The Game 2021 Judiciary Charges

[Timmah]

Judging by what happened to Latrell I don’t think you can access the early plea discount anymore if you contest the grade

If you get a successful downgrade, the early plea applies, because you're pleading guilty to that lesser offence.

Unsuccessful downgrade means foregoing the early plea benefits because you weren't pleading guilty to that level of offending.

 

[OzDragon]

Suspending a shit tonne of players is sure to boost crowd numbers

 

[Saxon]

Uncle Nick to have words behind the scene and Radley's grading to get reduced. Bet the farm on it.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Suspending a shit tonne of players is sure to boost crowd numbers

yep.

Especially with suspension and injuries. Some clubs mightn’t have enough in the squad to field a full 17 soon... unless they get cap dispensation...

Dragons are close to fielding a Canterbury Cup backline now..

 

[Saxon]

yep.

Especially with suspension and injuries. Some clubs mightn’t have enough in the squad to field a full 17 soon... unless they get cap dispensation...

Dragons are close to fielding a Canterbury Cup backline now..

What do you mean "close to"?

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

What do you mean "close to"?

Weve got a few regulars still in the backline - our halves. But that’s it, apart from perhaps Periera even though he was playing behind Ramsay most of this season. No doubt he’ll get pinged again and off on a holiday soon enough. He didn’t need a crackdown to earn a spell in recent seasons

 

[lockyno1]

Weve got a few regulars still in the backline - our halves. But that’s it, apart from perhaps Periera even though he was playing behind Ramsay most of this season. No doubt he’ll get pinged again and off on a holiday soon enough. He didn’t need a crackdown to earn a spell in recent seasons

Could be worse you could have Milford

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Could be worse you could have Milford

Milford...

Norman..

should we call it even??

 

[Someguy]

So if a player is to challenge for a downgrade at the judiciary is an old incident able to be use to compare/use as precedent? If so I can see most being successful

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The fool isn't playing for the Broncos any more, simple as that..

Be interesting to look suspensions for players at the Broncos/Storm/Roosters and then when they leave...

then see how many of those Broncos/Storm/Roosters were kiwis with test matches coming up....

 

[firechild]

The challenge system at the judiciary is horrifically weighed IMO.

To add a potential extra few matches if the judiciary finds against you is a rort. It’s geared toward disincentivising a player from making a challenge - and thus “justifying” the NRLs judiciary charges...

note how it’s always reported as “(insert player name) has ACCEPTED a two week ban...”...

Im sure many players don’t accept it at all, they are cornered into an unfavourable situation where they risk a longer sentence..

I bet many players would like to challenge but it’s too risky to be out for longer... and clubs would be against it - also knowing in the current climate the odds are stacked against a favourable result - which would make the NRL look bad...

I’d suggest that a more fair system would be an unsuccessful challenge should only incur a monetary fine of $xxxx - which basically to cover judiciary costs.. it could also be proportionate to the level of charge/suspension..

It’s enough to disincentivise a frivolous challenge, but leaves the more fair opportunity for a player / club to challenge a charge...

But the NRL would never do something like this under Vlandys watch... he needs to feel justified. And this bogus judiciary system is geared toward upholding this.

I'm not sure you understand the system. You don't get additional weeks for challenging. You get a reduction for entering a guilty plea, the same way the legal system works (except with the NRL you know how much your reduction is).
If the NRL were to go down the path of removing early pleas, everyone would be getting the full suspension, not the lesser one. If a high tackle is worth 300 points (3 weeks), you don't get an extra week for challenging, you get a 25% reduction (225 points/2 weeks) for not challenging.
I get what you're saying about disincentivising the challenge but I'm not sure your suggestion works. Would you forgo part of your salary in the same circumstances? These people play rugby league as their job, why would you would they want to pay fines that challenge the judiciary unless perhaps it was a final?

 

[Timmah]

I'm not sure you understand the system. You don't get additional weeks for challenging. You get a reduction for entering a guilty plea, the same way the legal system works (except with the NRL you know how much your reduction is).
If the NRL were to go down the path of removing early pleas, everyone would be getting the full suspension, not the lesser one. If a high tackle is worth 300 points (3 weeks), you don't get an extra week for challenging, you get a 25% reduction (225 points/2 weeks) for not challenging.
I get what you're saying about disincentivising the challenge but I'm not sure your suggestion works. Would you forgo part of your salary in the same circumstances? These people play rugby league as their job, why would you would they want to pay fines that challenge the judiciary unless perhaps it was a final?

Spot on - the fact that 90+% of charges have an early plea against them indicates to me that the vast majority of those are the player saying 'yeah, i f**ked up', copping the punishment and moving on. Not doubting there would be a group who just cop it despite wanting to challenge (but wanting to avoid risk).

