What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Game 2021 Judiciary Charges

Zoe Palmer

Juniors
Messages
166
Very little comment on the fine Mitchell got for supposedly sliding on top of Garner after a try in the 44th minute,

You would expect another 10 similar fines handed out this week if there’s any degree of honesty in the charge by the MRC
 

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
8,254
The real issue I have isn't the judiciary, but rather the Match Review Committee. That is where the apparent inconsistencies lie. I say apparent, because they've never objectively come out publicly to declare how the grading system works, i.e. what is the key point of difference between a grade 1 and grade 2 shoulder charge? Just saying something is more severe isn't really helpful.

From a judiciary perspective, when a downgrade is granted - there doesn't seem to be a public reason.

If the NRL wants to really improve the MRC and Judiciary process, they need to make clear what key indicators are used for each charge and grading.

For example:
Grade 1 - Shoulder charge
Key indicators: No contact with head, arm not tucked but no attempt to wrap arms, maintains position in defensive line (i.e. not rushing to contact), does not result in injury.

Grade 2 - Shoulder charge
Key indicators: No contact with head, arm tucked, maintains position in defensive line, no or minimal injury.

Grade 3 - Shoulder charge
Key indicators: Contact with head, arm tucked, rushes to make contact, resulted in injury.

With this, the NRL could also use video examples from previous seasons as primary examples of what constitute each grading.
 

yobbo84

First Grade
Messages
5,152
Get rid of the points system. I'm sure anyone and everyone could pick this apart (be gentle) but I'd like to see something like the following.

Charges
Different types of charges (high tackle, dangerous contact, etc) should just be for categorisation/labelling purposes.

The way charges are determined should not be different based on the type of charges, but rather be based on a classification of the action, i.e. one of the following: accidental, careless, reckless and intentional.

The NRL can release to the public the guidelines for each of these four areas, and then the charge sheet can have a one/two liner on each charge to say why it fit into that classification.

Fines/suspensions should be based on the classification above

"Grade 1 (Accidental)" should always and only ever be a monetary fine, a percentage of their full-time equivalent pay. The NRL manage the salary cap, they know how much is should be for every player. A "fine unit" could be 1 weeks pay, or something as agreed upon with the Players Association.

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 fine unit
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 2 fine units
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 3 fine units

"Grade 2 (Careless)" should be a low-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension + 1 weeks pay
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 2 match suspension + 1 weeks pay

"Grade 3 (Reckless)" should be a mid-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 4 match suspension

"Grade 4 (Intentional)" should be for individual acts of violence, dangerous tackles, etc that should be referred immediately to the judiciary and judged individually on its merits. Minimum suspension is 6 matches.

This should be reserved for things like Hopoate on Galloway, Williams on O'Neill, etc.
 

Sonny83

Juniors
Messages
206
the NRL & MRC would look silly if they persist with Radley's charges after Melbourne publicly stated they've milked the situation. I doubt he'd get off if this doesn't happened
 

The_Frog

Bench
Messages
4,374
the NRL & MRC would look silly if they persist with Radley's charges after Melbourne publicly stated they've milked the situation. I doubt he'd get off if this doesn't happened
Melbourne should be carpeted for commenting on a matter before the judiciary.
 

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
8,254
the NRL & MRC would look silly if they persist with Radley's charges after Melbourne publicly stated they've milked the situation. I doubt he'd get off if this doesn't happened

So why did the Bulldogs' player cop as much as he did given the Cowboys and Valentine Holmes did the exact same thing?
 

Captain Apollo

First Grade
Messages
9,321
Get rid of the points system. I'm sure anyone and everyone could pick this apart (be gentle) but I'd like to see something like the following.

Charges
Different types of charges (high tackle, dangerous contact, etc) should just be for categorisation/labelling purposes.

The way charges are determined should not be different based on the type of charges, but rather be based on a classification of the action, i.e. one of the following: accidental, careless, reckless and intentional.

