Newton gets 12 weeks

[Bring it home Knights]

so this puts newton at making a return in round 11 next season. So when hes not injured he is suspended Half our luck.. Hopefully simmo abes and kirk can stay injury free.

2 games left this year+3 trial games next season=5 so that would make it round 7. There is also a strong posibilty that they will appeal and be successful using his clean record as grounds apparently it's been suggested he may get a 25% reduction which would be 9 weeks, minus the games I mention, that would bring him back in round 4 next year. They may also count the USA international which would mean round 3. So alls not lost yet. I wasn't really very surprised at the 12 weeks, whichever way you look at it, it was an ugly hit.

I wasn't aware trial games counted for suspenions?

 

[antonius]

so this puts newton at making a return in round 11 next season. So when hes not injured he is suspended Half our luck.. Hopefully simmo abes and kirk can stay injury free.

2 games left this year+3 trial games next season=5 so that would make it round 7. There is also a strong posibilty that they will appeal and be successful using his clean record as grounds apparently it's been suggested he may get a 25% reduction which would be 9 weeks, minus the games I mention, that would bring him back in round 4 next year. They may also count the USA international which would mean round 3. So alls not lost yet. I wasn't really very surprised at the 12 weeks, whichever way you look at it, it was an ugly hit.

I wasn't aware trial games counted for suspenions?

Sanctioned trial games count.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

What's the definition of a sanctioned trial game?

 

[antonius]

Well last year we played official trial games against Penrith, The Roosters, and the Cowboys. They are classed as sanctioned. If the Knights were to play a game against one of their lower grade sides it wouldn't be. Every club plays around three or four prior to the season starting. They replaced the now defunct pre-season comps.
I am saying they count because that is how it was reported on this mornings news.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Ah ok. Well that's great news. He shouldn't miss many first grade games at all then.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Ah ok. Well that's great news. He shouldn't miss many first grade games at all then.

 

[No Holds Barred]

"Newton effects a careless and reckless tackle. No intent proved. He gets 12 weeks which includes a 25% discount for an early guilty plea. In effect his suspension is 15 weeks. So basically he got more then Williams."

How does leading with your elbow/forearm not prove intent ?? There was nothing careless or reckless about it. It wasn't a shoulder charge gone wrong either.

Both Williams and Newton got less than they deserved.

 

[astrogirl]

I have no problems with him being suspended buts lets put it into perspective. Williams, who king hit someone, so there was intent (remembering his defence was rejected) and knocks a bloke into gaga land gets 18 weeks. Included in that 18 weeks is a 75% loading because of his previous record. In effect his suspension for the actual offence is around the 11 weeks mark.

Newton effects a careless and reckless tackle. No intent proved. He gets 12 weeks which includes a 25% discount for an early guilty plea. In effect his suspension is 15 weeks. So basically he got more then Williams.

Sorry yes he deserved suspension but he has been made an example of. He is, I believe a victim, of the media like many others.

I have a problem with the fact that Clint got 12 weeks. cram has articulated this nicely (see bold).

 

[Doctor]

In the broad scheme of things, 12 weeks for elbowing a player in the face is more than fair. But recent history, as people have already suggested, indicates the suspension is excessive.

It was an ugly thing, easily deserving of a send-off and a sizeable suspension. I thought 6-8 weeks would have been fair, especially given chronic offenders often get away with far less. Elbows are never good, even when accidental. But 12 weeks, when compared to a player intentionally kneeing another defenceless player in the head who got less?

I'm a little bemused at the consistency, or lack thereof.

 

[Doctor]

I have no problems with him being suspended buts lets put it into perspective. Williams, who king hit someone, so there was intent (remembering his defence was rejected) and knocks a bloke into gaga land gets 18 weeks. Included in that 18 weeks is a 75% loading because of his previous record. In effect his suspension for the actual offence is around the 11 weeks mark.

Newton effects a careless and reckless tackle. No intent proved. He gets 12 weeks which includes a 25% discount for an early guilty plea. In effect his suspension is 15 weeks. So basically he got more then Williams.

Sorry yes he deserved suspension but he has been made an example of. He is, I believe a victim, of the media like many others.

