The Game 2023 NRL Match Review Charges & Judiciary

[JamesRustle]

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

Hooper going the victim blaming route... his well worn path.

 

[Maximus]

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.

So Gamble testifies that Wighton bit him. Wighton's counsel questions him and says but didn't you force your arm into his mouth and that's how the teeth marks came about? Gamble says no.

Geez I wonder how the panel is going to work out who is telling the truth?

 

[soc123_au]

So Gamble testifies that Wighton bit him. Wighton's counsel questions him and says but didn't you force your arm into his mouth and that's how the teeth marks came about? Gamble says no.

Geez I wonder how the panel is going to work out who is telling the truth?

We will never know, he didn't have to go.

 

[Maximus]

We will never know, he didn't have to go.

Well we do know. There's this thing called video, where you get to watch the entire incident from multiple angles.

That sounds much more useful than a he said, he said argument.

 

[nick87]

Just speaking purely about the system
It does seem fairly ridiculous that a player can lodge that sort of complaint and then wash his hands of it
All evidence should be available to be scrutinised.

That's the backbone of any fair justice system, which is what the NRL judiciary is presenting itself as.

You make the accusation and you're serious about it, front up, tell your side of the side and answer the questions the defence poses to you. If you aren't willing to do that, the complaint should be formally withdrawn and dismissed.

 

[soc123_au]

Just speaking purely about the system
It does seem fairly ridiculous that a player can lodge that sort of complaint and then wash his hands of it
All evidence should be available to be scrutinised.

That's the backbone of any fair justice system, which is what the NRL judiciary is presenting itself as.

You make the accusation and you're serious about it, front up, tell your side of the side and answer the questions the defence poses to you. If you aren't willing to do that, the complaint should be formally withdrawn and dismissed.

Exactly. I have no dog in this fight, and I find it very funny that Souffs big signing will be watching from the stands for the start of next season, but the judiciary is nothing more than a Kangaroo court if it doesn't follow the recognised legal process.

I mean, is Jack dumb enough to bite someone? I'd say absolutely. But would Gamble manipulate a situation thinking it may give his team an advantage? Also f**kin' oath he would. We see similar situations every game, laying down for penalties, players diving into lead runners to get an obstruction call and so on. If it were clear cut Jack would have been sent or at least binned, the VR obviously had some doubt and err'ed on the side of caution, yet the Judicary didn't need to bother with any due process, if a plank like Hooper can work it out, it's pretty staggering that others cant.

 

[Maximus]

Just speaking purely about the system
It does seem fairly ridiculous that a player can lodge that sort of complaint and then wash his hands of it
All evidence should be available to be scrutinised.

That's the backbone of any fair justice system, which is what the NRL judiciary is presenting itself as.

You make the accusation and you're serious about it, front up, tell your side of the side and answer the questions the defence poses to you. If you aren't willing to do that, the complaint should be formally withdrawn and dismissed.

Exactly. I have no dog in this fight, and I find it very funny that Souffs big signing will be watching from the stands for the start of next season, but the judiciary is nothing more than a Kangaroo court if it doesn't follow the recognised legal process.

I mean, is Jack dumb enough to bite someone? I'd say absolutely. But would Gamble manipulate a situation thinking it may give his team an advantage? Also f**kin' oath he would. We see similar situations every game, laying down for penalties, players diving into lead runners to get an obstruction call and so on. If it were clear cut Jack would have been sent or at least binned, the VR obviously had some doubt and err'ed on the side of caution, yet the Judicary didn't need to bother with any due process, if a plank like Hooper can work it out, it's pretty staggering that others cant.

Huh? The recognised legal process does not force victims to testify. Sure if the prosecution calls them, in most cases they are required to testify, but the prosecution is not required to call them if they can prove their case to the sufficient standard without the victim.

Under the standard you believe should be in place, no murderer can ever be convicted because they can't confront their victim.

 

[soc123_au]

Huh? The recognised legal process does not force victims to testify. Sure if the prosecution calls them, in most cases they are required to testify, but the prosecution is not required to call them if they can prove their case to the sufficient standard without the victim.

