MRO Lotto

[JK]

Righto (been watching too much of The Baron on Tik Tok), can someone help explain some of this tribunal business to me?

In round 1 McAdam shirtfronts a bloke, and cops a heavy whack despite no concussion to his opponent and basically the reason given is that it “could have” caused injury. We’ve seen this countless times now with dump tackles.

Now I might be mistaken here but Kaminidis (sp?) looks set for a lengthy stint on the sidelines for his transgression, but I’d the MRO is being consistent shouldn’t Murphy also get a please explain? Their actions were pretty much the same, except Murphy lowered himself when he copped his whereas Kaminidis didn’t.

Similarly last week, Cameron bowled over an umpire in what was an avoidable incident that “could have” injured an umpire, if only Todd Curley received such leniency.

For the record I wouldn’t want either Murphy or Cameron rubbed out for those things, but there seems such an inconsistency as to when this “potential for injury” clause gets applied.

Am I missing something? (Legit question and happy to be educated on it)

[Jim05]

Merrett should get a week based on other similar tackles but I thought Elliott’s was the worst of the lot and didn’t even get cited

[Vamos]

Merrett, nothing in it, ridiculous. The Adams one, the Umpire should be suspended for a week for not blowing his whistle quick enough.

[Armchair expert]

Caminiti gets 3 weeks