HavenFans.co.uk - The Unofficial Whitehaven RLFC Forum

sam burgess

Offline puppetmaster

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 4200
on: 29 Oct 2007, 08:00:00 am
i wonder, just wonder, what will happen to burgess in front of the "no case to answer" committee this week, having made an otherwise awesome debut for GB on saturday, against what can only be described as a poor NZ team?

i know what should happen, he should be banned for at least 3 matches, but we all know that is highly unlikely

the high tackle he committed was one of the worst for quite some time and i'm sorry but its about time someone was made an example of, the amount of high tackle GB got away with was disturbing too, somebody actually stated recently that the rfl wont be happy until somebody is seriously injured, i'm tending to think that could be not far from the truth!

just think Gb could have been/should be going into the last 2 tests without either starting props, as thug morley should have been banned too.
the reverand, big mac

Just cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense
And just cause you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good


Offline HavenWarrior

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 3131
Reply #1 on: 29 Oct 2007, 09:11:49 am
i wonder, just wonder, what will happen to burgess in front of the "no case to answer" committee this week, having made an otherwise awesome debut for GB on saturday, against what can only be described as a poor NZ team?

i know what should happen, he should be banned for at least 3 matches, but we all know that is highly unlikely

the high tackle he committed was one of the worst for quite some time and i'm sorry but its about time someone was made an example of, the amount of high tackle GB got away with was disturbing too, somebody actually stated recently that the rfl wont be happy until somebody is seriously injured, i'm tending to think that could be not far from the truth!

just think Gb could have been/should be going into the last 2 tests without either starting props, as thug morley should have been banned too.

I wonder in Mr Moi Moi will get cited for what was a DELIBERATE lead with the elbow, later on the game as well. Lets face it, it was bad, but the Kiwis like dishing it out, but dont like getting it back. Before the game on Saturday i thought we would be out muscled up front, but was suprised how well we did.

TW


Offline kellsendlad

  • Academy Signing
  • *
    • Posts: 99
Reply #2 on: 29 Oct 2007, 10:30:03 am
didnt fui fui moi moi play for tonga last season at donkey park against cumbria


Offline puppetmaster

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 4200
Reply #3 on: 29 Oct 2007, 03:56:41 pm
surprise surprise, burgess has been deemed  "NO CASE TO ANSWER" by the aforementioned committee....

so by my reckoning next season is free for all with high tackles and you wont get punished,

the disciplinary committee are a complete joke and a cop out, trying only to prove that the ref was right to take the easy option and not send off a guy who deserved to walk for the high shot.

i'll bet if it had been Sam Burgess Whitehaven or Workington player they would have had a case to answer
the reverand, big mac

Just cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense
And just cause you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good


Offline haven lad 06

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1082
Reply #4 on: 29 Oct 2007, 04:16:03 pm
he should ahve been off straight away a high tackle like that cannot just be put n report i read somewhere that burgess said he didnt mean to do it so he doesnt think anything will happen, what an utter joke just because he didnt mean it doesnt take away from the fact that it was an awful tackle, bull trindall didnt mean the high tackle against ________ (insert team name :D) but still got a 2 match ban
haven till i die


Offline puppetmaster

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 4200
Reply #5 on: 29 Oct 2007, 04:59:17 pm
he should ahve been off straight away a high tackle like that cannot just be put n report i read somewhere that burgess said he didnt mean to do it so he doesnt think anything will happen, what an utter joke just because he didnt mean it doesnt take away from the fact that it was an awful tackle, bull trindall didnt mean the high tackle against ________ (insert team name :D) but still got a 2 match ban

LEIGH!

lol
the reverand, big mac

Just cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense
And just cause you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good


Offline haven lad 06

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1082
Reply #6 on: 29 Oct 2007, 08:27:43 pm
haha thanks my mind went blank ;D
haven till i die


Offline LeeF

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1576
Reply #7 on: 29 Oct 2007, 08:59:49 pm
surprise surprise, burgess has been deemed  "NO CASE TO ANSWER" by the aforementioned committee....

so by my reckoning next season is free for all with high tackles and you wont get punished,

the disciplinary committee are a complete joke and a cop out, trying only to prove that the ref was right to take the easy option and not send off a guy who deserved to walk for the high shot.

i'll bet if it had been Sam Burgess Whitehaven or Workington player they would have had a case to answer

Not quite

no ban if international, odd game if Super leagueand nobody actually gets murdered and loads of matches if NL1 or 2


Offline puppetmaster

  • Top Try Scorer
  • ******
    • Posts: 4200
Reply #8 on: 30 Oct 2007, 06:43:09 am
true enough,
but looking at the 2 high tackles from moron and burgess it seems as though that is the message being sent out, because, and i'm sorry nobody will change my view on them, both of those tackles were high and diliberate, and should have been punished.

how burgess can say he didnt mean to tackle the guy round his neck baffles me,

if that was the case why did he go into the tackle with his arm so high up?

surely he would have been aiming his tackle round the guys waist or legs?
the reverand, big mac

Just cause you don't understand what's going on don't mean it don't make no sense
And just cause you don't like it, don't mean it ain't no good


Offline Keith

  • Fans Favourite
  • *****
    • Posts: 2571
Reply #9 on: 30 Oct 2007, 04:05:38 pm
Whilst I agree with your sentiments big mac, I don't agree with the NZ Chairman crying in the press and calling Morley a "maniac".   Have they so soon forgotten what Vagana did to Paul Deacon and got away with it???  That one warranted a prison sentence!!!
Keith - Haven Legend previously a former Haven Immortal!!!


Offline silver shadow

  • First Team Backup
  • ***
    • Posts: 712
Reply #10 on: 30 Oct 2007, 04:47:39 pm
you bet it did keith. it was awful
NO PAIN NO GAIN


Offline LeeF

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1576
Reply #11 on: 30 Oct 2007, 05:11:18 pm
true enough,
but looking at the 2 high tackles from moron and burgess it seems as though that is the message being sent out, because, and i'm sorry nobody will change my view on them, both of those tackles were high and diliberate, and should have been punished.

how burgess can say he didnt mean to tackle the guy round his neck baffles me,

if that was the case why did he go into the tackle with his arm so high up?

surely he would have been aiming his tackle round the guys waist or legs?

Players are told to tackle around the ball hence the chest tackling area


Offline haven lad 06

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
    • Posts: 1082
Reply #12 on: 30 Oct 2007, 05:18:16 pm
i always though round the legs was the best was to stop somebody moving and put them on the floor :-\
haven till i die


Offline recre

  • First Team Backup
  • ***
    • Posts: 884
Reply #13 on: 30 Oct 2007, 06:36:37 pm
i'll bet if it had been Sam Burgess Whitehaven or Workington player they would have had a case to answer
.

With Rotherham as coach he wouldn't play for either team as he's only 18 and wouldn't be deemed old/good enough to play for the first team. DR probably wouldn't have know his name if he'd played for our academy