The NRL can release to the public the guidelines for each of these four areas, and then the charge sheet can have a one/two liner on each charge to say why it fit into that classification.

Fines/suspensions should be based on the classification above

"Grade 1 (Accidental)" should always and only ever be a monetary fine, a percentage of their full-time equivalent pay. The NRL manage the salary cap, they know how much is should be for every player. A "fine unit" could be 1 weeks pay, or something as agreed upon with the Players Association.

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 fine unit
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 2 fine units
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 3 fine units

"Grade 2 (Careless)" should be a low-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension + 1 weeks pay
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 2 match suspension + 1 weeks pay

"Grade 3 (Reckless)" should be a mid-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 4 match suspension

"Grade 4 (Intentional)" should be for individual acts of violence, dangerous tackles, etc that should be referred immediately to the judiciary and judged individually on its merits. Minimum suspension is 6 matches.

This should be reserved for things like Hopoate on Galloway, Williams on O'Neill, etc.

You can't do it that way as you have to use what is listed in the laws of the game (which is section 15, Law 1 which deals with misconduct -

upload_2021-4-22_14-17-17.png

Source: https://www.playrugbyleague.com/media/10100/nrl-international-rules-book-2020-a5-v2-web.pdf

As such "accidental" is not listed, whilst the other three only cover tackles which come into contact with the head or neck.

You would have to re-word the above to be able to level charges like you suggest.

Yobbo, the loadings are what takes into account prior incidents. That is why, when combined with carry over points, Latrell wound up with a 4 week suspension. He was hit with a Grade 2 charge, which is the medium level, but due to 2 prior non-related incidents gave him a 40% increase so he wound up with 420 points and hence a 4 week suspension. If he didn't have those priors it would have been, at worst, 3 weeks.

People forget they brought in this table and gradings for one reason, as people used to carry on about inconsistencies between player a getting 5 weeks for a high tackle whilst players b, who's was considered far worse, only got 2 weeks. No reasons were given by judiciary as to why they imposed those sentences either.

Everyone carries on about their team's player being "hard done by" regardless of what system is sued. Heck I could imagine you could have a judiciary of Jesus Christ considering it and people would accuse him of being "biased and unfair".
 

Captain Apollo

First Grade
Messages
9,321
So why did the Bulldogs' player cop as much as he did given the Cowboys and Valentine Holmes did the exact same thing?

It's because of Hetherington's priors which loaded him up with a 170% increase. This was his charge sheet -

upload_2021-4-22_14-36-17.png

Source: https://www.bulldogs.com.au/news/20...84.332758728.1619056656-1450041289.1616978796

He has a really bad judiciary record with something like 6 charges in just over 2 seasons of play. If he didn't he would have been on the base penalty of 3 weeks max.
 

Frailty

First Grade
Messages
8,254
It's because of Hetherington's priors which loaded him up with a 170% increase. This was his charge sheet -

View attachment 47797

Source: https://www.bulldogs.com.au/news/20...84.332758728.1619056656-1450041289.1616978796

He has a really bad judiciary record with something like 6 charges in just over 2 seasons of play. If he didn't he would have been on the base penalty of 3 weeks max.

I'm merely responding to the point that the Judiciary would've given Radley the grade reduction due to the Munster incident. By that some token, Bulldogs should have sought to get the Hetherington charge downgraded as well, because the Cowboys did the same thing as the storm.
 

yobbo84

First Grade
Messages
5,152
You can't do it that way as you have to use what is listed in the laws of the game (which is section 15, Law 1 which deals with misconduct -

View attachment 47796

Source: https://www.playrugbyleague.com/media/10100/nrl-international-rules-book-2020-a5-v2-web.pdf

As such "accidental" is not listed, whilst the other three only cover tackles which come into contact with the head or neck.

You would have to re-word the above to be able to level charges like you suggest.
Fair enough then. Call it 'low', 'medium', 'high' and 'extreme'. Not too concerned with the wording. They're just categories. My point was more consistency across the various type of offences.

