2024 Match Review & Judiciary charges

[Captain Apollo]

Wouldn’t have mattered if he had OJ’s legal team the judiciary set up is akin to a courtroom in an authoritarian country where guilty verdicts are the expectation. For the record Nick Ghabar was the storm lawyer and this isn’t his first rodeo, he’s like one of the top go to judiciary defence counsel in the NRL and famously got simple Jack Wighton off a shoulder charge all the way back in 2016.
The issue is the NRL want the appearance of a fair and impartial trial when it’s just not the case.
Let’s face it, the judiciary is set up so 95% of cases just plead guilty because they know the chances of being acquitted are next to none

Yes, but don't forget, as it is effectively a "civil" proceeding, and not a "criminal" trial, the findings of the judiciary would be to a civil standard of proof (i.e. balance of probability" and not "beyond any reasonable doubt" which is the threshold of proof at a criminal trial. Also they were not looking to get him exonerated, but a 2 grade downgrading of the charge, which I think was beyond the pale in this case.

 

[lockyno1]

Wouldn’t have mattered if he had OJ’s legal team the judiciary set up is akin to a courtroom in an authoritarian country where guilty verdicts are the expectation. For the record Nick Ghabar was the storm lawyer and this isn’t his first rodeo, he’s like one of the top go to judiciary defence counsel in the NRL and famously got simple Jack Wighton off a shoulder charge all the way back in 2016.
The issue is the NRL want the appearance of a fair and impartial trial when it’s just not the case.
Let’s face it, the judiciary is set up so 95% of cases just plead guilty because they know the chances of being acquitted are next to none

People would feel for him if he didn't have a rap sheet that has a zillion fines and he gets away with instances every single season. Bloke is a thug, not buying the 'oh but he's a big guy', must have missed guys like Hass, AFB, and literally most big guys in the game not get charged every 3 weeks like this thug. Serves him right missing a GF for his past actions anyway.

This week is perfect, Roosters lose so JWH doesn't get one, and this thug gets banned.

 

[aqua_duck]

People would feel for him if he didn't have a rap sheet that has a zillion fines and he gets away with instances every single season. Bloke is a thug, not buying the 'oh but he's a big guy', must have missed guys like Hass, AFB, and literally most big guys in the game not get charged every 3 weeks like this thug. Serves him right missing a GF for his past actions anyway.

This week is perfect, Roosters lose so JWH doesn't get one, and this thug gets banned.

Not saying I don’t agree with your assessment of him as a player, he definitely skirts on the edge of the line quite often but my comment was more to do with the process the NRL has in place which is so unfairly skewed it would make any Saudi justice official proud

 

[aqua_duck]

Yes, but don't forget, as it is effectively a "civil" proceeding, and not a "criminal" trial, the findings of the judiciary would be to a civil standard of proof (i.e. balance of probability" and not "beyond any reasonable doubt" which is the threshold of proof at a criminal trial. Also they were not looking to get him exonerated, but a 2 grade downgrading of the charge, which I think was beyond the pale in this case.

Yes but any civil trial would not have a prosecutor and judge/jury on the same payroll and then a MRC setting charges but then ultimately sitting outside the judicial process.
The burden of proof for me isn’t the issue it’s that the storm weren’t allowed to use precedent because as the judiciary pointed out the MRC who is on the same page as the prosecutor stuffed up but is ultimately not accountable.
Anyone who read the transcript would realise the NRL didn’t need a highly priced SC acting as prosecutor (because he did a terrible job anyway) when a guilty verdict was pretty much pre determined

 

[Captain Apollo]

Yes but any civil trial would not have a prosecutor and judge/jury on the same payroll and then a MRC setting charges but then ultimately sitting outside the judicial process.
.....

Would you care to bet on that? Government agencies often initiate civil trials. Who do you think pays for them and the judges?

 

[lockyno1]

Not saying I don’t agree with your assessment of him as a player, he definitely skirts on the edge of the line quite often but my comment was more to do with the process the NRL has in place which is so unfairly skewed it would make any Saudi justice official proud

Sure but you get the benefits if you don't have a terrible rap sheet. Lets just say most people would say it was probably a grade 2, but there was utterly no way they would allow this to be downgraded so go the grade 3, even if they get a downgrade it's not going two grades down. Other players who weren't thugs may have got a grade 2 and been able to seek a downgrade.

I use Radley as someone who has learnt from his past actions, heaps better this year in discipline. Nelson has done nothing to change his behaviour, dead set thug. Simple solution here, don't aim high, not buying Phil Gould and co saying it's an 'accident'. May have been an accident the first time not the 50th.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Sure but you get the benefits if you don't have a terrible rap sheet. Lets just say most people would say it was probably a grade 2, but there was utterly no way they would allow this to be downgraded so go the grade 3, even if they get a downgrade it's not going two grades down. Other players who weren't thugs may have got a grade 2 and been able to seek a downgrade.

I use Radley as someone who has learnt from his past actions, heaps better this year in discipline. Nelson has done nothing to change his behaviour, dead set thug. Simple solution here, don't aim high, not buying Phil Gould and co saying it's an 'accident'. May have been an accident the first time not the 50th.

Many of those complaining about the charge have said it wasn't "intentional". Thing is in relation to high tackles the words "carelessly and recklessly" were added to the definition of high tackles. As such NAS may not have intended to hit him high, but he made no attempt at all to avoid reckless or careless contact with Collins' head (e.g. by lowering where he aimed his tackle at).

