2017 Judiciary & Match Review

[Tommy Smith]

Soliola should be exonerated without facing the judiciary due to Tony Archer influencing and damaging the integrity of the process.

The following morning Archer should be sacked.

 

[mave]

Incident aside. Would the NRL have put out a press release within an hour of the incident if it was a less known player?I don't think so.

And the way they have prejudiced the judicary decision seems like a due process nightmare.

This is essentially unprecedented.

Agreed.
Archer has no business providing opinion before the judiciary does it's thing.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

You reap what you sow...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/league/setback-for-slaters-appeal/2006/04/04/1143916526138.html

"THE Melbourne Storm will tonight appeal against the severity of punishment handed to star full-back Billy Slater for stomping on the head of an opponent, but will do so without its promised new video footage after the club could not find vision to help its cause."

It's not Sia's go.

 

[nick87]

Soliola should be exonerated without facing the judiciary due to Tony Archer influencing and damaging the integrity of the process.

The following morning Archer should be sacked.

I don't know about exoneration but it's prejudicial and has removed the ability for Soliola to get a fair hearing
It's inexcusable, inappropriate and unprofessional and Archer should be stood down over it

It's disgraceful that he's released such a statement before the process has taken its course

On the hit itself, Sia apparently has a similar prior incident, that'll attract 20% loading. So I had it as a 4-6 week suspension, with the loading that'll be a 5-7 range now imo

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I don't know about exoneration but it's prejudicial and has removed the ability for Soliola to get a fair hearing
It's inexcusable, inappropriate and unprofessional and Archer should be stood down over it

It's disgraceful that he's released such a statement before the process has taken its course

On the hit itself, Sia apparently has a similar prior incident, that'll attract 20% loading. So I had it as a 4-6 week suspension, with the loading that'll be a 5-7 range now imo

Has Archer said anything about potential punishment? AFAIK he has only referred to the decision of the on-field refs at the time - which was clearly wrong. That's not prejudicial. If he has mentioned anything about the severity of the incident in terms of suspension then that would be, but admitting that his officials got it wrong in not sending him off is fine IMO.

He hasn't removed the ability for Soliola to get a fair hearing as the hearing will be about the severity of the hit - not the lack of send-off from the refs.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

I just read Slothfield's article for a laugh. Apparently the Sia incident was extremely damaging for the game because it's women in league round, and Slater is the women's' favourite player due to his "good looks" and "athletic body".

LOL Dick-rider. He's got Billy's nuts well and truly bouncing off his tonsils this morning.

 

[TheFrog]

And the way they have prejudiced the judicary decision seems like a due process nightmare.

Watch him get off for this very reason.

 

[The Great Dane]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought you needed intent to be sent off and frankly I just don't see it.

Sure it was late, but no later then hundreds of other tackles that have been completely ignored, some of witch occurred in the same game, and it was high, but it was only high because Slater was falling, and don't get me wrong Sia should cop the full penalty for that, but I still don't see a send off because there was no serious foul play and intent to injure.

If Sia had bitten Slater, stomped him when he was prone, dangerously attacked a limb in a tackle (e.g. intentionally twisted an arm to break it, or preformed a spear tackle that left someone with a broken neck), attacked him when he was unconscious, king hit him, etc, etc, then I could see a send off, but for an accidental head high (no matter how serious) no, and I don't think that as a game we want to set that precedent either.

And lets be honest for a moment the only reason that this has caught so much media attention is because it was Slater that was knocked out, if the roles were reversed and it was Wighton that got knocked out, or almost anybody without the name recognition of Slater, then nobody would have jumped on Twitter demanding that it be a send off or writing articles about it, just like nobody is talking about Chanel Mata'utia getting knocked out or claiming that Ferguson should have been sent off for hitting him in the head with a forearm.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the refs and judiciary are seperate from each other, a bit like the police and the courts.

Archer's comments are fine, he is stating from the refs point of view what should have happened on the field, he's not made any comment on what should happen at the judiciary.

 

[nick87]

Has Archer said anything about potential punishment? AFAIK he has only referred to the decision of the on-field refs at the time - which was clearly wrong. That's not prejudicial. If he has mentioned anything about the severity of the incident in terms of suspension then that would be, but admitting that his officials got it wrong in not sending him off is fine IMO.

He hasn't removed the ability for Soliola to get a fair hearing as the hearing will be about the severity of the hit - not the lack of send-off from the refs.

Of course it's prejudicial haha
As one of the leagues leading officials and in his role as referees boss.
Coming out so strongly about the incident in anyway potentially impacts the decisions by the MRC who were yet to make a determination

Archer, or ANY official should not be making any comment on any incident of foul play that will attract attention of the MRC and judiciary

This kind of statement, hours after the completion of the game is totally unprecedented and for a good reason, because never before has anyone sought to attempt the influence the MRC process

The release simply should have said:

"It is important to note that Sia Soliola is on report and the matter will be addressed by the Match Review Committee, we understand the interest in this incident but no comment will be made until that process with the Match Review Committee is completed"

That's it. That's all he needs to say. Saying they got the decision right or wrong in terms of the send off, as a lead offical of the game, has the potential to influence the outcome of the process
That's prejudicial.