Yobbo, the loadings are what takes into account prior incidents. That is why, when combined with carry over points, Latrell wound up with a 4 week suspension. He was hit with a Grade 2 charge, which is the medium level, but due to 2 prior non-related incidents gave him a 40% increase so he wound up with 420 points and hence a 4 week suspension. If he didn't have those priors it would have been, at worst, 3 weeks.

People forget they brought in this table and gradings for one reason, as people used to carry on about inconsistencies between player a getting 5 weeks for a high tackle whilst players b, who's was considered far worse, only got 2 weeks. No reasons were given by judiciary as to why they imposed those sentences either.

Everyone carries on about their team's player being "hard done by" regardless of what system is sued. Heck I could imagine you could have a judiciary of Jesus Christ considering it and people would accuse him of being "biased and unfair".

I understand all that. My point is more around consistency in terms of weeks/fines as opposed to percentages. It's too complicated. You shouldn't be missing 4 weeks for an innocuous hit, regardless of priors. A sin-bin in the game, followed by a one week suspension and a $25k fine for repeated offences would've done more harm to him then having a month off at full pay.
 

Captain Apollo

First Grade
Messages
9,321
I understand all that. My point is more around consistency in terms of weeks/fines as opposed to percentages. It's too complicated. You shouldn't be missing 4 weeks for an innocuous hit, regardless of priors. A sin-bin in the game, followed by a one week suspension and a $25k fine for repeated offences would've done more harm to him then having a month off at full pay.

Sorry but I disagree with your assertion that "its complicated". Charges are based on 100 points = a 1 match suspension. Hence if the base charge, as in Latrell's case, was Grade 2 which attracted a 300 points as the base penalty. It was due to an extra loading which added due to his priors which meant if he fought it and lost he was looking at a 4 match suspension, and that I spelt out in the charge sheet so at all stages you know what the end punishment, at any stage, may be.
 

yobbo84

First Grade
Messages
5,152
Sorry but I disagree with your assertion that "its complicated". Charges are based on 100 points = a 1 match suspension. Hence if the base charge, as in Latrell's case, was Grade 2 which attracted a 300 points as the base penalty. It was due to an extra loading which added due to his priors which meant if he fought it and lost he was looking at a 4 match suspension, and that I spelt out in the charge sheet so at all stages you know what the end punishment, at any stage, may be.
There are currently 9 different gradings for high tackles. That's complicated.
 

This Year?

Coach
Messages
16,624
Get rid of the points system. I'm sure anyone and everyone could pick this apart (be gentle) but I'd like to see something like the following.

Charges
Different types of charges (high tackle, dangerous contact, etc) should just be for categorisation/labelling purposes.

The way charges are determined should not be different based on the type of charges, but rather be based on a classification of the action, i.e. one of the following: accidental, careless, reckless and intentional.

The NRL can release to the public the guidelines for each of these four areas, and then the charge sheet can have a one/two liner on each charge to say why it fit into that classification.

Fines/suspensions should be based on the classification above

"Grade 1 (Accidental)" should always and only ever be a monetary fine, a percentage of their full-time equivalent pay. The NRL manage the salary cap, they know how much is should be for every player. A "fine unit" could be 1 weeks pay, or something as agreed upon with the Players Association.

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 fine unit
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 2 fine units
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 3 fine units

"Grade 2 (Careless)" should be a low-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 1 match suspension + 1 weeks pay
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 2 match suspension + 1 weeks pay

"Grade 3 (Reckless)" should be a mid-level match suspension:

- 1st charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 2nd charge in past 12 months: 3 match suspension
- 3rd+ charge in past 12 months: 4 match suspension

"Grade 4 (Intentional)" should be for individual acts of violence, dangerous tackles, etc that should be referred immediately to the judiciary and judged individually on its merits. Minimum suspension is 6 matches.

This should be reserved for things like Hopoate on Galloway, Williams on O'Neill, etc.
I like this. Well thought out, not complicated with common sense.
 

Latest posts

Top