Under the standard you believe should be in place, no murderer can ever be convicted because they can't confront their victim.

Murder victims generally don't go to the police to lodge a complaint. Not the same thing.

So you don't think it's possible Gamble found his arm in Jacks mouth and had a crack at gaining an advantage?

 

[Maximus]

Murder victims generally don't go to the police to lodge a complaint. Not the same thing.

You know in the criminal justice system (which this is designed around), people don't press charges right? That's the prosecutors job (in this case the NRL).

So you don't think it's possible Gamble found his arm in Jacks mouth and had a crack at gaining an advantage?

Oh I see you saw how well that worked out for Wighton's lawyer and thought "oh yeah, that's a good argument, maybe it will work the 2nd time".

 

[soc123_au]

Oh I see you saw how well that worked out for Wighton's lawyer and thought "oh yeah, that's a good argument, maybe it will work the 2nd time".

That doesn't answer what I asked.

The other bit, no shit. The prosecution do their thing based on a complaint though, you reckon Hayne is in gaol because a prosecutor happened to smell pussy on his breath and went from there?

 

[Maximus]

That doesn't answer what I asked.

No, I believe it's a ridiculous accusation that he jammed his arm into Wighton's mouth to try to get him sent off.

I thought that'd be obvious given I ridiculed the defence counsel suggestion that it's the case.

The other bit, no shit. The prosecution do their thing based on a complaint though, you reckon Hayne is in gaol because a prosecutor happened to smell pussy on his breath and went from there?

As I said, this isn't a he said, she said situation where yes you generally need the victim to testify. This is one where there is actual video evidence and so a victim provides no additional evidence that can't already be seen.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The whole "denial of due process" argument by Gamble not testifying is bogus. Firstly did the NRL Prosecutor rely on any evidence from Gamble? Based on what we know, the answer to that question is "no".

As such there is no legal basis that he should have had to be interrogated "on the stand" by Wighton's defence counsel as a result.

The fact that the panel, comprised of a majority of ex-players thought the NRL proved its case and found Wighton guilty speaks loads for me. Also as it is civil tribunal, and not a court of law, the threshold of guilt would not necessarily be "beyond a reasonable doubt" which only applies in criminal courts for cases under criminal law.

 

[League Unlimited News]

No charges from Storm v Roosters

 

[blue bags]

No charges from Storm v Roosters

No biters this week
My solution works

 

[League Unlimited News]

Warriors v Knights​

Tyson Frizell (Newcastle)

• Grade 1 Careless High Tackle
• 37th minute, on Marcelo Montoya
• Base penalty $1500
• His options:
  $1500: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR $1000: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

NRLW Round 9​

Tigers v Knights​

Caitlin Moran (Newcastle)

• Grade 1 Careless High Tackle
• 43rd minute, on Emily Curtain
• Base penalty 1 match
• Her options:
  1 match: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR Warning: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

Kayla Romaniuk (Newcastle)

• Grade 1 Crusher Tackle
• 57th minute, Folau Vaki
• Base penalty 2 matches
• Her options:
  2 matches: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR 1 match: Guilty - early plea
  OR $400: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

Roosters v Cowboys​

Tyler Bentley (Sydney)

• Grade 1 Dangerous Contact
• 15th minute, on Shellie Long
• Base penalty 1 match
• Her options:
  1 match: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR Warning: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

Pani Hopoate (Sydney)

• Grade 3 Dangerous Contact
• 45th minute, on Jasmine Peters
• Base penalty 3 matches
• Her options:
  3 matches: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR 2 matches: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

Dragons v Broncos​

Chelsea Lenarduzzi (Brisbane)

• Grade 1 Dangerous Contact
• 39th minute, on Zali Hopkins
• Base penalty 1 match
• 2nd offence this season
• Her options:
  2 matches: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR 1 match: Guilty - early plea
  OR $400: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

NRL Match Review & Judiciary Charges: Finals Week 2 & NRLW Round 9 » League Unlimited

leagueunlimited.com

 

[Captain Apollo]

I posted about thius matter, in general terms, on Friday.

