Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Coxy, post: 2384416, member: 1764"] Taking out the insults, I agree with what you're saying, and have been saying it since the incident occurred. It deserved a charge. I can't disagree too much with the grade 2, although in comparison with Uate's, which was grade 1, there is room for debate. However, unless I misread it, Taylor's defence did centre around that Uate's was as bad or worse than Taylor's and he only got grade 1. The judiciary response was that "yes, we agree, Uate's was too lenient, and the charge Taylor has got is fair, so it stands". If that's essentially how it is, and that the judiciary doesn't have to uphold the precedent set by the match review committee, then there's a problem. In theory, if Uate had challenged his suspension, the judiciary would've upgraded the charge to grade 2, because the match review committee was wrong (they can't do that is my understanding). Really, by a player pleading guilty then all subsequent similar incidents should be judged how that was graded, even by the judiciary, even if they disagreed with it. Am I upset that Taylor got 5 weeks? Not really. Process has been applied as it is meant to work. However, in retrospect, I think the processes need a review. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 63 (members: 0, guests: 63)