Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[The Red Baron]

Come on RR (or should I call you Adam?), you have to let it go.

Even though the video evidence suggests Byrnes did not gouge, and the subsequent findings determined the same, there was contact with the facial area.

Practice what you preach. Put yourself in Carter's shoes. Now I am not a fan of Carter, but if there is any sort of facial contact made, especially around the eye area, you would be inclined to report it. It does not matter whether the contact made was intentional or unintentional.

The end result is that Byrnes did not get 10 weeks for eye gouging.

Also, whoever is managing Byrnes' (Rebels?) PR should have never have let him comment. Rather than putting the issue to bed, Byrnes' outburst has the potential to inflame it.

 

[Rugby rebel]

What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest Adam caused the injuries to Carter.

If 3 judicial officers cannot determine who did it I will leave it to you to make up your own mind.

 

[Braveheart81]

You really need to re-read the appeal judgement a few times until you understand it.

Your lack of comprehension is astounding.

 

[Rugby rebel]

Maybe you have access to footage no one else does.

 

[barbarian]

What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest Adam caused the injuries to Carter.

No, that's not what you were saying at all. You were saying Carter made up the allegation against Byrnes.

What's more there was evidence- the word of Carter and the Waratah team doctor. You may question the reliability of this evidence without footage or third party testimony (and you wouldn't be alone), but to say there was no evidence is erroneous.

.

 

[Scotty]

Carter's testimony is compelling enough for us to believe that he believes he was gouged.

Byrne's subsequent attack on Carter is also compelling enough for us to believe that he believes he didn't gouge!

 

[RedsHappy]

Could this go on like '....the secret gunman was on the grassy knoll in Dallas....' ...and still be alive 50 years later?

 

[The Red Baron]

Could this go on like '....the secret gunman was on the grassy knoll in Dallas.... ...and still be alive 50 years later?

And I am sure that I spotted Elvis the other day!

 

[Rugby rebel]

Sorry "Barbarian" but I don't need you to tell me what I am saying. My statement is clear and I don't need you to interpret it.

 

[Rugby rebel]

Sorry "Barbarian" I agree there is evidence that Carter had a scratch near his eye. Further there may be evidence to support that from his team physio.

What does that prove? Does it prove when it happened? NO. Does it prove who did it? NO.

 

[Rugby rebel]

"Braveheart" that you for the comments. Last time I checked I was able to count to 3 and say my ABC's.

If I need help I'll calling the reading and writing hotline.

One thing I won't do is say anything personal about you via an online forum.

 

[The Red Baron]

Sorry "Barbarian" I agree there is evidence that Carter had a scratch near his eye. Further there may be evidence to support that from his team physio.

What does that prove? Does it prove when it happened? NO. Does it prove who did it? NO.

Coupled with video evidence that was consistent with 'reckless contact' with Carter's facial area, you can deduce that the contact resulted in the marks on Carters face.

 

[Rugby rebel]

Red Baron the test of culpability is a bit higher than that of deducing something.

 

[The Red Baron]

Show me another incident involving Carters face during that game and I might be inclined to agree with you.

 

[Rugby rebel]

That's the whole point. Who knows what goes on in rucks and mauls.

 

[The Red Baron]

That's the whole point. Who knows what goes on in rucks and mauls.

Rubbish. If you are unable to provide footage of Carter get face palmed in another ruck then your whole argument goes out the window. Thing is, there WAS footage of Byrnes recklessly handling Carter's face, and not soon after a complaint was made to the referee by the captain. 2+2=4.

lets get this straight. Byrnes was NOT eventually convicted of eye gouging. the evidence is not consistent with the charge. He WAS found to have had reckless contact with Carters face. 10 week ban repealed. Byrnes now needs to think about how he cleans out at rucktime. You never know, the result might be that he is more efficient in his cleanouts, by way of adopting a lower body height.

 

[Sully]

This is going in circles guys. Time to move it forward or leave it alone for awhile.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Rugby rebel]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I'm not pursuaded by your comments. I have nothing further to add. FYI Byrnes didn't clean anyone out. It was the other way around.

 

[The Red Baron]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I'm not pursuaded by your comments. I have nothing further to add. FYI Byrnes didn't clean anyone out. It was the other way around.

You have just made it abundantly clear that you have no conception of the issue. In that case, I will not digress any further, talking to a brick wall is pointless.

 

[Rugby rebel]

I'm not telling anyone on this forum what they get or what they don't. I don't see the need for you to do so. I'm sorry but I don't follow your reasoning. I don't have to. I was going to say logic but it's not. That doens't mean I don't get it. I'm right on top of it. It means that I have a different opinon to you. It doesn't mean you are right. Watch the video. Maybe then you be able to tell who cleaned who out. The Red Baron or is this Tom?