The Joey Leilua Award

[Eelementary]

Elliott Whitehead - lose the ball short of the line, while diving, trying to score a try, and then abuse the ref, to give the Storm a penalty.

Take a bow - BJ Leilua would be proud.

 

[Dingo_dan]

BJ Leulia was given a grade 3 charge. It carried 500 judiciary points. This was lowered with a guilty plea but that was counter acted with him having priors. In the end he was hit with 450 points which resulted in 4 games.

Latrell mitchell was hit with a grade 2. That carries 300 judiciary points. With an early plea that takes it down to 225. Latrell doesn't have priors for this offence so it stays at 225 points.

BJs was a grade 3 because he has hit a player outside of the play unprovoked.

Latrell is a grade 2 because he has reacted to an incident in the play of the game.

It was a 'in the heat of the game' thing. It's why we have 3 different gradings for this offence.
Grade 1 is for incidents where 2 players are fighting.
Grade 2 is for in the heat of the moment incidents.
Grade 3 is for completely unprovoked off the ball incidents.

The reason Latrell wasn't penalised in game was because he had not committed the first foul. J.reynolds kick was the first moment of foul play in this sequence therefore the penalty was always going to go to South Syndey.

Latrells other moment in the match was a careless high tackle, and his punishment was in line with similar incidents.

The conspiracy theories on social media about preferential treatment are frankly ridiculous. The charges and penalties are actually consistent with past incidences. In fact it seems people are angry that Latrell Mitchell isn't being excessively punished.

 

[Spot On]

Elliott Whitehead - lose the ball short of the line, while diving, trying to score a try, and then abuse the ref, to give the Storm a penalty.

Take a bow - BJ Leilua would be proud.

Canberra will never learn from their mistakes nor will they stop blaming everyone else for their mistakes and losses? It is now ingrained in the club and you see it every week when the smallest thing goes against them... then snowballs from there if the other side doesn't roll over or aren't more inept.

 

[Sphagnum]

BJ Leulia was given a grade 3 charge. It carried 500 judiciary points. This was lowered with a guilty plea but that was counter acted with him having priors. In the end he was hit with 450 points which resulted in 4 games.

Latrell mitchell was hit with a grade 2. That carries 300 judiciary points. With an early plea that takes it down to 225. Latrell doesn't have priors for this offence so it stays at 225 points.

BJs was a grade 3 because he has hit a player outside of the play unprovoked.

Latrell is a grade 2 because he has reacted to an incident in the play of the game.

It was a 'in the heat of the game' thing. It's why we have 3 different gradings for this offence.
Grade 1 is for incidents where 2 players are fighting.
Grade 2 is for in the heat of the moment incidents.
Grade 3 is for completely unprovoked off the ball incidents.

The reason Latrell wasn't penalised in game was because he had not committed the first foul. J.reynolds kick was the first moment of foul play in this sequence therefore the penalty was always going to go to South Syndey.

Latrells other moment in the match was a careless high tackle, and his punishment was in line with similar incidents.

The conspiracy theories on social media about preferential treatment are frankly ridiculous. The charges and penalties are actually consistent with past incidences. In fact it seems people are angry that Latrell Mitchell isn't being excessively punished.

It should be grade 3. Reynolds contact was accidental. He retaliated to an accident. His foul play should have been punished more harshly on the field than Reynolds accidental contact with the head.

thanks for the breakdown anyway Mrs Mitchell

 

[Dingo_dan]

It should be grade 3. Reynolds contact was accidental. He retaliated to an accident. His foul play should have been punished more harshly on the field than Reynolds accidental contact with the head.

thanks for the breakdown anyway Mrs Mitchell

It was a reaction to an incident in the heat of the moment. Doesn't matter if Reynolds was accidental or not, it's all in the heat of the moment. Any good judiciary lawyer would get it bumped down to a grade 2 easily. 'My client saw his team mate get kicked in the head. He reacted, yes it was a poor reaction, but it was a reaction none the less'. The judges on the judiciary panel are all former players and would understand this.

You could not do the same for BJ. Why did he hit Edwards? There was no cause or reason, he wasn't reacting to any incident. Hence it is a grade 3.

And there was no avenue for Latrell to be punished on field. It's not quite a sin bin offence, and accidental or not Reynolds committed the first foul play.

 

[Vic Mackey]

BJ Leulia was given a grade 3 charge. It carried 500 judiciary points. This was lowered with a guilty plea but that was counter acted with him having priors. In the end he was hit with 450 points which resulted in 4 games.

Latrell mitchell was hit with a grade 2. That carries 300 judiciary points. With an early plea that takes it down to 225. Latrell doesn't have priors for this offence so it stays at 225 points.

BJs was a grade 3 because he has hit a player outside of the play unprovoked.

