2016 Match Review Committee / Judiciary

[Pedge1971]

Didn't think much of it at the time but after seeing a few replays this morning I think he got very very lucky.

Wasn't luck. It was managed.

 

[Nice Beaver]

MRC sets new benchmarks for incompetence every week. Head butting and kicking used to be pretty serious charges. This year it seems patting a referee on the back gently is far more dangerous.

Greenberg had better overhaul this awful system this offseason as presiding over it at the moment is making him a joke of a leader

Mate, he is, was and always will be a joke of a "leader" regardless of this shambolic MRC system.

 

[Timmah]

No charges from the Raiders-Sharks or Storm-Cowboys game. Interesting as I thought NAS might have been in trouble for that one on Thurston but anyway...

 

[POPEYE]

Yes, it's surprising the NRL didn't take the opportunity

 

[Shorty]

Looks like Feldt is a bit lucky then too.

 

[betcats]

Would be harsh for Feldt to miss a game for that but the bloke is deadest an idiot for that penalty he gave away. He even got away with the facial so he decided to smack him on the back of the head for good measure lol.

 

[Captain Apollo]

James Roberts to fight his charge at the judiciary - http://www.nrl.com/broncos-to-challenge-roberts-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/101267/default.aspx

 

[Walt Flanigan]

James Roberts to fight his charge at the judiciary - http://www.nrl.com/broncos-to-challenge-roberts-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/101267/default.aspx

Can't wait to hear that defence

 

[Apey]

Can't wait to hear that defence

 

[lockyno1]

James Roberts to fight his charge at the judiciary - http://www.nrl.com/broncos-to-challenge-roberts-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/101267/default.aspx

No risk might as well take a punt

1 week whether he loses at the judiciary or takes the early plea

Should just say "I thought he was Ennis"

 

[skeepe]

Hahaha. Bet he says it was a push and not a kick.

 

[eddiesmith]

Can the Judiciary charge him with something else? Justice would be them deciding contrary conduct is a joke and find him guilty of kicking on the night!

 

[gcboyz]

Wayne said he shouldn't be charged. Simple as that. Bennet should be fined $10,000. Where is the consistency?.

 

[lockyno1]

Can the Judiciary charge him with something else? Justice would be them deciding contrary conduct is a joke and find him guilty of kicking on the night!

Not sure they can try to go with the "impersonating a first grade centre" but I'm all for it!

 

[bileduct]

James Roberts to fight his charge at the judiciary - http://www.nrl.com/broncos-to-challenge-roberts-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/101267/default.aspx

Good luck with that.

Wighton only got off because the judiciary dug a hole for itself and it's own argument supporting Ennis was used against them.

I really can't see what case they'd attempt to mount against charges of kicking a bloke on the ground.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Can the Judiciary charge him with something else? Justice would be them deciding contrary conduct is a joke and find him guilty of kicking on the night!

Regretably, no they can't. At NRL level, the MRC level the charge (including grading), the Judiciary (if the charge is contested) can either find them guilty, not guilty, or guilty to a lower grading.

It may be that he was charged with "contrary conduct" as it is something which is harder to disprove. Considering how the NRL have such precise definitions for everything, could it be they felt his "kick" did not meet their prescribed definition, and giving Roberts a kicking charge could have left it open to an acquittal? Just a thought.

 

[eddiesmith]

Regretably, no they can't. At NRL level, the MRC level the charge (including grading), the Judiciary (if the charge is contested) can either find them guilty, not guilty, or guilty to a lower grading.

It may be that he was charged with "contrary conduct" as it is something which is harder to disprove. Considering how the NRL have such precise definitions for everything, could it be they felt his "kick" did not meet their prescribed definition, and giving Roberts a kicking charge could have left it open to an acquittal? Just a thought.

Cheers, shame.

I assumed it was that a grade 1 kicking charge would be more than 1 week so they didn't want him to miss more than 1 game but knew they couldn't ignore it.

I had a game years ago where a player kicked someone, but the umpires liked the player and finals were coming up so they gave him like a misconduct charge and wrote it up as unnecessary contact with the leg! That way he only missed 1 week.

 

[Danish]

Regretably, no they can't. At NRL level, the MRC level the charge (including grading), the Judiciary (if the charge is contested) can either find them guilty, not guilty, or guilty to a lower grading.

It may be that he was charged with "contrary conduct" as it is something which is harder to disprove. Considering how the NRL have such precise definitions for everything, could it be they felt his "kick" did not meet their prescribed definition, and giving Roberts a kicking charge could have left it open to an acquittal? Just a thought.

It is likely something as stupid as that.

I recall a few years back Wiki got off on kneeing a bloke square in the kidneys because of a technicality about what he was charged with. I don't recall exactly but it was either he got charged with dropping knees but proved he was still on his feet so it wasn't technically a knee drop... Or he got charged with kneeing and they showed that because the bloke was on the ground it should have been a dropping knees charge.

Either way it was a calamity.

:edit: found it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/w...ge-is-all-wrong/2006/06/06/1149359744862.html

Was even funnier than I thought. Was charged with dropped knees, but they argued that since his knees hit the ground before burying themselves into some internal organs technically the knees were already dropped before the impact.... And bobs your uncle, charge dropped!

The judiciary panel are very easily bamboozled so I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with some quack physicist or something to show that the amount of force was under some mythical threshold for creating any risk of injury, and thus it shouldn't be considered an offence.

 

[lockyno1]

I really can't see what case they'd attempt to mount against charges of kicking a bloke on the ground.

He thought it was Ennis!

Not sure why we are challenging this! Maybe our lawyers need to be useful 2 times a year..

 

[shaggs]

He thought it was Ennis!

Not sure why we are challenging this! Maybe our lawyers need to be useful 2 times a year..

Do you mean apart from when the lawyers keep all the bronco off field stuff out of the media??
They have well and truly early their money.