The Game 2021 Judiciary Charges

[SBD82]

Sorry but you have this one wrong. There was plenty of time to back out.

Plenty of time to back out watching it in slow motion from the camera angle on the other side of the field.

Jordan lost where the ball was. (Ironically because teddy’s straighten and ball play out the back was so good) And it still wasn’t really late.

I agree it shouldn't be grade 3 high tackle, it should actually be grade 2 dangerous contact which is same as latrell.

I’d be happy with that. But since Jordan doesn’t have priors (I think??) he’d be gone for 2 weeks. Which seems reasonable.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

It appears that a lot of people haven't realised that what was posted from NRL.com was wrong and Curran's only facing 1-2 weeks?

I get it now. And I still am just as baffled....

If he actually hit Jennings in the head with the force in that tackle shown... surely it’s worthy of 3-4....

But 1-2.... it’s like suggesting they can’t prove it actually hit the head but it’s “close enough” so we’ll reduce the penalty...

Either way.... any ban is too long IMO. The sin bin was too harsh.... there’s no evidence any contact with the head was made by the shoulder (or anything else) of Curran. If his shoulder had made contact with Jennings chin his jaw would be in the back of his neck...

Unless Jennings has made testimony otherwise... which I haven’t seen... this is a farce of a charge...

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Not much difference to me....except Talakai 4-6 weeks, Rooster not charged. Even Rava's hit which was nowhere near the head is looking at 2-4 weeks.

His hand is facing backwards so any argument that Crichton “wraps the arm” is ridiculous..

It’s no different in my opinion to Ravalawa. Both couldn’t have hit the ball carrier any more “square on”... and neither were near the head.

Both were great hits, but that one is applauded while one is charged with up to 4 weeks is pure insanity.,,, NRL and these rules has lost me this year. Not because Rav plays for my team... but for Curran, The Sharks v Bulldogs... and the many many similar tackles (with more than one tackler) that go unchecked but are basically made in the same style...

 

[mave]

Curran may as well have been charged with tackling too hard.

Otherwise known as the Steve Matai rule.

 

[Jason Maher]

If you could all dial down the outrage, NRL.com incorrectly reported Curran is facing 3-5 weeks.

He's facing 1-2 weeks, as per the correct graphic in our tweet.

That's still a f**king outrage for a head clash.

 

[Someguy]

Curran led with the shoulder but more as a bracing action with no intent to put on a big hit. Ugly collision and imo worthy of the sin bin as there was incidental high contact resulting in a player leaving the game. A suspension is not at all warranted and I really can’t see how he wouldn’t get off if he took it to the judiciary.

 

[Frailty]

Below is a statement from National Rugby League (NRL) Chief Executive Officer Andrew Abdo in response to public comments made about the NRL judiciary and its members:

“The Judiciary Panel operates in a challenging environment and its members are tasked with making difficult decisions, requiring independent thought and unique insight which comes through playing the game at the highest level.

“There are currently five Judiciary panel members who have played almost 1,000 premiership games collectively and won Grand Finals, State of Origin Series and Test Matches. Their knowledge and understanding of rugby league is unquestionable.

“The Judiciary panel are independent of the NRL or any Club. Our panellists are meticulous in their consideration of evidence and unquestionably independent in the way they deliberate. Aside from decorated rugby league careers our panellists are also successful in their chosen fields.

“There will always be varying public views about every Judiciary decision, just as the facts of every Judiciary matter are unique, but there is no place for anyone to question the independence of the panel.

“The game is very fortunate to have a Judiciary which is Chaired by Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Bellew. Justice Bellew’s services are an asset to our game. His summary of evidence and directions to the panel are again independent and mirror the process of a courtroom.

“Just as the court system issues harsher penalties to citizens with prior offences, our judiciary system also issues harsher penalties to players with prior offences and carry over points. This acts as a deterrent to foul play which assists in keeping players safe. It also recognises and incentivises those Players who maintain an otherwise clean record of play.

“The NRL Judiciary System, as is the case with all processes and systems within the game, will be reviewed during the year. As always, the review will be considered by the Australian Rugby League Commission who will determine what changes may be required taking into account all views.”

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/04/26/statement-from-nrl-ceo-andrew-abdo/

Now do the Match Review Committee...

 

[Zoe Palmer]

Plenty of time to back out watching it in slow motion from the camera angle on the other side of the field.

Jordan lost where the ball was. (Ironically because teddy’s straighten and ball play out the back was so good) And it still wasn’t really late.

I’d be happy with that. But since Jordan doesn’t have priors (I think??) he’d be gone for 2 weeks. Which seems reasonable.