Latrell is a grade 2 because he has reacted to an incident in the play of the game.

It was a 'in the heat of the game' thing. It's why we have 3 different gradings for this offence.
Grade 1 is for incidents where 2 players are fighting.
Grade 2 is for in the heat of the moment incidents.
Grade 3 is for completely unprovoked off the ball incidents.

The reason Latrell wasn't penalised in game was because he had not committed the first foul. J.reynolds kick was the first moment of foul play in this sequence therefore the penalty was always going to go to South Syndey.

Latrells other moment in the match was a careless high tackle, and his punishment was in line with similar incidents.

The conspiracy theories on social media about preferential treatment are frankly ridiculous. The charges and penalties are actually consistent with past incidences. In fact it seems people are angry that Latrell Mitchell isn't being excessively punished.

This is completely wrong and laughably biased

For starters the first discretion in the Reynolds/Latrell thing was Graham picking the ball up offside, so no matter what happened it should have been a tigers penalty

Bjs priors didn’t add a single match to his games missed tally

As for the grading, you have completely made that up. The NRL have never once said being provoked or heat of the moment is a defence for foul play

 

[Dingo_dan]

This is completely wrong and laughably biased

For starters the first discretion in the Reynolds/Latrell thing was Graham picking the ball up offside, so no matter what happened it should have been a tigers penalty

Bjs priors didn’t add a single match to his games missed tally

As for the grading, you have completely made that up. The NRL have never once said being provoked or heat of the moment is a defence for foul play

Except that Graham wasn't offside. He was onside by the time he went to pick the ball up. South Sydney players fumbles the ball about 45m from the try line, after the fumble the ball rolls back closer to the 50m, Graham is onside by this point as he is behind the point of the initial fumble by his team mate.

But even if Graham was onside, it doesn't matter. The first act of foul play was commited by Reynolds. A foul play penalty will always overrule an offside penalty.

And yes, unprovoked attacks will always be a higher charge than an in the heat of the moment incident.

The problem is that the match review committee has to be consitent. Yea everyone hates Latrell at the moment, but if they give him a charge that doesn't match the offence it creates 2 problems.

1. Latrell Mitchell might get completely off if they overcharge him.

2. All other similar incidents will then have to be graded similarly. Players coming in after a foul play is very common and there's a lot of striking and head contact in these incidences. If Mitchell receives a massive suspension for this then that creates the precedent, and even minor skirmishes on field will now be suspension worthy. If Latrell Mitchells is now the grade 3, then the way players reacted at full time in the Panthers vs Tigers game would now be the grade 2, and Kikaus reaction to BJ after BJs sin binning would be the new grade 1.

People want consistency from the match review right up until they don't want it and want all the rules thrown out because a player is unpopular.

 

[Canard]

Being offside, is irrelevant to any charge of foul play.

Just as "in the heat of the moment" is irrelevant. Retaliation has never been an excuse.

IMO, Mitchell was extremely lucky coming in after play had stopped, hitting Reynolds high and with his back turned.

 

[Dingo_dan]

Being offside, is irrelevant to any charge of foul play.

Just as "in the heat of the moment" is irrelevant.

All head contact/strikes are divided into 3 grades.

Rugby league skirmishes are common. It's a physical game, it's an emotional game, stuff happens in tackles and rucks. Teammates get injured. These kind of things are common place and incidents overflowing from these are always going to happen. And there has to be a punishment for these incidents.

Unprovoked attacks are much, much rarer. And their has to be a punishment for those as well. And that punishment needs to be a higher grade than stuff thats in the heat of the moment.

It's not irrelevant at all. Unprovoked attacks need to be a higher grade. We only have 3 grades of head/contact strike.

 

[betcats]

There really is no argument. Latrell had to cop the same charge as BJ, made even worse by the fact Latrel wasn’t sin binned.

 

[Canard]

All head contact/strikes are divided into 3 grades.

Rugby league skirmishes are common. It's a physical game, it's an emotional game, stuff happens in tackles and rucks. Teammates get injured. These kind of things are common place and incidents overflowing from these are always going to happen. And there has to be a punishment for these incidents.

Unprovoked attacks are much, much rarer. And their has to be a punishment for those as well. And that punishment needs to be a higher grade than stuff thats in the heat of the moment.

It's not irrelevant at all. Unprovoked attacks need to be a higher grade. We only have 3 grades of head/contact stroke.

There is no provision for committing foul play if "provoked". And "emotion" is not a factor.

Latrell's coat hanger, wasn't a "skirmish" it was blatant foul play and against the rules. It was at the very least a sin bin.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Except that Graham wasn't offside. He was onside by the time he went to pick the ball up. South Sydney players fumbles the ball about 45m from the try line, after the fumble the ball rolls back closer to the 50m, Graham is onside by this point as he is behind the point of the initial fumble by his team mate.

