The Game 2021 Judiciary Charges

[Alderley Rooster]

Was never getting a downgrade with the injury

After shouting from heaven and earth that Mitchell deserved more for the injury caused…apparently it’s fine to break the Titans player nose and for there to be a downgrade…Can’t have it both ways

Massive difference. Latrells actions caused the injury.

With Verrills there was no action. He was standing still and didnt move shoulders arms etc

 

[yobbo84]

"He's got to be careful with it I guess with making contact with the head. Maybe he's just got to learn the lesson from that."

"You don't want to be breaking people's faces. It sucks for him because he now misses out for the rest of the year."

- James Tedesco, 29 August 2021

Listen to your captain. You make contact with the head and break bones in the face, you get suspended. Whether it's careless like Verrills (1-2 weeks) or reckless like Mitchell (6-9 weeks), you just can't do it.

 

[BranVan3000]

Seriously that will do me. The judiciary is s joke

Verrils never leads with shoulder or swings into the contact. He simply stands still and Kelly runs into him.

Those clowns that compared it to Latrells tackle give yourself an uppercut. Latrell charged recklessly into the tackle with a swinging arm motion. Totally reckless.

2 weeks for that. FMD Kaufusi got two weeks for putting Matterson out for weeks.

I guess the NRL will finally knock the Roosters out one way or another

He deserves 8 weeks

 

[Alderley Rooster]

"He's got to be careful with it I guess with making contact with the head. Maybe he's just got to learn the lesson from that."

"You don't want to be breaking people's faces. It sucks for him because he now misses out for the rest of the year."

- James Tedesco, 29 August 2021

Listen to your captain. You make contact with the head and break bones in the face, you get suspended. Whether it's careless like Verrills (1-2 weeks) or reckless like Mitchell (6-9 weeks), you just can't do it.

Mate that is stretching a long bow. How in this case was Verrils careless??

 

[soc123_au]

Mate that is stretching a long bow. How in this case was Verrils careless??

As careless as the players that have had Teddy duck into them with his head. Robbo has reaped what he has sown in this case.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

He deserves 8 weeks

It is definitely different to Latrell's, and not worth 8 weeks. I think he deserves what he got; would have been 1 week if he accepted it.

 

[lockyno1]

Massive difference. Latrells actions caused the injury.

With Verrills there was no action. He was standing still and didnt move shoulders arms etc

So I guess Kelly broke his own nose then? Come off it. He was careless and hit him in the head, and it caused a fracture. Grade 2 is in the generous side.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

As careless as the players that have had Teddy duck into them with his head. Robbo has reaped what he has sown in this case.

TBF in Teddy’s cases there were swinging arms involved.

 

[Valheru]

Was never getting a downgrade with the injury

After shouting from heaven and earth that Mitchell deserved more for the injury caused…apparently it’s fine to break the Titans player nose and for there to be a downgrade…Can’t have it both ways

He said he should have got more on the field i.e. a send off. He never commented on the suspension.

 

[Valheru]

Based on precedent this season he deserves a suspension. The problem is, in the exact same round, they gave someone else a lessor charge for a very similar incident.

Just lol at the attempts to compare this to Latrell.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Deserved one week, not two. But that's on Roosters. Desperation or arrogance?

 

[Valheru]

Deserved one week, not two. But that's on Roosters. Desperation or arrogance?

A 100 base point penalty would have been reasonable and given his record would have been a 75 point penalty for an early pea and free to play.

The problem as I said earlier is a 100 point penalty (1 week) does not exist for a careless high tackle. It is either a fine or 200 points (2 weeks) which I think needs to be looked at.

 

[Captain Apollo]

It is inconceivable that Paulo's tackle could be considered Grade 1 and Verrill's Grade 2. The outcome is quite irrelevant, the point is that Paulo launched with his shoulder, with force and the point of contact was the head. It was much closer to the Latrell Mitchell tackle imho. To see this receiving just a fine is in complete contradiction of the notion of being serious about protecting the head.

Verrills pretty much holds his ground and caught Kelly's nose as Kelly was tackled low and fell onto Verrills shoulder when on his way down. It was always going to attract a charge but how the same group of people can look at these 2 tackles and consider Paulo's grade 1 and Verrill's grade 2 is incredulous.

I refuse to believe that these people can be this incompetent and it is pretty much on a weekly basis. It stinks and the whole process needs to be overhauled. Strangely I find the judiciary to be much more balanced but they can only deal with the cards they are dealt with. They can't even do anything about the Paulo tackle.

The Match Review Committee is comprised completely by ex-players. Hence consistency is not going to be a strong suit I would think.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Just lol at the attempts to compare this to Latrell.

I know, Latrell was completely remorseful for his accident, Verrills not so much.

 

[Valheru]

I know, Latrell was completely remorseful for his accident, Verrills not so much.

Not one of your best Jim. Back to the drawing board.

 

[yobbo84]

A 100 base point penalty would have been reasonable and given his record would have been a 75 point penalty for an early pea and free to play.

The problem as I said earlier is a 100 point penalty (1 week) does not exist for a careless high tackle. It is either a fine or 200 points (2 weeks) which I think needs to be looked at.

It was 1 week - with an early plea.

It was never going to get off and even the Roosters I think deep down would have known that - it was just a massive roll of the dice because you have no players left.

 

[Valheru]

It was 1 week - with an early plea.

It was never going to get off and even the Roosters I think deep down would have known that - it was just a massive roll of the dice because you have no players left.

The charge is 2 weeks. You get rewarded for an early plea.

If you believe he only deserved 1 week then the charge was wrong. There is no such thing as 1 week for a careless high tackle any more.

Same deal with a crusher.

 

[lockyno1]

He said he should have got more on the field i.e. a send off. He never commented on the suspension.

2 week ban was more than reasonable for the incident. Could have walked away with 1 week

 

[Valheru]

2 week ban was more than reasonable for the incident. Could have walked away with 1 week

If you believe 2 weeks was reasonable for Verills that's fine.

A lot of people believe it is 1 week thus the wrong charge.

 

[yobbo84]

If you believe 2 weeks was reasonable for Verills that's fine.

A lot of people believe it is 1 week thus the wrong charge.

Weeks are irrelevant. You can't break someone's nose with your shoulder and only get a Grade 1. The second-lowest possible high tackle charge is about right considering the circumstances and the outcome.