I have a problem with the fact that Clint got 12 weeks. cram has articulated this nicely (see bold).

Are you sure he gets a discount? I was lead to believe a player cannot receive a discount on an un-graded charge. If this is true (that he did get 25% off) then you can add a few :x :x :x s to my previous post.

I'm all for suspensions -- especially given the seriousness of Newton's incident -- but given past adjudications...... I'm more than slightly bemused. :-s

 

[antonius]

I don't think he's been given any discount. From what I was led to believe the Knights are basing an appeal on his good record that IF successful would mean a reduction of 25% which would bring it down to 9 weeks.
The statement that he couldn't get a discount for an early plea for an ungraded charge is correct. They are trying to get one of 25% for his previous unblemished record.

 

[Thunderstruck]

Newton got a 25% discount for pleading guilty and still gets 12 weeks, which means without a discount, he would've gotten 16 weeks.

 

[antonius]

Newton got a 25% discount for pleading guilty and still gets 12 weeks, which means without a discount, he would've gotten 16 weeks.

He did NOT get a 25% discount. The paper clearly says he would have if the charge had been graded, but it wasn't. 12 weeks was the penalty. He wasn't given any discounts.

 

[Wobbygong]

12 weeks is pretty well what he deserved.

He'll bounce back from this.

 

[macavity]

harsh.

 

[cram]

As I understand it the prosecuting barrister for the NRL suggested that he should be given a reduction in penalty due to his previous good record. This is the same as the 25% discount.

How does leading with your elbow/forearm not prove intent ?? There was nothing careless or reckless about it. It wasn't a shoulder charge gone wrong either.

Both Williams and Newton got less than they deserved.

Sorry I did not realise that you were able to get into peoples minds and know their intention. Many shoulder charges are affected with the forearm cocked with the intention of hitting the player squarely on the chest and changes in movement can result in a change to the motion. Now I dont know what his intent was. The prosecutor however, did not seek to prove intent....if intent was proved then the suspension should have been more then 12 weeks. So therefore it is possible to draw a conclusion that intent was not proved and the tackle was dealt with as carless and wreckless.

At law an accidential act can be viewed as malicious if it is carried out recklessly or wantonly and intent does not come into it in this case it falls into the reckless catergory. The reason for this is simply that it becomes difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intent to commit harm without an admission or direct action or acts. In Williams' case we saw direct retaliation as a result of an illegal tackle which in itself helps prove intent.

 

[~bedsy~]

I don't think he's been given any discount. From what I was led to believe the Knights are basing an appeal on his good record that IF successful would mean a reduction of 25% which would bring it down to 9 weeks.
The statement that he couldn't get a discount for an early plea for an ungraded charge is correct. They are trying to get one of 25% for his previous unblemished record.

Hopefully he is successful. I think 12 weeks was abit harsh... expecially after reading the posts here about Williams and Bird.
I thought 8-10 as well.

 

[Kaz]

http://www.ozleague.com/Default.asp

NRL prosecutor Peter Kite initially asked for a penalty of 12 to 13 games for last Friday's incident, but settled on nine games after a 25 per cent discount for Newton's early guilty plea.

The counsel representing Newton had originally sought just a three match suspension, for an act many consider to be one of the worst in recent years.

The judiciary panel of Darrell Williams, Mal Cochrane and Mark Coyne lengthened the suspension up to 12 matches, an indication that the NRL remain focused in their attempts to stamp out foul play.

 

[cram]

The counsel representing Newton had originally sought just a three match suspension, for an act many consider to be one of the worst in recent years.

Yes well thats taking it to the ridiculous stages.

 

[cram]

I believe that whether the charge is referred to the judiciary or not some simple rules relating to natural justice still should apply. First and foremost the fact that a defendant enters a guilty plea at the first available opportunity should receive a discount. Within NSW this is enshrined within the judicial system. If the judiciary
decided

The judiciary panel of Darrell Williams, Mal Cochrane and Mark Coyne lengthened the suspension up to 12 matches, an indication that the NRL remain focused in their attempts to stamp out foul play.

then they should articulate the fact that the suspension is actually greater then 12 weeks and discounted amount is 12 weeks. This is the only way that natural justice can be seen to be served.