2016 Match Review Committee / Judiciary

[Timmah]

One punch and shoulder charges are still 'focused on'.

Pretty confident if you went back through the season you'd see similar or possible even more Shoulder Charge citings than referee contact.

 

[Danish]

Timmah are truly embarrassing yourself trying to defend the NRL's track record for contact with referee suspensions. Just give up.


In other news, can someone tell me when completely legal but late tackles became worthy of a charge?

 

[betcats]

How is anyone defending this touch the refs crap? Its a f**king lottery like everything to do with officiating and enforcing the rules.

I know its not judiciary related but what happened to the refs cracking down on dodgy play the balls at the start of the season?? They penalise the f**k out of it for a month and then stop and now we are back to anything goes, some of the play the balls now would be pulled back in tunnel ball ffs why do they just focus on something for a couple weeks and then let it go the rest of the year? How the f**k does that improve the game or help anyone?

 

[betcats]

Timmah are truly embarrassing yourself trying to defend the NRL's track record for contact with referee suspensions. Just give up.


In other news, can someone tell me when completely legal but late tackles became worthy of a charge?

A late tackle is illegal you nuffy.

 

[Danish]

A late tackle is illegal you nuffy.

Lots of things draw a penalty. You don't get charged every time you break a rule.

I don't recall anyone ever being suspended for a slightly late tackle that contained no illegal contact or shoulder.

 

[betcats]

Lots of things draw a penalty. You don't get charged every time you break a rule.

I don't recall anyone ever being suspended for a slightly late tackle that contained no illegal contact or shoulder.

Its like some high shots get charged and some don't, its upto whoever is reviewing on how bad they thought it was which means its a lottery. Players do get charged for late shots though. It was worse than slightly late imo and a bees dick hair from being a shoulder charge but it probably wasn't worth a charge.

Considering some of the ridiculous things done by the MRC this year it barely rates a mention as a bad charge.

 

[Danish]

Its like some high shots get charged and some don't, its upto whoever is reviewing on how bad they thought it was which means its a lottery. Players do get charged for late shots though. It was worse than slightly late imo and a bees dick hair from being a shoulder charge but it probably wasn't worth a charge.

Considering some of the ridiculous things done by the MRC this year it barely rates a mention as a bad charge.

Just another to throw on the pile IMO

 

[Timmah]

Lots of things draw a penalty. You don't get charged every time you break a rule.

You have a go at me for pointing this out and then say it yourself a breath later.

f**k me dead

Anyway, the four charged this weekend all accepted early pleas and are free to play. Kane Evans was charged from last night's game.

http://leagueunlimited.com/news/28922-nrl-match-review-round-22/

Monday | Panthers v Roosters

Kane Evans (Roosters) was hit with a Grade 1 Dangerous Contact (Other) charge for an incident involving Peter Wallace. The base penalty of 100 points attracted 20% loading for a prior non-similar offence by Evans. A guilty verdict at judiciary (120) would see him miss a week but an early plea (90) will see Evans escape a suspension.

 

[betcats]

Just another to throw on the pile IMO

Probably, Just had another look, wasn't as bad as I thought though it could of been bad for Wallace, you could see he relaxed.

 

[no name]

That is some awful, awful awful logic.

Could you imagine if our justice worked like that? Oh old mate got off for that crime so we'll let anyone off who contests their crime.

And the second part? Oh old mate got away with stealing so we won't charge anyone for that anymore..

Awful logic? Have you heard of precedence?
Old mate contests and uses precedence. The Klemmer (and Thurston) touches were the at the higher end of the scale as they were protesting to the ref, so shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Frizzel's completely innocuous touch was no where near as 'bad'* as Klemmer's (exonerated) or Thurston's (not even charged).

*I don't think any of them were really suspendable offences.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

whilst i dont think hayne deserved to be charged, it was no different to frizzells. sadly no one is surprised. if it was say anthony don he would have been charged.

Yeah it was completely different to Frizell's incident. Frizell could have gone around the ref but he chose to go straight, and put his hand on the ref. Hayne and the ref barely collided when neither were looking at each other.

