Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Mustafur, post: 3529620, member: 10189"] The case is basically a 3rd party claiming Walsh Swore at the ref despite the victim not recalling it and the suspect having two witnesses. Even though those two witnesses admitted they talked to him before the court case the actual person who was allegedly sworn at is not even present in the case. It's a witch hunt, there isn't enough evidence to prove he actually said it to the ref, and using previous cases where he is arguing to the ref in the game isn't applicable because he didn't swear or insult in them. The judiciary feels like a Kangaroo court imo, it needs more Panel members because the current layout heavily favours the NRL having only 1 player and 2 non players involved in the decision making. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 221 (members: 0, guests: 221)