Would love to know how these numbskulls decide a grade 5 for Prior was not enough, while a grade 5 for Stewart on Anasta was reasonable. No doubt the fact that we aren't near the finals has played a role, as has the fact that Prior is not a chance of playing origin (you can bet your bottom dollar that if Thaiday or Watmough had put on this hit they'd be getting 2-3 weeks max)
The ARLC needs to overhaul the judiciary system IMO. They have shown to be incredibly inconsistent over the years.
Pretty damn bad, but where does that leave a bloke whos only role is to take an opposition player out?
Serious, worse than a 5?
Pretty damn bad, but where does that leave a bloke whos only role is to take an opposition player out?
Do not think that was the case.
The thing is "worse than a grade 5" doesn't mean that all direct referals of elbows to the face are looked at as being the same. For example, they could give him 8 weeks (according to Sterlo grade 5 would have seen him get 5 weeks with an early plea) while Hopoate got 17 weeks in 2006 for a similar act. So, the bloke that goes out specifically to cause injury toan opposition player is going to get something closer to the 17 week mark than the 8.
Prior deliberately took Thurston out of the game.
Prior deliberately took Thurston out of the game.
But did he run on the field with that intention, I say no.
Does it make a difference, doubt it.
1) He fails to take out the opposition's best player and gets sent off in the process
I doubt it. It was reckless.
It is so hard to prove intent.
True. I meant in the sense of lasting injury.Thurston took no further part in the match (apparently in order to play out his "milk" as genuine according to some Dragons fans).
Hoppa only got 17 weeks in 2005 cause of an insane amount of prior offences....similar or not.
Prior deserves 9 weeks
So SoO start, Matt Scott runs the ball, Watmough does a round house kick to the head. Scott is floored and put in a coma.
Grade 87?
I wonder who the Dragons will be getting to legally represent Matt Prior as they haven't needed to go in front of the NRL 'judiciary' for some time.
To call the NRL judiciary a hybrid ad hoc tribunal is giving it too much credit. I still can't figure out if it adheres to common or civil law principles.
Good luck to his representation. They'll need to dumb down their defence and speak very slowly so the judiciary can follow their line of argument. Poor guys.