Friday, September 23, 2005
MEDIA RELEASE
NRL Judiciary Chairman Judge Greg Woods has ruled against Parramattas application for leave to appeal the nine week suspension imposed on Fuifui Moimoi for a grade 2 reckless high tackle.
In refusing to grant leave Judge Woods made the following points in his judgment:
Today the 23rd of September I have read written and heard oral submissions on the players behalf by Mr Jurd, and written and oral submissions to the contrary by Judiciary Counsel Mr Kite.
I take into account all of the material before the panel, when I presided, and as well two other angles of the incident, the television footage of which was not available at the time of the hearing. This is fresh evidence which, should the matter proceed as an appeal, I assume for the purposes of the exercise would be considered by the appeal committee.
I take into account as well two still newspaper photographs of the incident which were not available at the time of the hearing.
The player contended at the hearing that he had not in fact made contact with the head of the tackled player. The argument based on this had some credibility because there was only one camera angle available at the time of the charge and the hearing. Notwithstanding this, and a warning that single angle cases required particular care, the panel of three former players found the alleged contact had occurred.
Mr Jurd contends that the new material explains and substantiates the players evidence given before the panel, and that if the matter proceeds as an appeal, there will be good prospects of success, this being the relevant test for me to apply.
My view of this material, having heard the submissions of counsel, is to the contrary of what Mr Jurd says. The new material shows clearly that there was indeed contact with the head. No doubt at the hearing Mr Moimoi was giving an honest account of the events as he recalled them, but I conclude that the player was mistaken in his belief, expressed to the panel, that he had not made contact with the head.
Mr Jurd now concedes, in the light of the additional film materials, that indeed there was contact with the head. That contact, he says, was in the nature of a wrap-around tackle as the player intended it.
However even if it were intended to be a wrap-around tackle, it seems to me that what was intended was to wrap-around the head of the opposing player. At no stage was Mr Moimois large and powerful arm going anywhere else. It needs to be emphasised that tackling around the head will generally be an offence against the laws of the game. Every player at all times has a special duty to avoid unnecessary forceful contact with the head or neck of an opposing player.
It seems to me very clear indeed that the decision by the panel in the first instance was correct.
As to penalty, nothing that has been presented before me in this application persuades me that the grading was incorrect. The tackle clearly was reckless. A grading of level 2 seems to me to be appropriate, as the panel thought it.
I do not see any reasonable possibility that an appeal tribunal would take a different view.
