The Game 2023 NRL Match Review Charges & Judiciary

[Nutz]

It's now compulsory to use both upper and lower mouth guards and to wear one of these head restraints if found guilty of biting an opponent...

 

[Rod]

According to the Fox Sports article, judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew instructed the panel to ignore most of the defence’s argument.

That's not what the article says at all. Bellew said to ignore the nonsense about it being a ploy by Gamble because they were behind on the scoreboard. Or in legal terms, speculation.

 

[yobbo84]

Classic shit from a Souffs grub
Shoulda thrown the book at him


In all honesty though, that's some weak shit. Big time fence sitting sentence. If they felt with conviction that he bit the bloke, why is it 3 weeks and not 8-10?
If they didnt feel strongly enough that he did actually bite him, why is it anything?

You either think he bite him or you didnt. If you do, send him packing good and proper, and if you dont, let him go.
This feels like a "maybe he bit him? IDK... *shrugs* 3 weeks and we'll call it a day"

I actually agree with this. He either bit him deliberately, for which 6 weeks is probably appropriate, or he didn't and he should get off scot free.

3 weeks is a whole lot of "well it looked bad so we have to give him something..."

 

[The Man Shake]

It's now compulsory to use both upper and lower mouth guards and to wear one of these head restraints if found guilty of biting an opponent...
View attachment 79339

Good luck getting one of those things on Nathan Cleary. You’ll have to cut out the bottom part.

 

[Nutz]

I actually agree with this. He either bit him deliberately, for which 6 weeks is probably appropriate, or he didn't and he should get off scot free.

3 weeks is a whole lot of "well it looked bad so we have to give him something..."

If Gamble started to walk away and was dragging Whitey who was still attaced to his arm then it should be 4-6 wks cause it's a dog act but if it's inconclusive then how can it be 3wks.
Grading is in relation to injuries sustained imo...ala Tyson chewing half of Evander Holyfield's ear off.

 

[Nutz]

Good luck getting one of those things on Nathan Cleary. You’ll have to cut out the bottom part.

That's so funny but nathan is incable of chewing something like a forearm with his chin, a bone is a different story though.

 

[Maximus]

According to the Fox Sports article, judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew instructed the panel to ignore most of the defence’s argument.

Well when you think 16 minus 6 equals 20, you probably don't have much worthwhile to say.

 

[Apey]

No one has a clue what they expect in a judiciary

I remember a Bulldogs player got 6 games, probably less, some years ago, and that looked obvious he was biting him.

In this case you couldnt actually tell, although those teeth marks didnt help, unless there is another camera angle we're not seeing.

Its like there is some sort of grading with biting. Grade 1 biting, Grade 2 biting.

James Graham got 8 weeks for biting Slater on the ear in the 2012 GF. I agree with the other posts that 3 weeks seems absurd if they decided he was guilty.

According to the Fox Sports article, judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew instructed the panel to ignore most of the defence’s argument.

if true, that is gross misconduct and he must resign immediately. He has deliberately tried to influence the verdict. He clearly has come in with a preconceived idea - or worse, an instruction from the NRL - and has unfairly influenced what is supposed to be a fair hearing.

Geoff Bellew simply must submit his resignation with immediate effect. His position is now untenable. Annesley and Klein must also follow him out the door.

Wighton hit with THREE game ban after being found GUILTY of biting charge — Judiciary

Wighton cops big ‘24 bite ban as fiery hearing retort, Meninga reference backfires

www.foxsports.com.au

As a big fan, I know only your best posts include the word 'untenable'.

 

[blocka]

Wighton replied: “That is not correct”.

6.25pm - Under cross examination by Knowles, Wighton agreed that the game is physically tough.

Knowles said it was a “pretty ordinary tackle, wasn’t it”.

Wighton replied: “What do you mean. How many games of rugby league have you played?”

6.20pm - Wighton told the hearing he was wearing a mouth guard.

