Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[Bokonon_]

He clearly did not what? Greene's actions caused the lacerations to Dahlhaus and both the Umpire and the MRP found that he caused the injury and that the action was unacceptable. Again, say what you will, try to deflect with semantics, it doesn't change the fact that Greene was reported, found guilty and sanctioned for his act.

He struck no-one and no-one could seriously suggest he did.

 

[Mutt]

Maybe that should have been your first post.

I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are on about. What did you not understand about the discussions? You might not agree with some of the views expressed, but I thought everyone made their arguments reasonably clear and understandable right up to the point where you asked why I was arguing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I'm sorry but I've no idea what you are on about. What did you not understand about the discussions? You might not agree with some of the views expressed, but I thought everyone made their arguments reasonably clear and understandable right up to the point where you asked why I was arguing.

You said he struck him with his boot, when i pointed out he didn't, you backtracked.
you need to learn the rules, i think you are trying to make them up in your head.

 

[Mutt]

You said he struck him with his boot, when i pointed out he didn't, you backtracked.
you need to learn the rules, i think you are trying to make them up in your head.

He did strike him with his boot. I didn't ever say that he was changed with Striking, as I think that there might be a specific definition for that which the umpires and MRP use. Try to look beyond the language and look at the actions of Greene, look at the response by the field umpire and look at the decision by the MRP to sanction Greene. Greene's actions caused his boot to make contact with Luke's face and he has quite rightly been sanctioned and widely condemned for doing it.

 

[LoungeLizard]

He did strike him with his boot. I didn't ever say that he was changed with Striking, as I think that there might be a specific definition for that which the umpires and MRP use. Try to look beyond the language and look at the actions of Greene, look at the response by the field umpire and look at the decision by the MRP to sanction Greene. Greene's actions caused his boot to make contact with Luke's face and he has quite rightly been sanctioned and widely condemned for doing it.

Like i said, why are you arguing?
If you think the penalty is apt, then why?

There is no rule in the rule book that says he must be suspended, if they had of suspended him and he fought the charge, he would have won easily.

I am not sticking up for "Toby Greene" by the way, i am pointing out what the rules are.

 

[Mutt]

Like i said, why are you arguing?
If you think the penalty is apt, then why?

There is no rule in the rule book that says he must be suspended, if they had of suspended him and he fought the charge, he would have won easily.

I am not sticking up for "Toby Greene" by the way, i am pointing out what the rules are.

I didn't say that the penalty was apt. I actually think it was inadequate but the MRP didn't see it that way and they have the right to not suspend Greene. I said that it was apt that Greene was charged by the field umpire and sanctioned by the MRP.

I don't know why you insist on putting words in my mouth. Let's be crystal clear about this - I never claimed Greene was charged with Striking; I never said that the MRP penalty was adequate; I never claimed that the MRP was required to suspend Greene.