Addin Fonua-Blake would have been better off eye gouging Mitchell Pearce

Crickets.

The Knight and Keary tackles are quite different. Knight went on with the tackle and pushed the arm back further whereas there was no additional movement from Keary after the initial contact. With regard to preferential treatment, how do explain Joey Manu being suspended for a crusher tackle that didn't really resemble that type of tackle? Why aren't you claiming that Souths received special treatment when Greg Inglis was able to play in last year's preliminary after escaping suspension for a tackle that was a genuine crusher tackle?

To be 100% honest mate I do not support any team. I grew up in the country and as a kid my family were far more into local footy than Sydney footy. When I was in my pre teen years the Sunday night game on 7s big league clashed with Countdown on the ABC, I had two older sisters so I wasn't winning that one. I moved to Sydney as an 18 year old in the 80s. It may sound strange but that's the truth. The judiciary and the NRL get plenty of decisions wrong but I do not believe there is a conspiracy. Cameron Smith may well be biased but he is not the judiciary.

Please don't pity the Bulldogs JH! We're a young inexperienced team who'll surprise more favoured teams this year. Watch out Bunnies!!! :)

George Burgess deserved his suspension forcan eye-gouge, I never complained. I advocated for Liam Knight to be suspended for a chicken wing on Graham and didn't complain when he received a 2 week suspension. But what I want cop is BOTH McGuire and Keary escaping a suspension for the SAME offences respectively. Surely that's fair? The only common denominator is that Keary is a protected Rooster and McGuire is a protected QLD origin rep. Btw Superspud for the sake of transparency please confirm which team you support. I have never made my tribal allegiance on this site unlike some others who are coy about disclosing their allegiances to gain an unfair advantage (and I'm not including you in that as yet).

So where would you stand on this issue if Sam B found himself tackling Luke B and done the same thing? Your arguments above and viewpoint seem dependant on proving your low opinion MaGuire. I don't condone the action in any instance but we need to consider intent as well. It was a facial massage between mates than an attack on the eye. It's a fine for being a d..k more than a suspension for being a grub. For the record, AFB is very hard done by in that situation. If he pulls his arms away, it's a shoulder charge, if he pulls out of the hit, Pearce runs away. I tend to agree with Des, given the circumstances 10 mins in the bin should suffice.

It's because the Roosters receive favourable treatment from NRL Headquarters.

Yeah as for the question about what if it had been Paul Gallen well I reckon he would've preferred to miss the games rather than be stung in the pocket. I guess the question I would ask Papi would be what if the gouger had a surname of Burgess would you change your view?

"You want to have the last word" And then you posted a reply just as I predicted. Bahahahahahahaha

This is not a comment by me but rather an exact quote from the NRL judiciary code of procedure that the match review committee (MRC) should have used to make their determination about the Josh McGuire eye-gouge. The "Notice of Referred Charge in recognition of that fact" referred to below is the role incumbent upon the MRC which, in this case, they have failed to follow the responsibilities they have been given and the letter of the law. NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE JUDICIARY CODE OF PROCEDURE Contact with the Eye Charged as Dangerous Contact – Head/Neck Contact with the eye – commonly called “eye gouging” – is a serious offence and is usually referred to the Judiciary pursuant to a Notice of Referred Charge in recognition of that fact. It is an offence regarded as particularly dangerous conduct, if proven... the player should receive a severe penalty. However, it is not necessary for Judiciary Counsel to prove that the action was deliberate because the offence will also be proved where the conduct is found by the Panel to have been reckless or careless. The following directions have been given in a case where Judiciary Counsel alleged that the gouge was deliberate: ...you should be satisfied that the contact in this case was not only dangerous, but that it was intentional. To be satisfied of that, you would first have to conclude that there was a deliberate action of contact by the hand, with one or more fingers, to the face of the player being tackled, such that the fingers either enter or make contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket. In this regard, a raking action with fingers will suffice to prove the offence, provided that there has been actual contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket, with the intention on the part of the player charged either to injure or to intimidate the player affected. The fingers need not actually enter the eye, but must make contact as indicated. In other words, before you may accept Judiciary Counsel’s submission that the act was deliberate, the charged player must be proven to have had the intention either to injure or to intimidate the player being tackled. If, however, you reject Judiciary Counsel’s contention that the act was intentional, you must nevertheless go on to consider whether the act was reckless or careless because, if either is found, you must find the player guilty of the offence. That said, you must bear in mind that the charged player’s conduct must have been at least careless - he must have failed to play with the proper level of care that the responsible playing of the game requires https://www.nswrl.com.au/siteassets/documents/judiciary-procedure-2018.pdf

You want to have the last word, I get it. I don't really want to back and forth either. You did say in your third post after being challenged on your position "or words very close to the above", but they weren't very close, not close at all. You made your accusation and tried to back it up and were caught out. End of story. You can review the footage if you like or take my word for it. Like I said, I check my facts before I make public accusations. But if it helps the incident happens with 22:52 remaining in the first half. I can skip your comments. that's fine. I am doing it for others and it doesn't diminish my life. I enjoy some of your comments so it is a shame but I agree it isn't worth the hassle.

