The Roar
The Roar

Tim Gore

Expert

Joined July 2013

1.18m

Views

336

Published

6.1k

Comments

Tim has been an NRL statistician for ABC Radio Grandstand since 1999, primarily as part of their Canberra coverage. Tim has loved rugby league since Sterlo was a kid with lots of hair but was cursed with having no personal sporting ability whatsoever. He couldn't take a hit in footy, was a third division soccer player making up numbers, plays off 41 in golf and is possibly the worlds worst cricketer ever. He has always been good at arguing the point though and he has a great memory of what happened. Follow Tim on Twitter @GorskiOPork

Published

Comments

One last time and then I give up: it’s not indignation: it is the rules!
if trainers, coaches or players on the bench are not under any circumstances allowed to interfere with the play or the players on the field, then conversely the players on the field can also not touch trainers, coaches or players on the bench.
The rule is to keep play to the field and minimise risk. If a player deliberately goes and grabs a trainer, coach or player not interchanged onto the field then they have transgressed just as badly as a trainer who touches a player.
It’s the same offence.
And if they don’t know if a player has been interchanged on or not, how can they be angry enough with them to grab them?!? They can only be taking random, unprovoked action.
Further, maybe they should also not be the type of fool that does what Crichton did. Then they need not worry about keeping track of who has been interchanged and who hasn’t.
Don’t be a fool and there is zero problem.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Well I tried…
I can’t help it if you can’t grasp the concept.
But you really don’t get it at all.
And my position has not changed one iota.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

It’s not a straw man. They are the same offence. If the player is off the field he can’t get involved. And conversely he can’t be touched by those on the field. It swings both ways. It must. It’s very, very, very simple. You just don’t get it for some reason.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

HY… we can produce electricity for free… Electric cars are getting better and better. In 20 years there will virtually not be a petrol, diesel or gas vehicle to be found.
Conversely, trainers have little use at all…

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Agreed Jason. You understand what I’m saying.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

An analogy for you, “but I didn’t know it was a policeman I was buying drugs from!”
That’s you. That’s what you sound like. That’s effectively your argument.
It is so sad that you thought that held a drop of water.
Do better.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Thanks Champion. I don’t know what I was thinking. Thanks for setting me right. I don’t care what all the others say about you, you’re alright by me!

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Ok, so for the record, you are just fine if players go grab opposition players sitting on the bench and start roughing them up too? Because the only difference between that and Crichton going at Tapine was location.
And for the record, if you are fine with that you are a special kind of stupid.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Here’s an idea that can avoid that issue Sherlock, if players don’t deliberately grab opposition players and act the goose then they don’t risk making that mistake…

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

No wont agree. That response showed good human. common ground is what we’re trying to achieve.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

I’m not sure there’s much I can do to enlighten you.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Because it is totally irrelevant to my point. The point is both crimes are the same.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Rmcie, I’ve tried to explain it as clearly as I can. Do you get what I’m saying? Just because it isn’t the 3rd party bystander causing the interaction doesn’t make it better. If trainers, bench players, coaches aren’t allowed to touch players or be involved in the play, it logically follows that players can’t touch or interact with trainers, bench players or coaches.
Therefore the fines need to be the same.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Agreed. It was. The Crichton fine was woefully inadequate. They both committed the same offence.
The trainer was a 3rd party forbidden to touch players or be involved in the play. Tapine was a 3rd party forbidden to touch players or be involved in the play.
The Panthers players deliberately involved a 3rd party. Their crime broke exactly the same rule.
Think about it the other way, if Tapine had, before he was subbed on, gone and grabbed Crichton all hell would have broken loose. He would have had the hell suspended and fined out of him. It stands to reason that the same should apply if a player or players touches/grabs/roughs up a non involved 3rd party.
Just because Tapine was wearing a Raiders jumper doesn’t make this a lesser offence. He wasn’t allowed to be involved. It is also not allowed to involve him. It is the exact same crime. Yet one was fined $8650 less.
Got it?

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

No I’m not NOIP, they are the same. Just from different angles.
Let me explain:
Tapine, at that moment, was not a player.
He had not been interchanged. He was not on the field. He was not on the field of play. He did not have the rights of a player.
So It wasn’t a case of player on player, but that’s what is being assumed and why the two fines are so different.

Effectively, Tapine only had the same rights as a trainer at that moment.

