on the inside back page of the Herald Sun ( when was the last time we got coverage there? ) the Age, the news in the UK and many other places Rugby League is struggling to gain a foothold.
I think his sentence sends a strong message out that thuggery is not tolerated in this game and will show parents that this is not acceptable in the game and that it IS a safe game for their kids to play.

If he would have got 5 weeks - what message would that have sent? C'mon, if it was a Wests Tigers player who knocked out Williams/Kearns/Kearney you know you would all agree it was a fair penalty.

What makes me laugh is that people who sit around me at the game scream blue murder and demand sendings off for the most petty of things that opposition players do - and are probably on here complaining about the Williams sentence. You have to look at it both ways.

Well said!! I refuse to defend what he did, but given the fact that 3 medical experts testified that he was concussed and not in control, I felt that should have dropped the penalty from the 18 he was always going to get, to somewhere between 12-15.

My only problem with the whole case is that it appears the sentence was predetermined by the media, and that the judiciary simply ignored the testimony of 3 medical experts.

[Insomniac]

My only problem with the whole case is that it appears the sentence was predetermined by the media, and that the judiciary simply ignored the testimony of 3 medical experts.

EXACTLY!
No one on here supports the actions of Williams, we are all just disputing the obviously PREDETERMINED length of the suspension and the obviously ignored opinions of 3 medical EXPERTS.

Obviously we would be more sceptical of this defence if the player was from another team, but most probably because we would have not been as interested and informed of ALL information prior to the ruling.
But we're not appealing to the mass of outraged fans from other teams (there's simply no point), we're appealing to those that have received ALL information and obviously ignored some of it conveniently - the judiciary!

It is also interesting to hear that other players from other teams (and some from other codes) have also come out claiming that they too have received a heavy knock, got back to their feet and continued to play, only to find out later that they had a very different recollection of events that took place once they had regained their feet - an AFL player actually found out that he too had struck an opponent and had no memory of doing so. Surely there is some credibility in this that needs to be looked at from a medical perspective...

So, to answer your question OZRHINO, I think 10-12 weeks would have fit the crime in this case given the medical evidence, but that's just my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, which I respect.

[Surandy]

I can't believe that Gorden Tallis had the nerve to comment on Danny's suspension. He thinks it's okay to bash the crap out of someone on the field as long as the punchbag is looking at you.

[Thunderstorm]

Yes when I read that both Tallis and Webke (spelling doesn't look right ... tooo bad) had made those comments I nearly choked. Making themselves out to be choirboys...but Gordie is having a go at Chris Beattie claiming he head butted him during the Cronulla game. Seems only Gordie can have a go but no one else

[steaming stormer]

Don't kid yourselves... what Tallis and Williams did are two very, very different things... one was a fight, the other a king hit

[TC]

When you look back in history to the cowardly way Ian Roberts bashed Garry Jack - imagine Tallis on Ross but prop on fullback, it almost finished Jack's career - I don't think he's a fit person to be on the panel (he got zero weeks btw) adjudicating someone elses brutality.

Danny's hit was bad and deserved a long holiday, but worse than say Maddison's unprovoked elbow? I don't think so. say