Wade Graham should be playing State of Origin football for NSW on Wednesday night. The system has failed him and it has failed our game. His suspension is totally unfair.
Of course the counter-argument to this is that rules are rules and if Graham didn't hit Johnathan Thurston a bit high the other night, on the back of a previous minor indiscretion some time ago, he wouldn't need to be down at the judiciary this week pleading his case for exoneration.
At the end of the day though, we ended up with the wrong penalty for Graham and the wrong result for rugby league. So rather than trying to justify the decision and burying our heads in the sand until the next time we get a similar situation, can we please introduce some safeguards to our judiciary process so this never happens again?
Wade Graham was suspended for one match for his high tackle on Johnathan Thurston.
Wade Graham was suspended for one match for his high tackle on Johnathan Thurston.
I can't remember how many times in the past 15 years we have spoken about the issue of the NRL judiciary, match review committee and penalties for player indiscretions on the field of play.
Advertisement
The system has never been perfect; to be fair though, I don't think a perfect system is even possible. However, it takes an event like the Graham suspension this week to highlight yet again the failings of the model we currently employ. Our system is too harsh, overly subjective and completely inflexible. In search of consistency, our judiciary and penalties model has actually created more inconsistency and unfair penalties.
I am quite certain the ex-players who sit as judiciary panel members, when finding a player guilty of an offence at a hearing, would be in total disagreement with the penalty being handed down to a player as a result of that offence. For mine, part of the judiciary process should be to give the sitting judiciary panel members the flexibility to alter a penalty if they see fit. This can work both ways. They may feel the indiscretion by the player deserves a greater penalty. To protect the player, the panel members should have the right to administer a lesser penalty or fine if they feel it's warranted.
Disappointment: Graham speaks to the media after the decision.
Disappointment: Graham speaks to the media after the decision. Photo: Wolter Peeters
We put these ex-players on the judiciary panel for a reason. Let's use their experience and expertise to get fairer results for the players. Our judiciary should not be a battle of the law, but rather a search for justice, commonsense and getting the right result.
The Graham incident did not deserve a suspension. Again, this particular incident by itself would not have resulted in Wade missing a game. It was the fact he had a previous offence and carryover points that tipped him over the edge. This is where the system falls down.
I have often raised the concern that we charge players far too readily for minor offences that simply require a penalty, caution or even sin bin solution during the course of play. The vast majority of charges against players for accidental or even careless moments do not require more than a warning to make a point with the player. Repeat offenders could be subjected to financial penalty if the match review committee or judiciary panel deem it necessary. Suspension of a player should be a last resort in dealing with these matters.
I'm pretty sure that experienced former players can identify the reckless or deliberate actions that warrant players spending time on the sidelines to learn their lesson.
I have never been a fan of the early plea, points loading or carryover points system that simply delay the problem for another day in the future. This is the part of the penalty process that causes most of the problems. It needs to be reviewed and the rules need to be rewritten. We need more flexibility when deciding upon the appropriate penalty for each particular incident. Sure past record is a consideration, but it is not the major criterion. Each incident should be treated on its individual merits.
We are all for player safety and welfare, however, we don't want players missing games unnecessarily for minor offences.
I'm not so big on the idea of treating finals matches, or even grand finals, any differently to other club games. We don't want a situation where players are guilty of serious, reckless or even deliberate actions and being able to buy their way out of trouble to play in the grand final the following week. That could open up a whole range of unsavoury scenarios we just don't need.
Mind you, whenever incidents have occurred where a player is in danger of missing a grand final through a minor offence, more often than not it comes back to the fact our charging process is too harsh and the penalties far too great.
The other part of this process in need of urgent attention is distinguishing between club matches and representative football. At the very least, Graham should be serving his suspension the next time his NRL team, Cronulla, play their next club match. If he commits a serious offence in a club game, he should serve his suspension in a club game. This penalty should not keep him out of a representative clash for his city, state or country.
Similarly, when a player plays representative football for his city, state or country, any indiscretion he performs in this arena should never impact on his availability for the club team who pays his wages.
I have always believed that players who are guilty of indiscretions in the pressure-cooker atmosphere and elite levels of representative football should be subjected to financial penalties rather than impacting on their availability for club football.
It's hard enough for the clubs to have to deal with the unavailability of their representative stars when they play Origin football, injuries they may sustain in representative matches, or having to deal with rep players backing up only a few days after a representative fixture. Why should clubs bear the burden of a player suspension when he is playing for a completely different team?
Fine them. Fine them heavily if need be. If the indiscretion is so bad that it warrants suspension, then suspend them from future representative matches. But penalties for indiscretions in representative fixtures should not be impacting on club football.
Anyway, the bottom line is that Wade Graham should be playing this game on Wednesday night. The current process produced a bad decision. Let's accept that fact and make some changes to the system so it doesn't happen again.
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...d-our-game-20160618-gpmf55.html#ixzz4C4ZfFOY0
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
