Barrett Gets 1 Week in Judiciary Stuff Up

[Willow]

After an eternity of 'debate', Trent Barrett has received a one week suspension.

Originally, he was to get2 weeks if he entereda 'guilty' plea but would received 3 weeks if found guilty after entering a'not guilty' plea. He entered a 'not guilty' plea and I thought this would mean 3 weeks.

However, he ended getting just the single week.

On Monday, in a late and retrospective decision, the NRL Match Review Committee cited Trent Barrett on a grade 2 striking charge. It is the opinion of many that the charges should never have been laid in the first place.

This decision is baffling to say the least but at least it gives Saints something to aim at this Saturday night...

Canterbury supporters... time to pull out the brown corduroys and get shit scared....
...we're coming for you...

 

[Hass]

I held hope that Barrett would get off right throughout the day, and then I watched NRL on FOX. They showed me a new camera angle and after looking at it I sunk back in my chair and said "Bugger. I guess I'll just have resign myself to the fact Barrett won'r be playing".

But hey, one week- if I was a dragons supporter (they are only my second team after all), I'd be happy to take one week. The same with Mick Vella. If he got done on both counts I wouldn't have been happy- but I can handle a week.

Cheers.

 

[Willow]

Hass, tell me if I'm reading too much into this....
There must have an almighty dust up behind closed doors on this.
I thought he was to get 3 weeks if found guilty BUT he gets 1 week...
I'm confused... is he guilty or not guilty? Is there such a thing as being a 'little bit guilty?'

Was there a deal done?

Barrett is still available for Australia and Hall still saves face.
Do you know what I'm saying?This one match suspension reeks of a compromise...!

I'm not happy with this at all. But I know the other players have been handed some motivation here and look out The Bulldogs

 

[Dog]

Oh you f**king whinger. It happened right in front of me at last Fridays game and I can tell you Barrett should have got the three weeks. Head slamming is head slamming and he got less than he deserved. You just can't hack the fact that you've lost your playmaker on the eve of an elimination final. Less whinging more faithful support is what you Dragons fans should be calling for.

And here's an artcile written by a whinging Eels fan on rleague.com:

-----------------------------------------
Vella's suspension
Wed, Sep 5, 8:20 pm
Written by: David Lander
While it is great news that Michael Vella will only miss one week the fact that he was suspended for the hit on Fittler rather then the hit on Phillips just goes further to prove that the NRL judiciary needs a dramatic overall before the start of the 2002 season.
The tackle on Fittler was nothing and should have drawn no more then a caution and possibly at most a penalty yet it has seen the Eels prop miss the 1st finals match.
The tackle on Luke Phillips while a pure reflex was by far the worse of the 2 tackles yet Vella was successful in having the charge dismissed.
The fact that the tackle on Fittler was the one that ultimately saw Vella suspended. It would seem from the decision that Fittler and players like him such as Roosters team mates Ricketson, Fletcher and other "faces" like Andrew Johns and Brett Kimmorley are protected species and if you put a tough tackle on the further action is likely.
While the final decision for a one-week suspension for Vella was correct but the judiciary needs to learn two wrongs don't make a right. ---------------------------------------------------------- Fans are so one-sided. If Mason was suspended I would've copped it on the chin because I paid attention to what happened and I admit he made a mistake. Luckily he wasn't charged and I'm 100% confident that we'll steamroll the Dragqueens on Saturday Night. Dog

 

[Willow]

Hers a bit more on what happened in the judiciary:

Barrett's advocate, Alan Sullivan successfully argued that the grade 2 striking charge should be downgraded to a grade 1 striking charge and this brought about the lesser penalty
Late reports indicate that Barrett has sought leave to appeal the suspension.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dog:
Oh you f**king whinger. It happened right in front of me at last Fridays game and I can tell you Barrett should have got the three weeks. Head slamming is head slamming and he got less than he deserved. You just can't hack the fact that you've lost your playmaker on the eve of an elimination final. Less whinging more faithful support is what you Dragons fans should be calling for.

