What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Round 20 vs Storm

SGMax

Juniors
Messages
330
The worst case of a premeditated hip drop tackle I have seen and he gets 3 weeks.

I watched Fui's apparent hip drop against Parra a few times and couldn't see what they were talking about.
Fuimaono cam from the side and was dragged across buy the runners momentum....completely unintentional. Fui got 2 weeks.
 

Gareth67

First Grade
Messages
7,217
kingm-1gp_8073.jpg


JUDICIARY


As it happened: King banned for three; Thompson cops four
Author
Troy Whittaker NRL.com Reporter
Timestamp
Tue 29 Sep 2020, 10:20 PM

NRL.com is providing live coverage of tonight's judiciary hearings for Storm prop Max King and Bulldogs forward Luke Thompson.

Thompson has been banned for four matches after being found guilty of eye gouging, while King's copped a three-match ban for a "hip drop" tackle.

Refresh this page during the night for the latest updates.

10.16pm: The verdict is in: Ben Creagh announces that Max King has been hit with a 375 demerit penalty, meaning he will miss three matches.

King's only hope of playing again this season would be if the Storm lose their opening finals game against the Eels on Saturday, then win their next two en route to a grand final appearance.

10.12pm: After more than an hour of evidence, the panel are off to deliberate.

10.05pm: Ghabar submits that a 300 demerit (three matches) penalty would be a sufficient starting point. However, he asks for King to receive the usual 25 percent discount for entering an early guilty plea.

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew instructs the panel to apply the discount.

9.55pm: To back up his earlier point, Ghabar references St George Illawarra doctor Tom Carrigan's injury report which states Smith and Welch contributed to Lawrie bending backwards and his knee flexing.

Ghabar's other key argument is King landed on the ground before dropping onto Lawrie's leg, thereby minimising the impact. He also notes Lawrie was able to receive strapping treatment before returning to the field and playing the last 33 minutes.

9.43pm: King's lawyer Nick Ghabar counters that it "belies the facts" to say Lawrie had no momentum when his client became involved in the tackle. He claims wrestling was still ongoing.

He also argues that Brandon Smith and Christian Welch contributed to making the tackle more dangerous as they bended Lawrie back.

"The only reason [the bending] occurs, in my submission, is player Smith and player Welch were intimately involved in getting player Lawrie onto his back," he says.

Ghabar accepts King made an error in judgment but says he had no intent to injure. He agrees with McGrath that the force was only moderate.

9.35pm: Given King has already pleaded guilty to the hip drop, NRL counsel McGrath argues that a penalty in the vicinity of 400-500 demerit points (4-5 matches) would be sufficient.

9.31pm: McGrath again shows footage of Jamayne Taunoa-Brown's hip drop against the Sharks to demonstrate his belief that King's is worse than a grade two.

They key difference, he argues, is Taunoa-Brown was "competing to complete" a tackle that still had momentum. He says the same occurred in Tyrell Fuimaono's hip drop on Eels prop Junior Paulo, and despite all three examples being of "moderate force", King's was the most dangerous. He says King had "so many options" to safely complete the tackle including locking Lawrie's legs together.

9.22pm: McGrath says Blake Lawrie was "already effectively held" by Brandon Smith and Christian Welch when King comes in as the third defender, starting at Lawrie's waist. As the footage plays, McGrath argues King deliberately dropped to his right knee before swivelling his hips, shooting out his right leg and plunging his body-weight onto Lawrie's exposed leg.

He submits King was responsible for the gang tackle then collapsing as Lawrie is bent back awkwardly. "It's just with luck there's no serious injury," he says.

remote.axd

King placed on report for tackle on Lawrie


King placed on report for tackle on Lawrie

9.10pm: While he doesn't submit that King intended to injure Dragons prop Blake Lawrie, NRL counsel McGrath argues King's hip drop was far worse than a grade-two offence. He says the "degree of force, the high level of recklessness and the risk of injury" must be considered.

9.05pm: Several angles of King's "hip drop" tackle are shown before clips of recent grade-two offences by Warriors prop Jamayne Taunoa-Brown and Dragons second-rower Tyrell Fuimaono are played for comparison.

9pm: Max King's hearing has now started. The Storm forward is appearing on video link from the Sunshine Coast with football manager Frank Ponissi.

8.55pm: A disappointed Thompson briefly spoke after the hearing, saying it was never his intention to eye-gouge “or what they accused me of."

"I was just trying to win the tackle – take him to the ground. So I'm a bit confused, disappointed," he said.

Asked if he was concerned the verdict would damage his reputation, he said: "That's why it's upsetting, disappointing. But it is what it is so I’ll move on."

8.48pm: Bob Lindner announces that Thompson will serve a four-match suspension.

