- Joined
- Mar 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,013
- Reaction score
- 2,191
I dont know of course...nobody in their right mind would say before the time even if they do know....however to me its pretty obvious.Does anyone know what argument they're using to fight the charge?
1. Klemmer doesnt get off saying NRL missed other instances so he didnt do anything wrong. This argument doesnt prove innocence, just proves match review personnel are incompetent.
2. Reviewing the whole Klemmer incident, Klemmer stands his ground beside the tackler and Soward. Cummins then walks towards the 3 of them to blow the penalty and stick his arm out. As Cummins approaches Klemmers personal space, Klemmer puts his hand up NOT TO INTIMIDATE the referee but to maintain his own personal space because he wants to tell the ref we have a player (Reynolds) down in back play and maybe play should be stopped in case hes seriously injured. If Cummins bothered to listen to players when they have a reasonable safety point to make, instead of being pig headed, then Cummins would acknowledge yes theres a player receiving attention and review the severity of the injury before blowing the penalty for play to continue. Remember the other ref had already marked the mark...Cummins was walking up to it to blow the penalty and stick his arm out.
3. Cummins walked into Klemmer. Klemmer did not owe Cummins a duty of care to not touch him when it was Cummins that walked into his space. If judiciary argue Klemmer did owe him a duty of care and it wasnt an accident then why didnt Soward owe the same duty when he bowled a ref over subsequently in calling for the ball and running himself to the opposite side of a ruck. Blind Freddy knows where the ref stands...it was Sowards responsibility to know it was unsafe to do what he tried to do. If Klemmer is guilty of an offence so too was Soward who caused a potential injury to a ref by being negligent in his action.
Im just glad we are fighting this. The NRL are run by a group of incompetents.