This article which was published earlier this evening by the Sydney Morning Herald (source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/la...wh-a-ticket-to-las-vegas-20230917-p5e5b6.html) spells out in details how rep matches can wind up being counted towards NRL suspensions -

Last throw of the dice: Move that could stamp Waerea-Hargreaves’ Vegas ticket​

By Adam Pengilly​

September 17, 2023 — 4.45pm

Jared Waerea-Hargreaves has been named in a preliminary New Zealand squad for the Pacific Championships – a move which could potentially wipe out his mammoth suspension and free him for the Roosters’ Las Vegas season opener next year.

Waerea-Hargreaves, who missed the Roosters’ finals campaign after being banned for seven matches due to two separate offences in a spiteful round-26 clash against Wests Tigers, will wait on a ruling from NRL judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew on when he can return to the field.

While it was considered unlikely Waerea-Hargreaves would have been selected even if he wasn’t banned given the Kiwis’ forward depth, the New Zealand Rugby League has submitted the enforcer’s name to tournament officials as part of a 30-man preliminary squad.

Kiwis coach Michael Maguire is spoilt for choice when it comes to front-rowers, with the likes of James Fisher-Harris, Moses Leota, Joseph Tapine and Nelson Asofa-Solomona competing for the position. But Waerea-Hargreaves’ experience also makes him an attractive option for last year’s World Cup semi-finalists.

Waerea-Hargreaves is no chance of featuring in the Pacific Championships Tests against Australia and Samoa, because he will be serving his NRL suspension, but if New Zealand make the final he could submit to have the three matches counted towards his ban.

New Zealand Rugby League chief executive Greg Peters confirmed Waerea-Hargreaves’ name was on the extended list of players submitted to tournament organisers.

The veteran was also part of their World Cup squad last year despite missing the opening two games of the tournament through another NRL suspension.

“If he wasn’t suspended, New Zealand would have selected him, and he would have been in our squad,” Peters said.

That could turn out to be a major bonus for Trent Robinson and the Roosters, who bowed out of the competition after a controversial loss to the Storm at AAMI Park on Friday night.

Waerea-Hargreaves has now served three of his seven games and the rest could be counted through representative fixtures with New Zealand and the Maori All-Stars, which the veteran prop was being lined up to play for this year before withdrawing through injury.

Bellew will have the final decision on which matches count towards Waerea-Hargreaves’ suspension.

Waerea-Hargreaves needs only two more matches to reach the 300-game milestone in the NRL and was a huge loss for the Roosters when he was wiped out for a high shot on Api Koroisau and striking Stefano Utoikamanu in the penultimate round win over the Tigers.

The Roosters will travel to the United States to open next season against the Brisbane Broncos as part of the NRL’s five-year plan to take matches to Las Vegas. South Sydney and Manly will play the other game of the double-header.

The Roosters offered Waerea-Hargreaves a one-year contract extension for 2024, which is expected to be his last in the NRL after a decorated career which began in 2009.

 

[blue bags]

He should appeal
And get the roosters ask for fines Only
And then roosters just pay the fines
Then everything ok for roosters

 

[League Unlimited News]

NRL Finals Week 3​

Panthers v Storm​

Nelson Asofa-Solomona (Melbourne)

• Grade 1 Dangerous Contract
• 58th minute, on Isaah Yeo
• Base penalty $1500
• His options:
  $1500: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR $1000: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

Josh King (Melbourne)

• Grade 1 Dangerous Contract
• 59th minute, on Nathan Cleary
• Base penalty $1500
• 3 year incident free discount
• His options:
  $1000: Guilty at judiciary or plea of no contest
  OR $750: Guilty - early plea
• PLEA: TBC

No players were charged from Broncos v Warriors.

NRL Match Review & Judiciary Charges: Finals Week 3 & NRLW Semi Finals » League Unlimited

leagueunlimited.com

 

[Banger]

Surprised Walsh isn’t on there. That forward pass was worth 4 weeks. Maybe 5.

 

[butchmcdick]

Wrong fred