Listen mate, take that rod of your arse.
Firstly, IT WAS NOT a head slamming charge... it was a striking charge. This is very different. Get your facts right before you pull that water pistol out of your holster.
Also, who's whinging? apart from you?
And who mentioned Mason? I could have and shown once gain that the MRC are inconsistent but it's you who seems to be relieving yourself over that particular issue.
Finally, 'more faithfull support' is a hot area for anyone, Dog. I suggest you take stock of such comments.

I can't wait for this weekend now.
We'll sort your guys out on Saturday night with or without Barrett.

 

[imported_The Albatross]

Maybe if you get another 65% of possession you might have a slim chance, but if the dogs get an even share, it's good night saints.

 

[Willow]

I'll pay that one Albatross.
We'll just have to see but the mail is that there a few sore bodies out Belmore way.

 

[Michael]

I think one week is a fair suspension. I thought he definitely struck him but there wasn't any malice. Still, it seems a bit sus' the way the suspension was reduced to one week which could mean that Barret will miss the finals but be allowed to play in the tests. Similar to Fletcher being able to play against the Kiwis, don't you think?

Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

 

[imported_Lord Ted]

dog,
You must be the feature attraction at the zoo.
You know dog on one hand,goose on the other.

 

[Willow]

That's fair enough Michael. I can't argue with that.
But there's nothing paranoid about it all.

But I understand that Barrett's advocate, Alan Sullivan (an ex-judiciary chairman) put up a good defence. That is, good enough to have the severity of the charge reduced.
Also, he is keen enough to get stuck into them within the next 48 hours. He wants to appeal and IMO the club must be thinking about one of two things:
1.) They can still win the appeal or,
2.) They just want to fight this all the way.

While you think Barrett definitely struck Anasta, Sullivan claims that he can show otherwise... I'd like to see his VCR equipment.

It'll be interesting to see how it's reported tomorrow.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Willow]

Mate at this time of night it's hard to clarify anything.

Apparently, these QC guys have better access to video gear than you or I have. lol.
But like all things, it can be viewed boths ways.
While one angle might show a fore arm hitting the cheekbone, another angle shows no contact at all.
I'm not saying this is the case here but it may explain the length of the hearing as well as the subsequentand immediate lodgement for an appeal.

 

[imported_Aaron C]

Am I the only one here who isn't happy with the judiciaries decision?
It's all good and well that he got 1week instead of 2 or 3, but that one week could just decide the teams fate after this weekend if the Dragons go down to the Bulldogs. If the Dragons do go down this weekend, I'll feel as though we were robbed of a fair shot at the titile.
Cheers - Aaron C.

 

[imported____]

There was nothing in it, it's a joke that he had to front the judiciary at all. If you compare it to the Johns on Dykes incident it's obvious that Barrett's was a nothing shot. Johns had his fist clenched and looked like a polar bear breaking through ice while Barrett just kind of fell on Anasta and his arm was a bit high but there was no malice in it. Full credit to Anasta who publically made the statement that there wasn't anything in it.

 

[Willow]

AaronC:
I think you'll find that I'm not happy with it either (Re msg# 3 in this thread).

IMO, the judiciary still sucks and whether Barrett is out for 1 week or 10 doesn't change my view one bit. The judiciary and the MRC must be reformed.
If we lose narrowly on Saturday, it'll create a whole new series of 'what ifs'.
But I reckon we'll win and win well.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear about this appeal that is underway today. Barrett might still be back on Saturday in any case.

 

[legend]

Can you imagine the uproar from the poor doggies fans if Barretts appeal is upheld. The Dogs will be no chance and I want to see two sides go at it hammer and tong. I think he will win his appela giving the Dragons unprecedented momentum leading into this game.

 

[Willow]

If anything, Saints are becoming experienced hands at this judiciary stuff. I know I've learned a lot this year. For example, seeking leave to appeal is a newie to me. Before the Smith incident, I thought the right to appeal was automatic. Saints never gained the right to appeal against Smith's suspension but in Barrett's case, this right was given very quickly.
The appeal process is rarely explored but in the space of a few weeks, the Dragons have attempted to go over the head of Jim Hall on 2 occasions. Perhaps it's case of try and try again. I think this business of pushing the judiciary is our best option. More push will inevitably lead to more revelations.

The appeal hearing is actually tonight.

Fingers crossed.