My take on what should happen, not necessarily what will happen:-
Hinchcliffe elbow - not a lot in it. Deserved a penalty, but nothing more. Good to see the refs actually got it right, reversing their original penalty for Lussick's reaction in the play ball.
Lussick punch after penalty blown - without the blokes being done for 3rd man in, Lussick probably could have been sin binned for escalating things after the refs had blown a penalty, but either way there was not much in it so there should not be any judiciary action.
Blair - 3rd man in throwing punches. I think a sin bin was the appropriate punishment for that act. No judiciary action required.
Stewart - 3rd man in throwing punches. Same as Blair - sin bin correct punishment.
Blair & Stewart 2nd flare-up - I think both are equally to blame for it flaring up again. I can't see how you can say one is more culpable than the other. While Blair did run to catch up to Stewart, Stewart was dawdling along, constantly checking back to see where Blair was, obviously keen to re-engage Blair (verbally at least). Once they squared off, Blair gave the first shove, Stewart the first punch, so I see that as equal responsibility for the 2nd flare up.
Nice attempt by both, trying to get into the sheds before the refs could do any more, but well done to Shayne Hayne and Co. for calling them back and rightly sending them off.
They both deserve 2 weeks suspension for Contrary Conduct for starting a sideline fight after being sin-binned.
As with any melee, players that run in fall into two categories, those who are trying to break it up (call them "peacekeepers") and those who come in throwing punches or attacking ("aggressors").
The 4 Manly players to arrive first were B. Stewart, Robertson, Foran and Lussick.
Robertson and Foran were peacekeepers and therefore no action should be taken against either of them.
Stewart and Lussick were clearly aggressors and as per Blair and G. Stewart in the first flare up, as 3rd man in aggressors, both probably should have been sin binned, although given everything else, I can understand the refs not pursuing it any further.
Given they did not receive any on-field punishment, they may attract a low-grade judiciary charge, but both should be able to avoid suspension with a guilty plea.
Whilst B. Stewart's kamikaze entry into the fray looked pretty spectacular, I don't see it as any worse than a bloke arriving and throwing punches. It was more a function of the speed with which he got there that made it look worse.
Not sure why people are saying Watmough. He arrived later at the same time as other Storm players and only ever looked to be a "peacekeeper".
Storm bench players - whilst long held to be a big no-no to leave the bench, I think it was an understandable reaction when it is 5 on 1 on one of their blokes and there were no other Storm players within a bullsroar to help protect Blair. From what I have seen, the Storm Bench players all looked to be "peacekeepers", not "aggressors". That being the case, the Storm should be fined for players leaving the bench and joining the fray, but no action against the individual players.
If any of the bench players have been "aggressors" then they should be up on a judiciary charge, perhaps a little stronger than B. Stewart and Lussick (ie miss 1 week), given they were not only 3rd man aggressor, but they had come off the bench to do so.
Manly Bench players - Manly officials should be commended for holding their bench players back. George Rose was itching to get in on the action.
Shane Rodney (in black dressing gown) did appear to briefly become involved as a "peacekeeper" and for that, Manly should be fined same as the Storm.
I don't think Manly should lose the 2 points because of Rodney, but I wouldn't be surprised if the NRL did go that way. IMO, it would be overkill, but they have made such a big deal about 14 men on the field that Tony Williams couldn't even go on to replace David Williams until the stretcher had physically crossed the sideline, so they may adopt a hard line view on Rodney.
Some may argue Rodney didn't actually cross the sideline and step onto the field. To my mind, that is irrelevant. He may not have crossed the sideline, but he clearly got involved in the play and therefore constitutes a 14th man. As I said, I think the correct punishment is a fine, not loss of 2 points, as his involvement was only fleeting, but won't be surprised if NRL go hard.
