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

How many weeks for Mitchell

  • 2

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • 3

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • 4+

    Votes: 27 90.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Valheru

Coach
Messages
17,648
I don't want Dylan Brown to be hung out to dry at the judiciary for this, I would much rather the refs have binned him on the night and allowed us a free interchange and invoking the 18th man. Waiting 20 minutes was outrageous.

Its just another example of why they need to change the bench to 6-8 players and just leave the amount of interchanges the same. The officials just can't be trusted getting this type of thing right.
 

Mr. Shaman

First Grade
Messages
6,589
I don't want Dylan Brown to be hung out to dry at the judiciary for this, I would much rather the refs have binned him on the night and allowed us a free interchange and invoking the 18th man. Waiting 20 minutes was outrageous.

Its just another example of why they need to change the bench to 6-8 players and just leave the amount of interchanges the same. The officials just can't be trusted getting this type of thing right.

Nah f**k Parra send him to Azkaban.
 

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,189
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...en-agree-with-each-other-20210506-p57ph9.html
By Adam Pengilly, MAY 7, 2021

It’s only an hour after daybreak and four old footballers are poring over a video which has been circulating in their WhatsApp group.

They’ve watched the clips over and over again, looking at bodies and limbs contorting in every direction, working out where the contact is, the force involved, and then finally deciding if the video is enough for the player to be in trouble.

But these guys risk popularity in their own households as they delay breakfast with their families to help keep the game clean.

You might not agree with them. Most have had scratched their head and thought, ‘how did they arrive at that?’ But watching how the MRC work gives a clear insight into how thorough their process is – and that they don’t always agree with each other.

By the time the quartet have logged on this morning, they’ve requested multiple medical reports from clubs about potential injuries to players. If they find there’s enough to sustain a charge against a player, then the medical report will come into play with regard to grading.

Each member is assigned to a game and flags incidents in the next day’s review, seeking opinions of his fellow reviewers. There’s debate, and plenty of it. They can instantly recall similar tackles to ones they’re assessing, and within seconds can watch incidents from previous years to help guide them.

The problem for the match review committee is also rugby league’s greatest strength: tribalism. If you’re a Tigers fan, it’s hard to look at the match review committee through anything other than a Tigers lens and so on.

When the Herald sat in on the review, the panel is interrogating a tackle from a match on Saturday night.

One panel member can’t see enough to lay a dangerous contact charge.

“I don’t see [player] doing a helluva lot wrong here,” he says. “I don’t see him putting him in a dangerous position. He’s making a genuine attempt at a tackle. I just think this is OK. I don’t see a lot wrong with this.”

It’s quickly countered, while the replays keep rolling.
“He made forceful contact with a player in a vulnerable position,” says another. “We can’t use an injury to make it a charge, but if we deem his actions careless we can consider the injury. I’ve got this as a charge.”

Adds the next panel member: “Applying the code, I think we can support a grade one charge. The more we talk through it the more confident I am it ticks all the boxes to sustain a charge.”

But it doesn’t end there.

“I just don’t see enough for it to be a charge. I’m still below a charge, but I take everyone’s points on board.”

“That happens often. There is difference in opinions a lot of the time.”

The panel often debate through differing views, says Robertson.

“That happens often,” he says . “There is difference in opinions a lot of the time.”

In just under an hour, the panel has wrapped up the matches from the previous night. The player is charged.

Hodgson started on the match review committee more than seven years ago. He would sit down in his lounge room with his Foxtel remote and would see what everyone else did. He would pause, rewind, play, stop, stare, over and over again, but he was always at the mercy of the TV match director.

One of the first games he was rostered to review was an early season match in Melbourne on a Monday night. Newcastle’s rangy red-headed back-rower, Alex McKinnon, carted the ball into the Storm defence before being lifted in a tackle.

Later, McKinnon would be diagnosed a quadriplegic.

