The Game 2021 Judiciary Charges

[Alderley Rooster]

Would have been a penalty had a try not been scored.

case for an 8pt try then? Foul in the act of a try being scored?

 

[The_Frog]

Even if Latrell gets a downgrade on the dangerous contact charge, he'll still get 1 week because you can only have 2 fines in a season, unless he fights those as well.

 

[jc155776]

How’s Tolman facing a charge and time off for a ‘crusher’ tackle with no second movement or heavy weight down on a neck? Seems like a charge to justify being out on report.

 

[TheDMC]

NRL is in tricky territory trying to sort out high contact on-field ruling consistency, whether just a penalty, 10 in the bin, or send off. In Union, pretty much any high contact is guaranteed 10 in the bin, even if the bloke fell into the tackle. And sent off if at all deliberate. They are ruthless in the ruling. And it has ruined a bunch of games where players sent off or binned for pretty innocous stuff. I don't think NRL will go as far as union in this though, they will just be inconsistent, depending on who the ref is, what the game is, and who the player is (as per usual).

 

[Bazal]

NRL is in tricky territory trying to sort out high contact on-field ruling consistency, whether just a penalty, 10 in the bin, or send off. In Union, pretty much any high contact is guaranteed 10 in the bin, even if the bloke fell into the tackle. And sent off if at all deliberate. They are ruthless in the ruling. And it has ruined a bunch of games where players sent off or binned for pretty innocous stuff. I don't think NRL will go as far as union in this though, they will just be inconsistent, depending on who the ref is, what the game is, and who the player is (as per usual).

I agree that sometimes in Union it can be pretty innocuous and still result in a card, but I think that in many ways it's a better approach. And it's extremely rare to see a soft red.

Latrell and Hetherington would have been reds. Momirovski too. Is consistency worth a few cheap sin bins? I guess that's the question

 

[lockyno1]

case for an 8pt try then? Foul in the act of a try being scored?

No chance wasn't on the bloke that scored it, forget who scored it might have been Laurie. There is definitely a case for 10 in the bin though.

 

[lockyno1]

I agree that sometimes in Union it can be pretty innocuous and still result in a card, but I think that in many ways it's a better approach. And it's extremely rare to see a soft red.

Latrell and Hetherington would have been reds. Momirovski too. Is consistency worth a few cheap sin bins? I guess that's the question

Is there a reason why we go that route, but rather than a 10 minute bin we go back to a 5 minute bin. Still gibes the side 2-3 sets with advantage. I almost feel 10 minutes is too long nowadays and especially with the 6 again rules.

Refs need to know that the send off can still be used and a lot of them are gun shy.

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[blaza88z]

NRL is in tricky territory trying to sort out high contact on-field ruling consistency, whether just a penalty, 10 in the bin, or send off. In Union, pretty much any high contact is guaranteed 10 in the bin, even if the bloke fell into the tackle. And sent off if at all deliberate. They are ruthless in the ruling. And it has ruined a bunch of games where players sent off or binned for pretty innocous stuff. I don't think NRL will go as far as union in this though, they will just be inconsistent, depending on who the ref is, what the game is, and who the player is (as per usual).

In Union I find the players have a lot more respect for the referee, they jog off the field no questions asked, sort of like Tariq Sims did against Parramatta I think it was (to his credit).

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[Warriors Fever]

NRL is in tricky territory trying to sort out high contact on-field ruling consistency, whether just a penalty, 10 in the bin, or send off. In Union, pretty much any high contact is guaranteed 10 in the bin, even if the bloke fell into the tackle. And sent off if at all deliberate. They are ruthless in the ruling. And it has ruined a bunch of games where players sent off or binned for pretty innocous stuff. I don't think NRL will go as far as union in this though, they will just be inconsistent, depending on who the ref is, what the game is, and who the player is (as per usual).

Agreed gotta find some middle ground as some of those in union seem way to harsh.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

Dwz response in SMH saying hetherinhton punishment is harsh , guy has prior form and nearly took Holmes head .

 

[TheDMC]

I agree that sometimes in Union it can be pretty innocuous and still result in a card, but I think that in many ways it's a better approach. And it's extremely rare to see a soft red.

Latrell and Hetherington would have been reds. Momirovski too. Is consistency worth a few cheap sin bins? I guess that's the question

To me the issue in Union is that an unlucky + unintentional high shot (player falling suddenly and a low tackle contacts the head) will still be a sin bin. Other than that, it's all good. Certainly consistent.

 

[Someguy]

How’s Tolman facing a charge and time off for a ‘crusher’ tackle with no second movement or heavy weight down on a neck? Seems like a charge to justify being out on report.

Josh Jackson same thing, in Jackson’s incident he even attempted to leave enough space for the reversing player not to get his neck bent.

 

[League Unlimited News]

 

[Speedy Gonzales]

Lol

he’ll win just wait

 

[yobbo84]

Radley will get the downgrade (Ponissi wrote his get-out-of-gaol-free card for him). Momirovski and Mitchell won't.

 

[Saxon]

Annesley again defending the indefensible.
Claiming that we are all being terribly unfair by demanding consistency from the refs, bunker and MRC.

 

[Canard]

If there is no penalty to challenging the grading then everyone should do it.

 

[The_Frog]

Hetherington's priors look to be incorrect. One similar and 2 non similar would be 90% making 570 plus the 32 carryover is 602. Maybe its 2 similar and 1 non-similar but that would be 120%, not 140%.