Heath Scotland Verdict

Remove this Banner Ad

Funkalicous said:
The Tribunal has two things to consider: 1) Did he make contact with Lockyer's eyes. 2) Did he intend to eye-gauge. That should be it! Obviously the Tribunal wasn't sure and took the soft option.

3. How much force was applied and how long was it applied for. This is the reason it was only two weeks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lajon said:
you were arguing against the 6 weeks pickett received ... which in most supporter's eyes was completely fair.

I had the impression a fair slab of supporters thought 6 weeks was too harsh.

common sense would argue that Scotland should have received a suspension at either end of the spectrum (none or a lengthy break). The tribunal's first stuff-up for the year.

You could argue exactly the same for Peter Burgoyne's case. Suddenly the system doesn't look so bullet proof.

Add the Moloney verdict whichever way it goes next.
 
Hornet said:
If he's not eye gouging then how can touching the face be unreasonable :confused:

fwiw I dont think Scotland meant it. You can tell the way he pulled his hand away quickly when it appeared he realised where his hand was. However duty of care comes into it. And putting your hand in the face of another player being held down, especially around the eyes, is not a reasonable thing to do under a duty of care. Fairly fragile area.
 
The Phat Side said:
fwiw I dont think Scotland meant it. You can tell the way he pulled his hand away quickly when it appeared he realised where his hand was.


.......or maybe he meant it, then quickly decided that proceeding wasnt a good idea. Thats more likely. The fingers were bent like they woudl be in an eye gouging situation. It was a momentary brain explosion, which luckily for him he checked before he did any damage.
 
hotpie said:
.......or maybe he meant it, then quickly decided that proceeding wasnt a good idea. Thats more likely. The fingers were bent like they woudl be in an eye gouging situation. It was a momentary brain explosion, which luckily for him he checked before he did any damage.

I think it's more likely for someone to accidentally grab someone's face when wrestling/pulling them away from a team-mate and then let go when they realise than for someone deciding to go for an eye gouge to have a sudden attack of conscience mid gouge.
 
Acme Eye Gauge:

moore.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

exactly. just like holding a football. You dont hold a footy with your fingertips, and you dont grab a face with fingertips unless you have malicious intent.
 
Try this, grab your face with your own hand and see if your fingers stay flat. I'd be very surprised if it felt the same as grabbing a football unless people call you Melon Boy.
 
Try grabbing your own face with your fingers bent as per the Heath Scotland footage. Then call an ambulance.

Besides, Tarks head IS shaped like a football!!!!
 
Funkalicous said:
Scotland was up for eye-gauging and as such the Tribunal can only sentence him for that charge alone. If the Tribunal deems him to be guilty, he should get the set penalty. It doesn't matter what Scotland's hand was doing on Lockyer's face, he's not up for touching his face. That's just circumstantial evidence afterall.

The Tribunal has two things to consider: 1) Did he make contact with Lockyer's eyes. 2) Did he intend to eye-gauge. That should be it! Obviously the Tribunal wasn't sure and took the soft option.

The charge was for mis-conduct. The tribunal also has to take into account Scotland's duty of care. The fact that he had his fingers around the eye-socket and could have caused a lot more damage would have been a critical influence on the tribunal. People seem to think that effect or the result of something should be the only influence on a decision.
 
if u get two weeks for headbutting which will opnly give u a bruise then going by that logic he well and truly deserves two weeks for eye gouging
 
It's disappointing he got rubbed out. It was a stupid thing to do but it is fairly evident that there was no malice in it. Lockyer even testified that this was the case.

I think it is totally out of character for Heath and I think he perhaps should have just been given a reprimand. Unfortunatley for Heath, similar incidents from the past (ie, Libba) have paved the way for any contact with the face to be now deemed as totally unacceptable. (Which I agree with)

What annoys me is that Lockyer didn't sustain an injury of any kind. But then you have Lloyd, who is wearing a solid arm guard, break a kid's cheek bone and concuss some else, but he doesn't even have a case to answer.
 
2 weeks for simply being a **************** is about right.

Moronic thing to do.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Heath Scotland Verdict

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top