It's a basic premise of any fair disaplinary process.

 

[Pedge1971]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I thought you needed intent to be sent off and frankly I just don't see it.

Sure it was late, but no later then hundreds of other tackles that have been completely ignored, some of witch occurred in the same game, and it was high, but it was only high because Slater was falling, and don't get me wrong Sia should cop the full penalty for that, but I still don't see a send off because there was no serious foul play and intent to injure.

If Sia had bitten Slater, stomped him when he was prone, dangerously attacked a limb in a tackle (e.g. intentionally twisted an arm to break it, or preformed a spear tackle that left someone with a broken neck), attacked him when he was unconscious, king hit him, etc, etc, then I could see a send off, but for an accidental head high (no matter how serious) no, and I don't think that as a game we want to set that precedent either.

And lets be honest for a moment the only reason that this has caught so much media attention is because it was Slater that was knocked out, if the roles were reversed and it was Wighton that got knocked out, or almost anybody without the name recognition of Slater, then nobody would have jumped on Twitter demanding that it be a send off or writing articles about it, just like nobody is talking about Chanel Mata'utia getting knocked out or claiming that Ferguson should have been sent off for hitting him in the head with a forearm.

Neither Chanel Mat nor Wighton are a womens favourite nor does either have Rothfield housing his nuts on his chin like the Karate Kid does.

There is a clear point of difference.

 

[Valheru]

6 weeks is fair I think

 

[Nice Beaver]

I just read Slothfield's article for a laugh. Apparently the Sia incident was extremely damaging for the game because it's women in league round, and Slater is the women's' favourite player due to his "good looks" and "athletic body".

LOL Dick-rider. He's got Billy's nuts well and truly bouncing off his tonsils this morning.

Yep, that tripe that he passed off as an article was cringe worthy.

Billy Slater is one of the greatest players to have laced up a boot, no doubt at all.

But just because the little prick posts some warm and fuzzy crap on Facebook to warm up the public for his impending media career, does not change the fact he has been a grub his entire career.

The crocodile tears flowing in the media about this is ridiculous.

Christ, even Sportsbet put up some crap like "Our thoughts are with Billy Slater tonight" after the tackle - did the bloke die or something? F*ck me.

Soliola should get around 4 weeks.

 

[Timmah]

Full summary of charges so far from http://leagueunlimited.com/news/30648-nrl-round-20-judiciary-wrap/

On Thursday, Canterbury forward Danny Fualalo was issued a Grade 1 Dangerous Throw on Brisbane's Adam Blair from the opening minute of their 42-12 loss at Suncorp Stadium. Fualalo has no priors and with an early plea will accrue only 75 points and be free to face Penrith on Thursday.

Saturday night produced a laundry list of offences.

Most notably, Sia Soliola will face the judiciary on Tuesday night for a Dangerous Contact (Head/Neck) charge on Billy Slater that was referred directly to the panel. He is facing a lengthy ban for the high shot that referees boss Tony Archer later admitted should have seen the Raiders' back-rower sent off.

Soliola's teammate Jordan Rapana is also in hot water after a 73rd minute Grade 1 shoulder charge on Melbourne's Nelson Asofa-Solomona, which is worth 150 points with the early plea - a week on the sidelines. He'll miss two if he contests it and loses (200 points).

In the other games, Titan Leivaha Pulu found himself with a $1,100 fine for a Grade 1 Tripping offence on Penrith's Josh Mansour in the 51st minute of their loss at Pepper Stadium, while Warriors' centre Solomone Kata will escape suspension with an early plea after being charged with Grade 1 Dangerous Contact (other) on Jake Granville. Kata will only miss a week if he contests the charge and loses.

 

[POPEYE]

Maybe Rapana thought he deserved a holiday, the Raiders are heavy

 

[myrrh ken]

You reap what you sow...



http://www.theage.com.au/news/league/setback-for-slaters-appeal/2006/04/04/1143916526138.html

"THE Melbourne Storm will tonight appeal against the severity of punishment handed to star full-back Billy Slater for stomping on the head of an opponent, but will do so without its promised new video footage after the club could not find vision to help its cause."




It's not Sia's go.

You forgot

 

[carcharias]

At least Slater is cat when either he or the other bloke at least have the ball.

 

[Nice Beaver]

You forgot

View attachment 14500

Let's not forget his quality comments directed at Corey Patterson also.

 

[Incorrect]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the refs and judiciary are seperate from each other, a bit like the police and the courts.

Archer's comments are fine, he is stating from the refs point of view what should have happened on the field, he's not made any comment on what should happen at the judiciary.

I heard Matthew Elliott on ABC radio yesterday confirming the above... Right you are AG

 

[lockyno1]

I'd be even more annoyed if Archer didn't say what he did. Everyone knows it, blind Freddy knows it- he should have been sent. The fact he didn't was an absolute and utter disgrace and Archer knows this. The fans deserve better than refs refusing to make decisions. It has happened all season, lets just put it on report is the biggest cop out ever established in our game.

I didn't have any problem with Archer questioning his refs performance. He hasn't said anything about the judiciary process which is separate anyway.