2026 Match Review Charges & Judiciary

[Captain Apollo]

Hearing some of the arguments in favour of Cleary's tackle is like Dragons supporters a few years back arguing about James Tedesco "crouching down" as to why he was subjected to a head high tackle in an ANZAC Day game which saw a Dragons player suspended. Cleary's sin bin and charge are justified.

 

[This Year?]

You boys keep going, I'm almost there.

 

[Chins]

You boys keep going, I'm almost there.

Edge yourself and then you can get off with Nathan

 

[Fangs]

Considering it only goes to 3 matches if we lose at the judiciary I think its fine. We only play the lowly Roosters in round 3 anyway.

Its not a finals match and its not Reece Walsh. So my gut feeling is he gets 3 matches.

 

[The Shield]

Becoming a serial offender.

Remember that spear tackle he nearly killed someone with?

Remember how Francis Molo killed a bloke, nearly did it again, bashed his partner, got stood down and has been suspended plenty for being a complete piece of shit unworthy of breathing?

Yet let’s comment on Cleary.

 

[League Unlimited News]

One charge from Sunday

Nathan Brown (MAN) - Grade 1 Careless High Tackle (22 min on Bayleigh Bentley-Hape).
Base penalty $1500. 1st offence. Early plea $1000, Guilty at panel $1500.
PLEA - TBC

 

[Big Pete]

I hope Cleary plays. It's always tough to argue when you're the one charging out of the line putting a shot on and you leave your feet. Both Carrigan and Loiero were hit with the same charge and Cleary's looked consistent with those tackles.

Either way, if Brisbane played like they did against Hull KR, they'll lose even if Cleary isn't there.

 

[betcats]

Cleary was set when contact was made not in the air. The idea he charged out recklessly is crazy, RL is f**ked if that tackle is worth 2 or 3 weeks, its entered a long slow decline that finishes with touch footy.

 

[betcats]

Hearing some of the arguments in favour of Cleary's tackle is like Dragons supporters a few years back arguing about James Tedesco "crouching down" as to why he was subjected to a head high tackle in an ANZAC Day game which saw a Dragons player suspended. Cleary's sin bin and charge are justified.

And yet the same point kept walsh from even being charged for putting his shoulder into someones head last finals.

 

[soc123_au]

Hearing some of the arguments in favour of Cleary's tackle is like Dragons supporters a few years back arguing about James Tedesco "crouching down" as to why he was subjected to a head high tackle in an ANZAC Day game which saw a Dragons player suspended. Cleary's sin bin and charge are justified.

Teddy is a terrible example to use when you are rubbing one out at the thought of a player being suspended. In most cases if he was any lower on contact he would be burrowing under ground.

 

[Big Pete]

Cleary was set when contact was made not in the air. The idea he charged out recklessly is crazy, RL is f**ked if that tackle is worth 2 or 3 weeks, its entered a long slow decline that finishes with touch footy.

It's usually worth a week, Cleary is only facing an extra week because he got away with a high tackle last year.

It was a bad technique from Cleary. You can't come out of the line and drive your shoulder into the head of the opposition player. If Cleary had have kept his feet he would have a stronger case but he springs into contact.

I agree with the sentiment that there's too fine a line and we're taking the physicality out of the game. However if they're consistent it's a Grade 2.

 

[betcats]

It's usually worth a week, Cleary is only facing an extra week because he got away with a high tackle last year.

It was a bad technique from Cleary. You can't come out of the line and drive your shoulder into the head of the opposition player. If Cleary had have kept his feet he would have a stronger case but he springs into contact.

I agree with the sentiment that there's too fine a line and we're taking the physicality out of the game. However if they're consistent it's a Grade 2.

The head contact was secondary, The first point of contact was below the head very clearly. Im not even convinced there was an real contact but if there was it was not heavy it was a brushing of his head hitting Nathans should from the the initial contact being lower.

To characterize this as Nathan rushing out and driving his head into the kids shoulder suggest you havent watched it properly.

 

[betcats]

There wasnt even a HIA from this incident. IF Nathan rushed out of the line at thaat speed and actually hit him directly in the head the independent doctor is making that kid come off for a test 100 percent.

 

[Bazal]

I love that we're using the Independent Doctor as the turning point of a high tackle/shoulder charge when just about every single match thread is partly spent wondering why that same doctor did or didn't send someone for a HIA.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't think anyone is accusing Nathan of headbutting Makasini's shoulder.

What am I saying is that Cleary has rushed out, he's met Makasini barely a metre out from the play the ball and he's made head high contact. Even in effecting the tackle he springs off the ground.

The HIA argument could help him.

 

[betcats]

I love that we're using the Independent Doctor as the turning point of a high tackle/shoulder charge when just about every single match thread is partly spent wondering why that same doctor did or didn't send someone for a HIA.

How often is a player not getting a HIA a high shout that lands someone in the sin bin? In particular supposed direct shoulder contact to the head.

 

[kurt faulk]

The head contact was secondary, The first point of contact was below the head very clearly. Im not even convinced there was an real contact but if there was it was not heavy it was a brushing of his head hitting Nathans should from the the initial contact being lower.

To characterize this as Nathan rushing out and driving his head into the kids shoulder suggest you havent watched it properly.

First contact hasn't mattered for 40 years. That's why they included reckless and careless into the charges, so players couldn't get off on a "not intentional" defence.

.

 

[betcats]

First contact hasn't mattered for 40 years. That's why they included reckless and careless into the charges, so players couldn't get off on a "not intentional" defence.

.

But first contact with the head would it make it a worse charge no? So it does matter obviously. How could you say otherwise?

 

[betcats]

Anyway i think we are likley to lose this challenge because the MRC and Judiciary is a f**king shitfight. But seriosuly watch the tackle, watch the contact and the non reaction of the player hit and his teammates and tell me its worth 3 weeks. No one was calling for high contact they were giving the kid the chin up pat on the back you get from teammates after you f**k up.

 

[Diesel]

Penrith have opted for no legal representation for Nathan Cleary’s judiciary hearing, with Ivan Cleary to defend his son tonight.

Ivan; "It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's the law, it's the vibe... No, that's it... It's the vibe!"