If we didn't have the early plea reduction, every player would be unnecessarily challenging their charge at the judiciary, wasting everyone's time.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I'm not sure you understand the system. You don't get additional weeks for challenging. You get a reduction for entering a guilty plea, the same way the legal system works (except with the NRL you know how much your reduction is).
If the NRL were to go down the path of removing early pleas, everyone would be getting the full suspension, not the lesser one. If a high tackle is worth 300 points (3 weeks), you don't get an extra week for challenging, you get a 25% reduction (225 points/2 weeks) for not challenging.
I get what you're saying about disincentivising the challenge but I'm not sure your suggestion works. Would you forgo part of your salary in the same circumstances? These people play rugby league as their job, why would you would they want to pay fines that challenge the judiciary unless perhaps it was a final?

I do understand the system. By challenging the grading you risk more weeks on the sideline.

Doesn’t matter how they use their terminology.

It’s like rug salesman.... “”70% discount” on rugs where the marked price is significantly inflated. Trying to give people the idea they are getting a bargain and saving money... they ain’t...

it isn’t so much “here’s a bonus for you if you don’t challenge us and win”... it’s “there’s a harsher penalty if you challenge us and lose”. But ultimately it’s the same thing...

Challenge us and lose... more weeks sidelined.

National RUGSALESMAN League.

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[Timmah]

I do understand the system. By challenging the grading you risk more weeks on the sideline.

Doesn’t matter how they use their terminology.

It’s like rug salesman.... “”70% discount” on rugs where the marked price is significantly inflated. Trying to give people the idea they are getting a bargain and saving money... they ain’t...

it isn’t so much “here’s a bonus for you if you don’t challenge us and win”... it’s “there’s a harsher penalty if you challenge us and lose”. But ultimately it’s the same thing...

Challenge us and lose... more weeks sidelined.

National RUGSALESMAN League.

The full week suspensions really aren't that big for some of the things that players do.

And even then, now, most players get charges with fines, not suspensions anyway.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

The full week suspensions really aren't that big for some of the things that players do.

And even then, now, most players get charges with fines, not suspensions anyway.

Some players do, but not all players. That's just an opinion but..

Doesn't mean that the system isn't geared toward players accepting charges rather than testing them at the judiciary.

the term "discount" on a match-review sheet is a furphy. It's more - are you willing to risk a bigger suspension by challenging a grading...

I'm glad that Crichton and Radley are challenging theirs. Although I'd like to see how the process works at the judiciary - which they don't let cameras into.

Funny that....

With all the caveats from Fox & Nine (who pay $$$$ in rights) to give us as much access to players for their broadcasts and shows.. such as dressing room cameras, post-match press conferences, player interviews, player/coach press conferences (aka media days).....

The NRL still do not allow cameras into a judiciary hearing. Why not??

I'm sure there'd be great interest from a lot of rugby league nerds like me to watch how the process goes, and a hearing of certain players/charges that i'd be interested in. So why not let these be broadcast..

Many courts around the world allow broadcast of particular hearings, while here in Australia many public enquiries and hearings are broadcast on livestream...So it's not without precedence..

The cameras are allowed to "intrude" the historically private sanctuary of the players' dressing rooms. But not the NRL systems at thee judiciary.

Surely if they backed themselves and their systems, it would actually be a positive thing for the NRL to demonstrate how they work it and determine charges/suspension lengths/guilt/downgrading/upgrading and the like.. Insight for fans like myself.

But interestingly ... it's a no-go-zone.... I wonder why??

As for fines... I'm not referring to that system here although I would be interested to know where the funds go. To the NRL of course but where from there.

 

[Timmah]

Yeah... put the tinfoil hat away jeez

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

I'm glad that Crichton and Radley are challenging theirs. Although I'd like to see how the process works at the judiciary - which they don't let cameras into.

No cameras but the NRL do release some transcripts live throughout the hearing. I was keeping and eye on Radley’s last successful downgrade hearing and you got some of an idea of what was taking place. People were surprised he got off but the transcripts delivered a picture of how bad the prosecution case was. They were apparently viewing footage of supposedly similar tackles that was the centrepiece of the prosecution’s case. The defence noted that all the footage shown were all deemed grade 1 tackles. As soon as I read that, I knew Ridley was off the hook. BTW, aren’t journalists allowed in, at least to report?

 

[lockyno1]

Milford...

Norman..

should we call it even??

Well pretty much jeez! Norman last week would have just promoted me to drink if I were going for the Dragons...Milford does that every time he plays

 

[lockyno1]

Good decisions tonight by the judiciary didn’t bow down to Gould and co