One is a conscious decision to put a hand on the ref and get him out of the way. The other is just an accident from both parties.

That said, the inconsistency with some of the other charges/non-charges this year is rife, but comparing Frizell to Hayne is ridiculous.

 

[Timmah]

Awful logic? Have you heard of precedence?
Old mate contests and uses precedence. The Klemmer (and Thurston) touches were the at the higher end of the scale as they were protesting to the ref, so shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Frizzel's completely innocuous touch was no where near as 'bad'* as Klemmer's (exonerated) or Thurston's (not even charged).

*I don't think any of them were really suspendable offences.

Yes I've heard of precedents.

A precedent doesn't mean you just start ignoring one crime because one got missed. If that was the case, speeding would be completely legal on all roads, for example.

Klemmer's was successfully argued on two counts - "momentary, light, innocuous and minimal", and the fact that Cummins was quoted as saying he didn't know he'd been touched til the next day and as a result could not have felt threatened by it. Three other players weren't charged for ref contact in the same round.

While we both agree that neither are suspendable offences, I don't agree with your assertions about Frizell's. On the current scale he was worthy of being charged - it's just unlucky for him he had loading which saw him sitting out a week.

 

[TheFrog]

In other news, can someone tell me when completely legal but late tackles became worthy of a charge?

They call it dangerous contact. I thought it was a shoulder charge. Why shouldn't illegal tackles with the potential to cause injury be charged? I think he's quite fortunate to be able to play next week.

 

[no name]

Yes I've heard of precedents.

A precedent doesn't mean you just start ignoring one crime because one got missed. If that was the case, speeding would be completely legal on all roads, for example.

Klemmer's was successfully argued on two counts - "momentary, light, innocuous and minimal", and the fact that Cummins was quoted as saying he didn't know he'd been touched til the next day and as a result could not have felt threatened by it. Three other players weren't charged for ref contact in the same round.

While we both agree that neither are suspendable offences, I don't agree with your assertions about Frizell's. On the current scale he was worthy of being charged - it's just unlucky for him he had loading which saw him sitting out a week.

Yeah, precedent, my bad.

You really do go the extra mile to defend the MRC.
You'll be hard up to find anyone that also believes Frizell was 'more deserving' of a charge than Klemmer.
Except for the MRC of course, and they are really the only ones that count.
Very frustrating times for league supporters.

 

[dannyt]

With my team out, I have a joyous sense of "couldn't give a f@#$".

I can watch games with no sense of pressure or expectation.

Looking forward to the bed of shit the NRL is making itself via the MRC over the next 2 months. Looking forward to Timmah defending them. Should be entertaining.

 

[Timmah]

Yeah, precedent, my bad.

You really do go the extra mile to defend the MRC.
You'll be hard up to find anyone that also believes Frizell was 'more deserving' of a charge than Klemmer.
Except for the MRC of course, and they are really the only ones that count.
Very frustrating times for league supporters.

I thought my post was quite clear that I'm in agreeance that none of them need be charged because the crackdown itself is ridiculous.

BUT - the simple fact is players should know not to contact referees, whether 'incidental' or not. Avoid refs (like 99% of players do each game) and you don't have a problem, really.

 

[dannyt]

I thought my post was quite clear that I'm in agreeance that none of them need be charged because the crackdown itself is ridiculous.

BUT - the simple fact is players should know not to contact referees, whether 'incidental' or not. Avoid refs (like 99% of players do each game) and you don't have a problem, really.

Agree the crackdown is ridiculous.

Agree that if you don't come into contact with a match official, you don't have a problem.

My main gripe is the fact Frizell was the only player charged by the MRC in the last 2 rounds. All other incidents were considered 'no case to answer'.

 

[Timmah]

For the ones I recall - Hayne and Mbye, the referee initiated contact and player was unsighted. What ones were the same as Frizell?

 

[SBD82]

For the ones I recall - Hayne and Mbye, the referee initiated contact and player was unsighted. What ones were the same as Frizell?

Broncos player. I think it was Alex Glenn.

 

[Timmah]

Didn't see that one. Is there footage somewhere?