I agree, slow motion is rubbish
At full speed he was going to get a teddy in the chest or lower. Tedesco fell and anyone who’s played the game would have had trouble pulling out of the tackle at the speed the play was, I’m sure

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I agree, slow motion is rubbish
At full speed he was going to get a teddy in the chest or lower. Tedesco fell and anyone who’s played the game would have had trouble pulling out of the tackle at the speed the play was, I’m sure

This. This is the issue. We watch so much of this game in slo-mo, when it's not played in slo-mo. Pereira, when he initially goes to make contact, I bet he's aiming around the chest/torso region. Tedesco falls, and it's a fast-paced game. What the hell else is Pereira meant to do? If you have to sin bin him for high contact, I'm not for it but OK in the heat of the moment for a high shot, I get it. But why can't we see there's no intent in it, and it's not even particularly reckless because if Tedesco stays upright, it's the same tackle we see 100x a game?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Curran led with the shoulder but more as a bracing action with no intent to put on a big hit. Ugly collision and imo worthy of the sin bin as there was incidental high contact resulting in a player leaving the game. A suspension is not at all warranted and I really can’t see how he wouldn’t get off if he took it to the judiciary.

Nah. It was a head clash. Mistakes happen, why do we want to penalise players when this happens? Josh Curran isn't going to go into contact any different next time and nor should he. He went hard on a play for the ball, his head accidently hit Jennings' and unfortunately George was knocked out. Accident. Play on. No sin bin, no suspension, no nothing.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Saints would be absolutely mad to challenge the Pereria one.

I would be pleading guilty as quickly as possible to that one and be thankful it is only 3 weeks.

Roosters lost their best player for the game and he will probably be out next week too. He didn't mean to hit him high but it was also late and he could have pulled out of that.

I agree they shouldn’t challenge it but because it was Tedesco should be absolutely irrelevant.

They shouldnt because, despite any warranted clemency for Tedesco stumbling just before impact... the PR war of head knocks n concussions will be too far a mountain to climb. Irrespective of what might have actually contributed to the hit on Tedesco. PR war will always win.

This pic below is evidence enough to me that there are strong grounds that a suspension should be challenged...

But.... the PR war.......

 

[tripster]

Hahahaha.

Our 5 panel members have played collectively 1000 games for clubs.

In the next breath....our panel members are completely independent.

Our panel members played 1000 games in an area with no HIA rules and are all suffering from various degrees of CTE.

 

[blocka]

Curran led with the shoulder but more as a bracing action with no intent to put on a big hit. Ugly collision and imo worthy of the sin bin as there was incidental high contact resulting in a player leaving the game. A suspension is not at all warranted and I really can’t see how he wouldn’t get off if he took it to the judiciary.

Does that mean you think Jennings should have been sin binned if Curran went down? Considering it was a head clash

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Below is a statement from National Rugby League (NRL) Chief Executive Officer Andrew Abdo in response to public comments made about the NRL judiciary and its members:

“The Judiciary Panel operates in a challenging environment and its members are tasked with making difficult decisions, requiring independent thought and unique insight which comes through playing the game at the highest level.

“There are currently five Judiciary panel members who have played almost 1,000 premiership games collectively and won Grand Finals, State of Origin Series and Test Matches. Their knowledge and understanding of rugby league is unquestionable.

“The Judiciary panel are independent of the NRL or any Club. Our panellists are meticulous in their consideration of evidence and unquestionably independent in the way they deliberate. Aside from decorated rugby league careers our panellists are also successful in their chosen fields.

“There will always be varying public views about every Judiciary decision, just as the facts of every Judiciary matter are unique, but there is no place for anyone to question the independence of the panel.

“The game is very fortunate to have a Judiciary which is Chaired by Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Bellew. Justice Bellew’s services are an asset to our game. His summary of evidence and directions to the panel are again independent and mirror the process of a courtroom.

“Just as the court system issues harsher penalties to citizens with prior offences, our judiciary system also issues harsher penalties to players with prior offences and carry over points. This acts as a deterrent to foul play which assists in keeping players safe. It also recognises and incentivises those Players who maintain an otherwise clean record of play.

“The NRL Judiciary System, as is the case with all processes and systems within the game, will be reviewed during the year. As always, the review will be considered by the Australian Rugby League Commission who will determine what changes may be required taking into account all views.”

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/04/26/statement-from-nrl-ceo-andrew-abdo/

That a statement like this has been felt necessary by Abdo gives even further weight to the flaws in the NRL review n grading systems.

The NRL and ARLC have done brilliantly in getting the game through the biggest crisis since 1908 yet... they aren’t infallible...

Statements like this from Abdo and the “players need to learn” statement from Annesley say far far more about the people saying them than the players and fans that these are directed at.