 

[lockyno1]

Many of those complaining about the charge have said it wasn't "intentional". Thing is in relation to high tackles the words "carelessly and recklessly" were added to the definition of high tackles. As such NAS may not have intended to hit him high, but he made no attempt at all to avoid reckless or careless contact with Collins' head (e.g. by lowering where he aimed his tackle at).

Was also charged with careless and that's the right charge. People are looking at the Sualli one and saying it's the same charge, it's not (Joseph was grade 2 reckless I think from absolute memory). The reason it ended the same is one donkey has a rap sheet the other didn't. End of the day the blaming of Collins was ridiculous, in 2024 it is your responsibility to ensure no high contact is made directly or indirect via whiplash. It's fairly simple. Players should get it through their thick heads that you just can't concuss blokes and if it's a cat 1 you are getting suspended. Whether the Roosters would have won is irrelevant his actions had a big say in Collins being ruled out and would have been ruled out this week too.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

Was also charged with careless and that's the right charge. People are looking at the Sualli one and saying it's the same charge, it's not (Joseph was grade 2 reckless I think from absolute memory). The reason it ended the same is one donkey has a rap sheet the other didn't. End of the day the blaming of Collins was ridiculous, in 2024 it is your responsibility to ensure no high contact is made directly or indirect via whiplash. It's fairly simple. Players should get it through their thick heads that you just can't concuss blokes and if it's a cat 1 you are getting suspended. Whether the Roosters would have won is irrelevant his actions had a big say in Collins being ruled out and would have been ruled out this week too.

For me the referee pretty succinctly summed it up when binning him:
- it was high
- it was forceful
- there were no mitigating factors.

Only question for me is why wasn’t it a send-off in the first place.

 

[Bazal]

Yes, but don't forget, as it is effectively a "civil" proceeding, and not a "criminal" trial, the findings of the judiciary would be to a civil standard of proof (i.e. balance of probability" and not "beyond any reasonable doubt" which is the threshold of proof at a criminal trial. Also they were not looking to get him exonerated, but a 2 grade downgrading of the charge, which I think was beyond the pale in this case.

I think you'll find it's a private proceeding.

Would you care to bet on that? Government agencies often initiate civil trials. Who do you think pays for them and the judges?

Well that's really a whole different kettle of fish but tbh Government tribunals don't have judges and watchdogs (like FWO for eg) function by initiating procedures in a court

 

[lockyno1]

For me the referee pretty succinctly summed it up when binning him:
- it was high
- it was forceful
- there were no mitigating factors.

Only question for me is why wasn’t it a send-off in the first place.

we all know the refs are hopeless just which scale of hopeless you get with Klein being 10/10 hopeless

 

[Apey]

People would feel for him if he didn't have a rap sheet that has a zillion fines and he gets away with instances every single season. Bloke is a thug, not buying the 'oh but he's a big guy', must have missed guys like Hass, AFB, and literally most big guys in the game not get charged every 3 weeks like this thug. Serves him right missing a GF for his past actions anyway.

This week is perfect, Roosters lose so JWH doesn't get one, and this thug gets banned.

I get people seeing it as justice. I genuinely think he's done worse things this year that deserved harsher punishment, and that this one was on the lower end of his indiscretions.

The judiciary hearing is generally a sham though and has increasingly been changed to encourage people not to challenge. I know the occasional challenge is successful but I'm sure if there are some stats somewhere, they'd indicate that the number of players who bother challenging now with the odds stacked against them, has reduced dramatically.

 

[lockyno1]

I get people seeing it as justice. I genuinely think he's done worse things this year that deserved harsher punishment, and that this one was on the lower end of his indiscretions.

The judiciary hearing is generally a sham though and has increasingly been changed to encourage people not to challenge. I know the occasional challenge is successful but I'm sure if there are some stats somewhere, they'd indicate that the number of players who bother challenging now with the odds stacked against them, has reduced dramatically.

Serves him right then didn’t learn from the incidents he got away with. Meh no place in the game for thugs can always not hit guys high?

Not a bad thing there are less judiciary hearings and that’s what the fine system is in place for

 

[kurt faulk]

Serves him right then didn’t learn from the incidents he got away with

That's why these boofheads keep doing it. There's no repercussion.

.

 

[Nealo 12]

5 weeks is not enough for NAS. Send him to the Tigers too.

That’s cruel dude

 

[Trifili13]

If NAS actually got actually suspended for the grubiness he does during the year, a grade 1 for this incident plus the loading he would have received would see him suspended through to the middle of next year. He is lucky he only got 5 weeks.

Knowing the NRL and how it makes shit up on the run, NAS will probably be able to serve his suspension out in intra club pre season trials.

 

[Captain Apollo]

......

Well that's really a whole different kettle of fish but tbh Government tribunals don't have judges and watchdogs (like FWO for eg) function by initiating procedures in a court

Federal and State Courts have judges paid for by the tax payer whilst the proscutors are paid by..... the tax payer. So effectively the Government is paying for two of the parties involved.

By the way, in terms of Government TRibunals, yo obviously have never seen a state Industrial Relations Commission, the Federal Administraiuve Appeal TRibunal as two examples I can thionk of that are relevant. Anyways.....