How many weeks for Jeremy Smith?

[Misanthrope]

What a rat-shit call. Should have just kicked him in the head. Billy the Kid gets high fived for that shit.

 

[rnb11]

He already took the early guilty plea, all he was doing was trying to get the grading lowered, not escape punishment altogether. And he gets copped another 2 weeks for it. How the f**k does that work.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

It's tricky when there's more than one bloke in the tackle, you don't know what the other guy is trying to do and your own actions can end up looking much worse than they actually are, because of what the other tackler does.

This injury was not caused by foul play from Smith, but by the incidental sum of two legitimate tackles. Smith going high trying to pull the bloke to the ground and his teammate lifting the bloke's legs.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

And yeah of course Slater's karate kick is much worse in terms of sportsmanship, but not outcome

 

[Misanthrope]

And yeah of course Slater's karate kick is much worse in terms of sportsmanship, but not outcome

Tell that to the football players killed by accidental boots to the head in soccer games.

 

[lockyno1]

He already took the early guilty plea, all he was doing was trying to get the grading lowered, not escape punishment altogether. And he gets copped another 2 weeks for it. How the f**k does that work.

He should have just taken the 4..which is really 3 as there is a meaningless test match in the middle!

 

[Apey]

He already took the early guilty plea, all he was doing was trying to get the grading lowered, not escape punishment altogether. And he gets copped another 2 weeks for it. How the f**k does that work.

Kind of curious about this too. Maybe just because Smith plays for the Knights.

What is the logic behind this exactly? Seems weird to me that a punishment is handed out for challenging a grading. Is it to deter people challenging every single charge?

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Tell that to the football players killed by accidental boots to the head in soccer games.

I'm sure Klemmer survived.
But you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the judiciary has penalized the outcome, rather than the foul play. No neckbrace = no suspension. IMO.

 

[BunniesMan]

Kind of curious about this too. Maybe just because Smith plays for the Knights.

What is the logic behind this exactly? Seems weird to me that a punishment is handed out for challenging a grading. Is it to deter people challenging every single charge?

Exactly. There has to be a deterrent if you fail in getting your guilty verdict overturned or lowering the grading. Otherwise every person who got charged would be in there and the NRL judiciary would be working all week

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm sure Klemmer survived.
But you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is the judiciary has penalized the outcome, rather than the foul play. No neckbrace = no suspension. IMO.

Ah, good point. Surely we should be policing the action, not the outcome?

 

[rnb11]

I can understand getting more weeks if you're found guilty after trying to challenge the charge but if you've already taken the guilty plea and simply want to try and get your grade lowered then you should be allowed to. If you're unsuccessful then so be it, you've already pleaded guilty and have been given your suspension, why are they allowed to add 2 more weeks on just for asking if the grading can be lowered. Bullshit.

 

[POPEYE]

Although I called for harsh punishment 6 is a bit over the top

 

[Snappy]

Some people seem to understand the system wrong. You get a discount for taking an early plea and copping the penalty, rather than 'getting extra weeks for failed apeal.

The original grade 3 charge carried 300 points. He had 50% loading from a previous offence, which made the total penalty 600 points.

You get 25% discount for an early plea, which would make 450 points, or 4 week suspension.
(125 points = 1 week)
You either take the early plea or go to judiciary. He didn't take the plea and lost so the original 600 points is the penalty.

The penalty Smith copped was so severe mainly because of his prior offence. Without the prior the charge would have been 300 points, take the early plea and it would have been 225 points which is a two week suspension.

People comparing this to Inu are making themselves look stupid.

 

[Frederick]

The original grade 3 charge carried 300 points. He had 50% loading from a previous offence, which made the total penalty 600 points.

How does the loading work? Is it an extra 50% of the charge added on? If so, should the total have been 450? :?

 

[Frederick]

Looking at the NRL judiciary page it says he was charged with grade 4, not grade 3 :?

 

[Snappy]

Yeh sorry, I got that from the Knights website which had it wrong.

http://www.newcastleknights.com.au/news-display/Smiths-judicial-charge/72528

The Newcastle Knights have today advised the NRL that they will be challenging the grading given to Jeremy Smith's Grade 3 Dangerous Contact charge.
The Club will look to have this downgraded to a Grade 2 charge, for a tackle made on Matt Robinson in the 64th minute of Saturday's Round 6 win over the Penrith Panthers.
The Grade 3 charge carries 600 points after a 50% loading from a previous offence.

NRL has it listed as a grade 4, which is 400 points, so with the 50% loading took the total to 600 points.

Without his prior offence the charge would have been 400 points, reduced to 300 with an early plea which still would have been a two week suspension.

.

 

[Rod]

Some people seem to understand the system wrong. You get a discount for taking an early plea and copping the penalty, rather than 'getting extra weeks for failed apeal.

The original grade 3 charge carried 300 points. He had 50% loading from a previous offence, which made the total penalty 600 points.

You get 25% discount for an early plea, which would make 450 points, or 4 week suspension.
(125 points = 1 week)
You either take the early plea or go to judiciary. He didn't take the plea and lost so the original 600 points is the penalty.

The penalty Smith copped was so severe mainly because of his prior offence. Without the prior the charge would have been 300 points, take the early plea and it would have been 225 points which is a two week suspension.

People comparing this to Inu are making themselves look stupid.

Without his prior offence the charge would have been 400 points, reduced to 300 with an early plea which still would have been a two week suspension.

No you've got your numbers wrong mate. First of all 50% added on to 300 points is 450, not 600.

But anyway, your original figure of 300 is incorrect. Smith was charged with a grade 3 dangerous contact charge which is immediately 400 points, not 300.

The 50% loading for a prior offence then comes into play taking it to 600 points, however an early guilty plea comes with a 25% reduction, which would have taken it back down to 450 points, or 4 matches. Since he contested the charge and lost, the original total of 600 stands.

No prior offence would have seen him get 3 weeks with an early guilty plea, so 1 match difference.

 

[firechild]

(125 points = 1 week)

100 points = 1 week. So 300 points would have been 3 weeks, not 2 as you suggested.

 

[Snappy]

:? Seems I should save the number crunching until after coffee.

I always thought 125 points was one week suspension, so 300 points would mean 2 weeks. Is 100 points one week ?

 

[Snappy]

100 points = 1 week. So 300 points would have been 3 weeks, not 2 as you suggested.

Thanks.