"Making an entire quote up" As it was from memory I concluded by saying; (Or words very close to the above but this was close) Did you miss that? In any case it's always better to confirm things first before accusing someone and drawing a line in the sand. Like I said, I will review the footage for myself later today. Otherwise I am not interested in playing a drawn out forum rally with you. I have lost interest in our exchanges. Please move on to someone else who may find your pestering amusing because I don't. Oh, and if my posts bother you in any way please, feel free to skip my comments no one is forcing you to read them.

So, calling me a QLD'er, is a mistake (because while I once lived in Far North QLD for 3 years, I was born south of Kempsey) and that statement benefits no one. Misquoting someone can be a mistake. Making an entire quote up to promote your agenda, is a lie.. Heck you even said that Atkins said "Play the ball" when the next action was a line drop out?! You got caught out expecting nobody to question what you wrote because Cameron Smith is unlikely to comment in a Roar comment section. But I have called you on it. You have some entertaining posts and some valid and interesting ideas and opinions. Heck you are allowed to have agendas, I do. I harp on about the Tigers going to Campbelltown, that Souths should be relocated to Perth and that Seibold is yet to proove himself as a coach. But I don't come on here and say "I know Seibold told Maguire he would never start for the Bronocs and that is why they lost an International forward". I wouldn't say it, because it would be a lie to say I knew it, just like it was a lie to say as a fact (in two separate posts, which were then backed up by a third where you put your version of the entire conversation) that Smith instructed Munster not to make an accusation. We had made some progress, but if you want to hate me, hate me, but hopefully ou think twice before making things up in the future. That is keyboard warrior stuff. Be better than that.

That's so unfair and flat out BS! IMO there was NO intentionality by AFB to make contact with the head of Pearce while making a diving tackle and remember Pearce was falling. Keyboard warriors (many of whom have never played the game) look at slow motion replays instead of seeing the incident in real time and trying to understand the reaction times required to pull out of a tackle after a player has left their feet and momentum and gravity takes over. For what it is worth I believe there is some indication in the slow motion replay that AF, if not pulling out of the tackle, chose not to continue with the tackle. Remember it all took place in a split second. Certainly the tackle was reckless, and certainly a targeted player like Sam Burgess would have received double the suspension, however IF there the MRC and judiciary could show CONSISTENCY in their rulings I would have supported AFB getting heavy points loading but no suspension. Now compare that to the Josh McGuire eye-gouge which was intentional, malicious and completely unnecessary. Momentum played mo role in this act only malice and a perverted concept of fair play and sportsmanship but a serial grub who has a long history of committing these offences and yet escaped without a penalty. I challenge Josh "grub" McGuire to try the same thing on Paul Gallen during a match and be prepared for the same answer Gallen gave Nate Myles who pushed things too far. I'd bet my house McGuire doesn't have the guts to try this on Gallen or anyone else who would sit him on his backside.

Can someone explain how Manu was suspended? That was a joke. Good for me as a Storm fan tho...

Some interesting points raised in thos FOX Sports article.... Round 5’s 10 biggest talking points: NRL to seek clarity on Josh McGuire eye-gouge decision “The people at the NRL hierarchy were quite stunned on Saturday morning when this decision to fine him was handed down,” Phil Rothfield revealed on Controversy Corner. The severity of the punishment doesn’t match the crime, according to former referee Bill Harrigan. “Why is anyone’s hands on a bloke’s face?” McGuire has a bad history at the judiciary with a rap sheet that includes 11 previous charges. “When Les Boyd got Billy Johnson he got the book thrown at him,” Mark Carroll said. “George Burgess got four weeks from the Test match. “And why is it up to Munster to report it? That’s what I don’t understand.” https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/coupler.foxsports.com.au/api/v1/article/amp/nrl/nrl-premiership/round-5s-10-biggest-talking-points-nrl-to-ask-judiciary-for-clarity-on-mcguire-eyegouge-decision/news-story/5d9052860a9ad2f7117ad053a6ce57c8

Quoting from memory what you BELIEVE to be true after just one viewing is NOT lying. There is no intentionality to deceive or mislead. "It isn't a lie if you believe it" - George Costanza "Seinfeld"