Scott cops two-game NRL ban for punch

Good old Luke Lewis has the answer. If you aren't happy with what an opponent says to you , which happens in every game and the same bloke grabs you by the jumper and shakes you up a bit which also happens in every game then it is ok to punch him in the head and break his eye socket because according to Lewis you both should get sent off. You can't see any problems with your stance Luke Lewis? Does the name Michael Innes ring a bell?

Intentional is punching dropping the shoulder into someones head kicking commonsense decisions that would determine intent and not for the accidental actions that can happen in the course of a tackle .And personally i would like to see the grading system thrown out as it hasnt worked and to often the judicary get it horribly wrong . Its to coplex and it does need to be simplified. But opinions vary dont they .?

Ok, now you are starting to get away from simplistic. You are seemingly now ok with minimum bans based on the severity of the conduct but still want to leave the maximum open ended? And apparently now the distinction should only apply to acts deemed intentional? Why not careless, dangerous or reckless gradings? Jordan McLean was charged with a grade 2 dangerous tackle for the McKinnon incident, so it wasn't by definition completely "accidental", although obviously there was no intent to cause the result that eventuated. Neither can you claim that Scott intended to break Walker's eye socket. Imagine your model applied if young cleanskin T. Trbojevic in rd 1 next year hits Gallen fractionally late and Paul has to go off with an injured knee. MRC decides grade 1-careless but turns out it was a season ending ACL that not only takes him out for the season but finishes his career. Is Trboyevic now out for the season only or lifetime ban? The point is that justice is complex and taking simplistic approaches will often result in results that under or over punish the offender due to variables well outside the scope of their actions.

One was an accident one was intentional their is a big difference and as i said their is no way Walker or anyone for that matter comes back in a week with a broken eye socket and what i am saying if the injury time is over the mandatory sentence that the perp would normally recieve then he should sit out to for intentional breaches just so your clear lol.

Not over the top at all. Just taking your simplistic argument to its logical conclusion! If Walker's eye socket is not broken he plays this week and by your logic so does Scott. That is patently ridiculous for what he did, but so would have been banning for life the player(s) involved in the McKinnon tackle.

Bit over the top their Mc their is no way Walker will be back for any less than 4 weeks what i am saying is 2 weeks is a joke and yes make it that simplistic if the player comes back in three then so can the perp why not .

The offender out for as long as the recipient is way too simplistic. What if Walker only misses 1 or no weeks? Should Scott then get off Scott free? ? What about an incident like the Alex McKinnon tackle that unfortunately ends someone's career?

Disagree KK... look at the example Tom has quoted. By this standard, Burgess might as well have stood his ground and smashed Sezer directly in the head. If Scott had been done for each of the three punches separately, he'd already be suspended for 5-6 weeks minimum. It is a terribly low penalty for smashing a bloke's head in. If we could rely on precedent in the NRL (we can't), then at the end of the season, players at clubs playing only for pride rather than finals footy might as well go round beating each other up and causing massive injuries to those who ARE playing finals. I get he's been sent off, but that's hardly a factor to reduce the suspension by so much.

What a joke Walker out for six weeks perpetrator out for two Scott should be out for the same time but a fair go wont happen its the NRL.

Let me get this straight - Sam Burgess hits Aidan Sezer high, Sezer goes off for an HIA, Burgess gets 2 weeks. The hit is careless, sure, but there was no intention on Burgess's part to injure the player, it was a legitimate attempt at a tackle which went wrong. Scott deliberately attacks Walker because he said some nasty words to him. Walker is ruled out of the game after failing an HIA, and also has 6 weeks off with a broken eye socket. Scott's attack was completely deliberate, and had a far worse outcome for the victim, and yet he gets the same penalty as Burgess gets for a bad tackle. Utterly ridiculous. If Burgess got 2 weeks, Scott should be looking at a considerably longer stint on the sideline.

What Curtis Scott did,though against the rules of the game and did not look good, was more acceptable or easier to forgive than elbows, stiff or bent arms to the head, flying headbutts and knees to the groin. Add the late tackle to that lot. Curtis is on his way to the top. He is lucky to get this out of the way early in his career. He will undoubtedly become a target. Coach Bellamy will guide him through that problem.