Hodgson had to watch the tackle many times to help the panel decide how it should be handled. The matter was referred straight to the NRL judiciary, where Jordan McLean was found guilty of a grade two dangerous throw. He was suspended for seven matches, after McKinnon’s life-changing injury was taken into account.

Back in those days, the panel would make a phone call to Fox Sports on a Monday morning and ask for any extra angles to help them decide on a controversial incident. The tapes would be swiftly couriered across the Harbour Bridge.

On a cool autumn night in 2021, Hodgson is now sitting in the NRL’s modern day central command centre in inner-city Eveleigh.

Todd Greenberg’s facility was derided in its early days because it cost $2 million and punters still thought it stuffed up more than it should, but nothing which happens on an NRL field these days escapes Big Brother in the Bunker.

It’s not only used for on-field rulings and to spot potential in-game concussions, but it also has space for match review officials to “tag” potential foul play in a little room which misses nothing.
 

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,189
Continued...


Hodgson’s old Foxtel remote is replaced by a can of Red Bull (no doubt to help him on the late night drive home to Newcastle), and he has so many controls it’s hard to know which one does what. Instead of relying on the broadcaster to show him what he needs to see, these days he has 11 different camera angles to scrutinise every raised knee, hair pull, swinging arm, grapple tackle, hip drop, shoulder charge or whatever the latest fad is.

There are 17 different pieces of white paper stuck on the wall to his left, each with a detailed breakdown of what constitutes a charge under the NRL’s judiciary code. Hodgson barely looks at them because he’s done this so many times before. He’s talking through the different grips and tackling techniques which he’s mastered identifying.

Having watched the match, it’s easy to assume he might as well put the feet up. There is little spite in the game, and certainly nothing which will keep sports editors grinning about back page fodder for days.

“And you wouldn’t say we do this for job satisfaction. For us, it’s governance of the game and player welfare. That makes me want to do it.”

Michael Hodgson
But by the time 15 minutes has elapsed, Hodgson has already found four incidents he’s marked in a central log.

For each one, he stops his feed, rewinds it and watches it numerous times from all manner of angles before the incident is cut up by an assistant and sent to the other members of the match review panel almost instantaneously.

Is it usual for so many tackles and collisions to be under the microscope each game?

“We might usually tag anywhere between 16 to 20 incidents in a game,” Hodgson says. “I’ve got to be honest, some things look quite innocuous sometimes. You speak to people and they say, ‘well, what was in that?‘

“And you wouldn’t say we do this for job satisfaction. For us, it’s governance of the game and player welfare and safety. That makes me want to do it. We can be perceived differently, and I understand that. To follow these trends in terms of wrestling and issuing concerning acts that can potentially stop an injury, I find that really rewarding.”

By the end of the game, Hodgson has identified 15 different incidents to be sent to his fellow MRC members.

The next morning they issue only one charge from the match.

‘Why aren’t the match review committee accountable?’
The day after Mitchell was slugged with a four-game ban for a stray arm which collected Tigers winger David Nofoaluma in the head, his South Sydney coach Wayne Bennett went nuclear.

Mitchell was charged three times from the one match, including for an innocuous looking slide into Luke Garner after he scored a try. Before Mitchell fronted the judiciary, the Rabbitohs had been quietly peddling images of other incidents out of the weekend which they thought were worse than the Garner collision.

They might have had a point.

But Bennett was furious the Nofoaluma contact cost him his most mercurial player for a month, and thundered to the Herald: “We’re all accountable. I’m accountable. Players are accountable. Referees are. Why aren’t the match review committee?”

It was only the start of the caning.

Phil Gould claimed he was an astronaut if Mitchell deserved that suspension. The public stoning finished with the Perry Mason for NRL clubs, Nick Ghabar, calling for sweeping changes to the judiciary process.

The NRL had had enough.

Head of football Graham Annesley used more than half-an-hour of his weekly football briefing to launch into a spirited defence of the integrity and credentials of the match review committee members and judiciary panel.

