Chris Dalton wrote:I don't know why there is this passionate defense of the disciplinary panel all of a sudden. It's proven itself quite often to be quite preposterous. Who was it who got away with a kung fu kick? Wild?
It's the RFL, it's bound to be badly implemented.
Smokey seems to be arguing that it isn't the same offense, because it involved two different people. The naivety of this is staggering.
You are using a comparison between two similar events. That means you have to use two seperate events because using the same one twice wouldn't make it a comparison. The fact that you are using a similar offence to establish your point is the gist of your argument. One offense was punished properly, the other wasn't.
The logic at work here is, to be frank, jaw dropping. If he cannot get his head around your point and work from there, he is stupid. If he can and yet chooses to come up with the response he did as a joke, he isn't funny. He's onto a loser either way.
they quite clearly arent the same offence, they may be similar offences, even very similar but quite clearly not the same,
the evidence for this is quite obviously common sense!
the rfl have judged one to be a more severe offence, whether you agree or not, it is in no way evidence of any kind of conspiracy it would take a monumental level of paranoid idiocy to believe it would, so well done on that
what you seem to be proposing, is that all offences listed under deliberately broad titles are punished the same regardless of severity, which is a fairly preposterous ideaand to steal a phrase
the naivety of this is staggering
both were cited under offences of the mildest variety, one recieved the minimum banning sanction under that offence, the other the strictes none-banning sanction under that offence
its fairly clear, to anybody other than the paranoid, delusional, or just plain stupid, that one offence was judged a little worse than the other, one strayed passed the line according to an independant panel of judges with much more experience than any of us, disagree with the punishment all you like, but it takes a special kind of self fulfilling logic usually reserved for religious fundementalists and those who devote their lives looking for elvis to believe it was evidence of the RFLs bias