In my opinion, both Abdo and annesley have been sent out to defend the indefensible... a shockingly flawed rule and grading system... while PVL remains conveniently in the background...

There was a thread post in here as to what Andrew Abdo actually does....?

Well it would appear to me that he’s wheeled out by Peter Vlandys when the shit stuff needs to be “defended”.

That we are hearing from Vlandys on all sorts of “NRL greatness, rule changes and strategy” chat.... but he’s not there to defend it - leaving Abdo to clean the mess up...... hmmm

 

[gerg]

I agree they shouldn’t challenge it but because it was Tedesco should be absolutely irrelevant.

They shouldnt because, despite any warranted clemency for Tedesco stumbling just before impact... the PR war of head knocks n concussions will be too far a mountain to climb. Irrespective of what might have actually contributed to the hit on Tedesco. PR war will always win.

This pic below is evidence enough to me that there are strong grounds that a suspension should be challenged...

But.... the PR war.......

A player falling into a swinging, head high shot has rarely been an accepted excuse. It is what it is, unfortunately. The ones I'm finding hard to swallow is the Curran head clash and Crichton escaping any sort of penalty for his shoulder charge.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

A player falling into a swinging, head high shot has rarely been an accepted excuse. It is what it is, unfortunately. The ones I'm finding hard to swallow is the Curran head clash and Crichton escaping any sort of penalty for his shoulder charge.

It’s not an excuse - it’s more a reason.

Periera’s arm is well below his shoulder blade at point of impact. Tedescos right knee is almost on the grass. A split second before this photo... Tedesco was upright and Periera had a split second decision to try and shut the overlap down or do something else...(whatever that was)

The contact was right across Tedescos face... but I’ve heard Anasta say it was worthy of a send off because “Tedesco was taken out”, Mal Meninga saying it was a send off coz pereira “could have pulled out”.... both completely BS in my opinion, especially Anasta....

It’s not an excuse - it’s more reasoning as to why the contact occurred and why (IMO) the calls for send offs and big suspensions are ludicrous.

Like many things in the modern world, it’s a contest to be the biggest voice, most outraged at any particular event. Straight from the Foxsports commentary playbook.

I agree with what you say about Curran n Crichton. Both I thought were simply great tackles. But the divide in the end result of both of these is a testimony to the flaws of the Modern day NRL hierarchy and the rules they impose.

I don’t blame the ref here. Hes trying to govern to the rules of the game imposed by the decision makers. But earlier in that first half there was the most soft penalty I’ve seen in years for “head contact” on a falling Josh McGuire...... who fell into nothing more than a loose hand from a rooster. The ref got it wrong but it says a lot about the pressures the whistleblowers are under to nab everything on contact with the head.

McGuire fell into it. But that’s no excuse for the penalty to be given.

 

[Generalzod]

It’s not an excuse - it’s more a reason.

Periera’s arm is well below his shoulder blade at point of impact. Tedescos right knee is almost on the grass. A split second before this photo... Tedesco was upright and Periera had a split second decision to try and shut the overlap down or do something else...(whatever that was)

The contact was right across Tedescos face... but I’ve heard Anasta say it was worthy of a send off because “Tedesco was taken out”, Mal Meninga saying it was a send off coz pereira “could have pulled out”.... both completely BS in my opinion, especially Anasta....

It’s not an excuse - it’s more reasoning as to why the contact occurred and why (IMO) the calls for send offs and big suspensions are ludicrous.

Like many things in the modern world, it’s a contest to be the biggest voice, most outraged at any particular event. Straight from the Foxsports commentary playbook.

I agree with what you say about Curran n Crichton. Both I thought were simply great tackles. But the divide in the end result of both of these is a testimony to the flaws of the Modern day NRL hierarchy and the rules they impose.

I don’t blame the ref here. Hes trying to govern to the rules of the game imposed by the decision makers. But earlier in that first half there was the most soft penalty I’ve seen in years for “head contact” on a falling Josh McGuire...... who fell into nothing more than a loose hand from a rooster. The ref got it wrong but it says a lot about the pressures the whistleblowers are under to nab everything on contact with the head.

McGuire fell into it. But that’s no excuse for the penalty to be given.

You know what I don’t get how the match review committee can differentiate one shoulder charge over another when there all shoulder charges...

 

[Meth]

Pereira gets 3 weeks!! Really highlights how ridiculous Mitchell’s 4 weeks was.

 

[Smug Panther]

Pereira gets 3 weeks!! Really highlights how ridiculous Mitchell’s 4 weeks was.

Latrell purposely aimed at the head. He's a grub and got what he deserved