He gave the impression it was hard to convince them to do a job that was about to become easy to walk away from.

“This is not a tick-and-flick exercise. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into it.”


“It’s not a job for everybody,” Annesley now says. “A lot of former players, once they’ve finished their on-field career, they don’t want to be in a position where they’re making decisions that adversely affect their former colleagues.

“One of the problems we have is the perception of the whole judicial process, from match review right through to hearing, is that there’s not a lot of understanding of the amount of detail which goes into reviewing matches, preparing charges and cases that might go to the judiciary.

“But this is not a tick-and-flick exercise. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into it. These guys are trying to be as consistent as possible and nothing escapes their attention.”

But should it only be former players who sit in judgment of their peers, rather than a wider cross section of representatives?

“The environment is constantly changing,” Annesley says. “There’s new coaching methodologies that come into play that these guys have got to be aware of. That’s the whole logic behind using former players because they’ve been there.”

Mitchell is only spending four weeks on the sidelines because of his poor record and the fact he fought the charge at the judiciary and lost, adding another week to what is usually a two-game charge. Whether he should have been charged at all for that incident, few will agree on.

What is clear is the NRL won’t tolerate any form of contact with the head or neck, and its match review committee treat the judiciary code like The Bible.



Asked about the Mitchell decision, Robertson says: “There was a long discussion in that one. I don’t take [the criticism] personally. I would like it if people went into the code, read it and understand what our decisions are based on. They’re the rules we stick to.

“I’ve told all the coaches and football managers there’s an open line if they’ve got any issues. Some take me up on it, and some don’t. They don’t necessarily agree with how we come to our decisions, but I’ll explain how we did.

“But this is not just four blokes jumping on the phone and saying,‘what do you reckon? Grade one?’ Then just move onto the next one. We don’t just pluck these charges out of the air.

“I would rather no one get suspended, but I’d much prefer a safer working environment be created so we don’t have an injury from foul play.”
 

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,189
An excellent article IMO and a great answer to all the "experts" in the media.

Doesn't excuse them completely and it would be great to have explanations why players were not charged, gradings etc, the MRC equivalent to the Graeme Annesley Monday morning refs debrief.
 

crocodile

Bench
Messages
3,506
It was extremely reckless and Hutchinson was already essentially in the in goal

What was Brown trying to do ?

Not too hard to see what he was trying to do. Morris knocked the ball forward into Hutchison's reach. The players didn't chase right away expecting it to be called. The referee calls play on and Brown sprints after Hutchison. As Hutchison dives his right arm hits Brown's right leg and he trips. Off balance his left leg buckles under him and his knee gets Hutchison in the ribs.

No way is it deliberate. It is certainly careless and Brown put himself in a poor position. Unfortunate for Hutchison. Brown deserves some consequences but three weeks seems a bit stiff. Four if he contests the grading.
 

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
You increase ball-in-play time and fatigue, loosening up the big boys round the middle, the big boys are gonna get loose and clip some blokes.

It's not foul play. Suspensions won't teach them not to do something they never intended to do.
 
Messages
13,978
Still no proper justification for how they punished Latrell so much worse than a lot of other incidents.

Like any judicial system, repeat offenders usually wind up with heavier sentences than those who are first time offenders. It was Latrell's priors which loaded him up to get 4 if he challenged it unsuccessfully at the judiciary.

Latrell is a quality player and a quality human being. Things is he gets chock full of the angry pills when he is on field which leads him to doing some dumb stuff which causes him to run afoul of the judiciary.
 

yobbo84

First Grade
Messages
9,871
(My highlighting)

"By the time the quartet have logged on this morning, they’ve requested multiple medical reports from clubs about potential injuries to players. If they find there’s enough to sustain a charge against a player, then the medical report will come into play with regard to grading."

Well that's not open to any rorting at all.
 

Latest posts

Top