Sam Burgess facing suspension, George Burgess cleared

Are you seriously trying to tell people that as a one eyed Souths fan you're satisfied (let alone happy) with the performance and attitude of George and Tom over the past 18-24 months? Please. George is one of Souths highest paid forwards. In 2017 he has played four of seven games playing 29, 30, 18 & 32 minutes. He's been suspended for two games and benched for another. He's made 51 tackles and 35 runs for 362 metres. 0 tries, 0 try assists, 0 offloads, 0 linebreaks. Five tackle busts and four errors. Do you really think Souths are getting anything close to value for money from Burgess' performance?

You are not allowed to forearm someone to the face in a game of rugby league. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The rules don't say "you can forearm someone if you don't like the tackle, feel provoked and have no other way of lashing out." If you think it's fair for Burgess to forearm someone in the face, what would happen if Burgess head butted Tolman or kicked him? Would that be ok? If yes, you've lost the plot. If no, why is one illegal act in retaliation ok and another not? I see little difference between a forearm, a headbutt or a kick. They're all grubby acts and provocation is not an excuse. Burgess has done it twice in his last couple of games.

It's not irrelevant because the fact that tolman would not let go of his head, provoked burgess to lash out in the only way he had available to him. If tolman had let go when the ref told him to, nothing further would have happened. Even if he'd left go after flipping him over and the ref had blown his whistle, nothing would have happened. If you want to use hyperbole, how long should burgess let tolman play with his head? Should he wait another 10seconds ? Should he wait until tolman has flipped him back the other way? Until he breaks his neck??

Why do you blokes keep going on about what Tolman did? It's completely irrelevant. Burgess forearmed him or tried to forearm him in the face. That's always been illegal. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Would it be ok for Burgess to headbutt Tolman because he didn't like the tackle? Would it be ok for him to kick Tolman? Could he pick up a chair and break it across Tolman's back? Of course not, so why is it ok to forearm him to the face? Where is the line?

Tolman's "tackle" was not a grapple tackle, but the terminology brought in to eradicate the grapple tackle was "Unnecessary contact with the head or neck". Tolman had unnecessary contact with Burgess' head for nearly 10seconds, 7 seconds after the ref told him to stop, 3 seconds after the ref blew the whistle. How long should Burgess have let it go on before reacting? I'd say most reasonable people would start to wonder if Tolman would ever let go, if the ref calling him by name didn't stop him nor the whistle being blown nor a push by Burgess with his only available limb, the ball carrying arm. THe more I look at it now, Tolman is lucky not to have been cited for trying to rip George's head off. Tolman has no excuse for his actions, other than trying to stop a quick play the ball from George. George was well and truly provoked and the more I look at it, the more I think he did the only thing a reasonable person would do when someone won't let go of your head. One last argument which is only slightly related but the contact that George did make is the same amount of contact the ball carrier makes in at least 30% of hit ups. Forwards from every team lead into tackles with the forearm and often make direct, legal contact with the throat/head region of the defender. What you don't see in most tackles is someone manhandled and leveraged off the ground by their head. They are the types of tackles that we don't want to see in the game either.

You keep saying burgess got up and tried to elbow tollman. That is a total fabrication. He wasn't up at all he was still being held around the neck by tollman and was attempting to get up

I think you're overstating it but fine, I'll concede all of that. Tolman went on with a tackle too long. Burgess got up and tried to forearm him in the face. What Tolman did is borderline irrelevant, what Burgess did in response shouldn't be part of the game under any circumstance.

The Barry, The Truth that you're glossing over is that the referee called "Aiden, no more!". Tolman not only held on TO HIS HEAD, but he then after being told to let go, pulled him by his head, flipped him over and then still held onto his head. George then gave a push with his ball carrying arm and you know what, Tolman STILL DID NOT LET GO OF HIS HEAD. And that was when George did a stupid thing in having another go, but the frustration of someone holding onto your head, flipping you over and still holding on even after the referee called held 5 seconds ago is justification for lashing out.

Because those medical experts know so much about grappling don't they. Well the NRLs ones certainly didn't when they started trying to police the grapple tackles.

george - 130 metres in 32 minutes of football. Tom 26 tackles - 80 mtrs in 40 mins of football. Decent stats for people that supposedly don't want to be there

Retaliation and self defence arn't the same thing

Blah, blah, blah. Truth is Tolman made an illegal tackle on Burgess. Truth is that Burgess got up and swung a forearm at Tolmans face. Truth is this is the second time he's done it in his last couple of games. Truth is that this has never been legal or even acceptable in rugby league. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. You seem to think it's ok to throw a forearm any time a player doesn't like a tackle.

Of course it was a penalty. Tolman deserved to be penalised. But it was a tackle that happens many times a game and you don't see everyone getting up throwing forearms at their opponents heads. And this is the second time he's done it in the last couple of games. We're talking about a forearm or attempted forearm to the face. I can't believe anyone is defending Burgess' right to throw forearms every time he cops a tackle he doesn't like. Do we need to get to the stage of him breaking someone's jaw until we say "maybe he shouldn't be doing that"?

For someone who has said they dont really care you seem to like to write a lot of childish insults about the burgi bros. "George of the jungle" " marshmellow man" " butt sore" "lug" " lowest of the low".etc. Someone once said, i paraphrase,The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, but the myth. Persistant, persuasive, and unrealistic. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Cant choke someone in a headlock, really? I listen to medical experts not keyboard monkeys. Thanks.

If there was nothing wrong with the "tackle", then why did souths get the penalty?

lol "choked", anyone with even a simplistic understanding of grappling knows you can't actually apply any pressure from that position.

The only marshmallow out there was the lumpy donut princess Eastwood. Flopping in the ground and screaming to the ref for justice. That's the sort of behaviour if his team mates had any sort of spirit would shun. I'm sure they all congratulated him though

There was nothing wrong with the tackle. George of the jungle just got a little butt sore at being manhandled by a smaller man. He's pretty tough against street signs but is the stay puft marshmallow man on the paddock.

I saw it again this arvo and Burgess definitely made contact. It's got nothing to do with 2014. At the end of the day I don't really care that much. Dogs don't get any advantage from Burgess being suspended. Souths next opponents get an advantage from having the big softie out there. For mine it's just a shame that the game now seems to condone elbows / forearms. When I grew up playing and watching footy it was considered the lowest of the low. I'll just have to console myself with a comprehensive victory, two competition points and a clean sheet second half.