If, in that circumstance, Tapine had done anything but try and extricate himself – if he had thrown a punch or retaliated in anyway, the NRL would have absolutely thrown the book at him.
He was a 3rd party bystander by the rules of the game.
What Crichton and his team mates did was deliberately and illegally involve a bystander who was unable to retaliate or defend himself in any way.
This wasn’t by any definition a player on player incident. This was players on 3rd party bystander. Effectively the same as if players roughed up a trainer or coach.
However, because Tapine was in a Raiders jersey people some how think that Crichton’s actions were nowhere near as serious as they actually were. Or understand that they are directly equatable to the trainers offence.
Perhaps also because he was standing near the field ready to be subbed on.
Perhaps if Crichton had grabbed a Raiders player who was sitting on the bench people would better understand.

3rd parties – such as trainers – not interacting with players or the play is a door that swings both ways.
One way says that if a trainer gets involved with players or the play (or a player on the bench – such as the George Burgess water bottle throwing incident in 2015) – it must be penalised severely.
But the door must necessarily also swing the other way.
If a player actively and deliberately involves a benched player or official then they must also be severely punished.
It can’t only be the non-player that is held to severe account.
The intention of the rule is to keep the game play separate from the other operation areas, personnel, and the crowd.
The players have just as much responsibility to that end as everyone else and must be held accountable in exactly the same manner.
That’s why both incidents are equatable and it is so wrong that they both got such different punishments.
They both involve 3rd parties being totally inappropriately and deliberately involved.
Crichton and his team mates deliberately manhandling Tapine Is every bit as serious as the Raiders trainer touching Panthers players.
And if not, why not?

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

I knew we’d find common ground. As I say below, both involve the inappropriate involvement of 3rd parties: The trainer touches a player NO. Player deliberately touches 3rd party bystander ALSO NO.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

I’m not commenting on them, you are.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

I’m not questioning them, I’m saying your views are a commentary on them. Be you. Dance your own dance.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Look at it this way: 3rd parties such as trainers not interacting with players or the play is a door that must swing both ways. One way says that if a trainer or player on the bench – such as the George Burgess water bottle throwing incident in 2015 – becomes involved with the play it must be penalised severely. I totally agree.
But the door must also swing the other way. If a player actively deliberately involves a benched player or official then they must also be severely punished.
That’s why both incidents are equatable. They both involve 3rd parties being totally inappropriately and deliberately involved.
Crichton and his team mates deliberately manhandling Tapine
Is every bit as serious as the Raiders trainer touching Panthers players.
And let’s bear in mind what Abdo said when fining Ricky Stuart $10,000 for throwing a water bottle last year:
“We expect our coaches to set the standard for behaviour within our clubs and Ricky’s conduct on Sunday is not the image we want to portray to our fans.”
If that’s what Abdo actually thinks how on earth can he justify fining Crichton just $1350?

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

No I’m not.
I’m saying that one posed just as much of a risk as the other, both involved people who should be allowed no interaction, nor to be interacted with, and both should have received the same level of punishment.
I can’t help that your comprehension abilities fall short of understanding the distinction.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

EXACTLY!

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Emcie, As above, Tapine, at that moment, was not a player. He had not been interchanged. He was not on the field. He was not on the field of play. It wasn’t player on player. If, in that circumstance, Tapine had done anything but try and extricate himself, if he had thrown a punch or retaliated in anyway, the NRL could have absolutely thrown the book at him. He was not allowed to be involved in any way. He was a 3rd party bystander by the rules of the game. What Crichton and his team mates did was effectively rough up a bystander who was unable to retaliate or defend himself in any way.
That’s why it is bad. They took their actions completely off the field and away from the game. This wasn’t a normal player scuffle or melee. It was much, much worse.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Trainer can not touch an opposition player ever. Zero grey area there.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

How does describing what happened bring the game into disrepute? Surely the perpetrators of the actions do that…

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful

Nat, as I’ve tried to explain to some guy above – to whom I do not ascribe the same level of comprehension as I do to you, Tapine, at that moment, was not a player. He had not been interchanged. He was not on the field. He was not on the field of play. It wasn’t a case of player on player. If, in that circumstance, Tapine had done anything but try and extricate himself, if he had thrown a punch or retaliated in anyway, the NRL could have absolutely thrown the book at him. He was not allowed to be involved in any way. That’s the rules. He was a 3rd party bystander by the rules of the game. What Crichton and his team mates did was effectively rough up a bystander who was unable to retaliate or defend himself in any way. There is an essential difference between an onfield melee and this out of left field incident. This type of incident can’t be allowed to occur again and severe punishment must be handed down to ensure that it doesn’t.
So I have no issues with the Raiders trainer getting fined at all. I support it. But Crichton’s penalty must be far heavier.
And Eels47, it is completely irrelevant who pays, this is about optics for the kids out there watching. Currently they could be forgiven for thinking what Crichton did was a misdemeanour rather than the very serious risk it was.

Andrew Abdo’s fining of the Raiders is inconsistent, incompetent and disgraceful