8.39pm: Ghabar is urging the panel to deem 200 demerit points sufficient. He references Raiders forward Hudson Young's eye gouging case late last season in which he received 800 demerit points.

He argues Young's offence was "four or five times more significant in terms of culpability". Young had also been suspended for the same charge earlier in 2019.

The panel will now deliberate again to decide the length of Thompson's suspension.

8.30pm: NRL counsel Peter McGrath is pushing for a penalty of 400 demerit points (a four-week ban). Nick Ghabar is now addressing the panel.


https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/09/29/judiciary-live-blog-luke-thompson-eye-gouge-max-king-hip-drop/

Pack of f##king A-holes .
 

SBD82

Coach
Messages
13,832
Does anyone else think it’s absurd that Ben Creagh is on the panel?

Either he comes down hard and there is perceived bias, or he comes down soft and there is the possibility that he has been lenient due to not wanting to appear biased. (I suspect the latter in this case).

Surely they could excuse him from the panel for incidents involving us to remove any chance of bias being an influence.
 

Slippery Morris

First Grade
Messages
6,208
3 weeks, how weak is that. How did Brandon Smith escape being on report as he had just as much impact as King if not more. He could have avoided folding Lawrie but went on with it when he saw King had his body in place.

I thought with V'Landy's we may get the NRL to demand some more tougher penalties for this rubbish not like the previous management who kissed the Storm's ass.

Some of those comparisons they showed were a joke especially Fui. Not because he was a Saints player but no way near as bad as King.

Bellamy is a lucky man, as any other code would have banned him for life ages ago.
 

redv13

Juniors
Messages
2,173
Does anyone else think it’s absurd that Ben Creagh is on the panel?

Either he comes down hard and there is perceived bias, or he comes down soft and there is the possibility that he has been lenient due to not wanting to appear biased. (I suspect the latter in this case).

Surely they could excuse him from the panel for incidents involving us to remove any chance of bias being an influence.
I agree that he was probably lenient to avoid any bias. Just replace him with some one else not affiliated to either club. Not hard really
 

Walpole

Juniors
Messages
1,899
I agree that he was probably lenient to avoid any bias. Just replace him with some one else not affiliated to either club. Not hard really
Exactly. Surely they have more than three blokes they can call on so they avoid potential conflicts of interest.

And Brandon Smith's a grub. His only intention was to injure Lawrie. Should have got a couple of weeks too but I guess Melbourne need him for the finals.
 

SBD82

Coach
Messages
13,832
Exactly. Surely they have more than three blokes they can call on so they avoid potential conflicts of interest.

And Brandon Smith's a grub. His only intention was to injure Lawrie. Should have got a couple of weeks too but I guess Melbourne need him for the finals.
It was pretty poor form from Smith. I generally dislike him less than most Melbourne players. Pretty disappointing to see him carry on the way he did on the weekend.
 

Gareth67

First Grade
Messages
7,217
It was pretty poor form from Smith. I generally dislike him less than most Melbourne players. Pretty disappointing to see him carry on the way he did on the weekend.

And to think we are talking about Brandon Smith and not ‘ Ref ‘ Smith .I can only say that he must had been a most attentive student of his namesake , as he knows all the dirty tricks that only the Storm could devise .

They are still a pack of A-holes as far as I am concerned .
 
Last edited:

SEAT 1A

Juniors
Messages
2,453
Storm skipper Cameron Smith conceded the tackle was awkward.

"I know the tackle involved with Maxy didn't look great at all, if anything it was quite clumsy," Smith said. "But it's expected these things are raised at this time of year and it's just unfortunate that incident happened on the eve of the finals."

What a load of rot.

Awkward and clumsy is one way of saying it however, it's crap. All of the MEL players worked together and it was a "classic" modern day tackle.

It wasn't an unfortunate incident and is expected the the NRL once again needs to step in.
 

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
13,778
Does anyone else think it’s absurd that Ben Creagh is on the panel?

Either he comes down hard and there is perceived bias, or he comes down soft and there is the possibility that he has been lenient due to not wanting to appear biased. (I suspect the latter in this case).

Surely they could excuse him from the panel for incidents involving us to remove any chance of bias being an influence.
Excellent point.

There should be alternate panelists to step in when there is a conflict of interest.

It was like when Luke Patten was in the bunker when either us or the Dogs played should never have been an option regardless of his personal integrity.
 

Slippery Morris

First Grade
Messages
6,208
Storm probably demanded Creagh to go on the panel for that reason alone, good point. Storm are smart, they think of any way possible to gain any advantage. They don't usually go well when they have no advantage over a situation. We saw that when Bellamy coach NSW.

Gallop was the best, he fined them hard and had no mercy. He would have demanded a bigger penalty for these 2 grubs with that tackle.
 
Top