“It was a normal tackle and as I was going to the ground his forearm wrapped around my moth with extreme pressure," Wighton said.

"He squeezed my head really hard. That explains why there were teeth marks but there was definitely no bite.

"His forearm actually fell into my mouth before I could shut it. He has his whole forearm in my mouth applying extreme pressure.

"There is full body weight and full pressure. That explains why there is teeth marks because my mouth is jammed fully open but at no time did I clench one bit.

"Not at any stage did I bite down. His arm was just jammed in my mouth and his full body weight was on me. There was nothing I could do.”

6.12pm - Knowles read an extract of the referee’s report from Klein.

Judiciary recap: Wighton set to miss season opener in Vegas after biting ban

Rabbitohs-bound Jack Wighton has been suspended for three matches after being found guilty of biting/

www.nrl.com

honestly thought what Jack said was on the money and I don’t know how it was seen as anything else.
also his reply to the prosecutor is gold.

The NRL judiciary has always been a kangaroo court and there’s a reason most players don’t opt for it even if there’s probably clear evidence they aren’t guilty

 

[Mr. Shaman]

@skeepe there were several things the panel were told to ignore in Reece Walsh's hearing as well. It is what it is.

What do you f**king mean merkin

 

[Frederick]

 

[The Man Shake]

Well when you think 16 minus 6 equals 20, you probably don't have much worthwhile to say.

You muh muh make muh confused.

 

[Captain Apollo]

One thing the SMH mentioned in its report on the hearing, is that it is the NRL Judiciary Chairman who determines whether rep games can be counted towards any player's suspension. All submissions go to him (i.e. Geoff Bellew) who then based on what is presented to him determines if they can be counted or not.

I bring it up as till now it has not been clear publicly whom in the NRL made that determination, and how they did so.

Also, as Wighton had already announced his retirement from rep football, it was brought up that any suggestion Wighton would be able to get games for Australia counted towards his suspension, would be unlikely as a result of his previous announcement.

 

[blue bags]

View attachment 79349

Put laxidives on forearms
With sedatives and vasaline. Dencorub
Those cheeky biters will learn

 

[The Lounge Lizard]

What an absolutely disgusting decision by the NRL.

There was no biting action. Gamble didn’t want to testify or make a statement. How the f**k can you determine guilt based on that?

Wighton should appeal. And he’ll win.

The delusional rantings of a demented dickhead.

 

[Pneuma]

For once Hooper is correct

Calls for NRL judiciary overhaul after Knights star’s ‘p***-weak’ Wighton move

Calls for NRL judiciary overhaul after Knights star’s ‘p***-weak’ Wighton move

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Apey]

Big boy Hoops calling anyone weak is a bit of a laugh.

 

[soc123_au]

It makes me feel a bit sick to say it, but I think Humpty Dumpty is right. If a player makes the complaint then they should have to follow through or it's gets thrown out.

It's different where the video ref or match review instigate action leading to a charge, the non charged player has no say in that process.

 

[Maximus]

It makes me feel a bit sick to say it, but I think Humpty Dumpty is right. If a player makes the complaint then they should have to follow through or it's gets thrown out.

It's different where the video ref or match review instigate action leading to a charge, the non charged player has no say in that process.

What exactly would he provide that can't just be watched on video? This isn't a he said, she said situation. This is a he said, the video confirms situation.

 

[soc123_au]

What exactly would he provide that can't just be watched on video? This isn't a he said, she said situation. This is a he said, the video confirms situation.

The video shows an arm in a mouth and then marks on the arm. I could't swear on my life that I could see a biting action from Jack or excessive pressure from Tyson. Given Jack's defence was that Tyson caused the marks himself by using excessive force you don't think his council is entitled to cross examine?

It's not like there has ever been a false biting allegation before, complete with marks. I don't know that I would want to live or die on the word of Tyson Gamble any more than I would Back door Benny.

If Jack had gone all hungry hippo like James Graham did on Slater I'd see your point, this one has at least an element of doubt imo.