But even if Graham was onside, it doesn't matter. The first act of foul play was commited by Reynolds. A foul play penalty will always overrule an offside penalty.

And yes, unprovoked attacks will always be a higher charge than an in the heat of the moment incident.

The problem is that the match review committee has to be consitent. Yea everyone hates Latrell at the moment, but if they give him a charge that doesn't match the offence it creates 2 problems.

1. Latrell Mitchell might get completely off if they overcharge him.

2. All other similar incidents will then have to be graded similarly. Players coming in after a foul play is very common and there's a lot of striking and head contact in these incidences. If Mitchell receives a massive suspension for this then that creates the precedent, and even minor skirmishes on field will now be suspension worthy. If Latrell Mitchells is now the grade 3, then the way players reacted at full time in the Panthers vs Tigers game would now be the grade 2, and Kikaus reaction to BJ after BJs sin binning would be the new grade 1.

People want consistency from the match review right up until they don't want it and want all the rules thrown out because a player is unpopular.

you are seriously comparing Kikau rushing in and grabbing a jersey to Latrells swinging arm to the head?

 

[Dingo_dan]

There is no provision for committing foul play if "provoked". And "emotion" is not a factor.

Latrell's coat hanger, wasn't a "skirmish" it was blatant foul play and against the rules. It was at the very least a sin bin.

There's no written provision for 'provoked' and 'emotion' no.

It's up to the MRC to set the charges at their discretion within the guidelines they have.

But part of that is ensuring that grade 3 is set aside for the worst of the worst. Unprovoked attacks, hitting a passer several seconds after he passed etc.

Grade 2 is still a serious charge. And if grade 2 had it's own sub sections Latrell Mitchells would be on the upper levels of that. But it's still a grade 2.

Unprovoked attacks, outside of play, outside of any other incidents, have to be in a grade 3 class.

Look at it this way. If we had 6 grades instead of 3 then Latrell Mitchell would likely be a grade 4 and BJ a grade 5 and the suspension total in weeks could be closer. A grade 4 could be 400 base point's (with early plea 3 week suspension) and grade 5 could have 500 points (with early plea 4 week suspension). But we don't. We have 3 grades, and the context that both incidents occured in means their is a separation in gradings

 

[Dingo_dan]

you are seriously comparing Kikau rushing in and grabbing a jersey to Latrells swinging arm to the head?

Yes. If latrell incident is now a grade 3, then Kikau now becomes a grade 1.

And that is ridiculous right?

Thanks for seeing my point.

 

[Canard]

There's no written provision for 'provoked' and 'emotion' no.

It's up to the MRC to set the charges at their discretion within the guidelines they have.

But part of that is ensuring that grade 3 is set aside for the worst of the worst. Unprovoked attacks, hitting a passer several seconds after he passed etc.

Grade 2 is still a serious charge. And if grade 2 had it's own sub sections Latrell Mitchells would be on the upper levels of that. But it's still a grade 2.

Unprovoked attacks, outside of play, outside of any other incidents, have to be in a grade 3 class.

Look at it this way. If we had 6 grades instead of 3 then Latrell Mitchell would likely be a grade 4 and BJ a grade 5 and the suspension total in weeks could be closer. A grade 4 could be 400 base point's (with early plea 3 week suspension) and grade 5 could have 500 points (with early plea 4 week suspension). But we don't. We have 3 grades, and the context that both incidents occured in means their is a separation in gradings

Grade 3 isn't for the worst of the worst.

Serious Incidents that go ungraded by the MRC, are referred straight to the Judiciary.

IMO Latrell, got off lightly.

 

[Vee]

It was a 'in the heat of the game' thing. It's why we have 3 different gradings for this offence.
Grade 1 is for incidents where 2 players are fighting.
Grade 2 is for in the heat of the moment incidents.
Grade 3 is for completely unprovoked off the ball incidents.

Source? I thought it came down to careless, reckless, intentional but I might be wrong.

 

[Dingo_dan]

Grade 3 isn't for the worst of the worst.

Serious Incidents that go ungraded by the MRC, are referred straight to the Judiciary.

IMO Latrell, got off lightly.

So should BJ have gone straight to the Judiciary?

 

[Vic Mackey]

Yes. If latrell incident is now a grade 3, then Kikau now becomes a grade 1.

And that is ridiculous right?

Thanks for seeing my point.

mate I get that you want to defend your player, we all do, but this defence isn’t convincing anyone

 

[Dingo_dan]

Source? I thought it came down to careless, reckless, intentional but I might be wrong.

They are the categories.

Then each of those categories comes with a grading of 3 levels.

For example a charge might be careless high tackle, Grade 2

 

[Dingo_dan]

mate I get that you want to defend your player, we all do, but this defence isn’t convincing anyone

And that's a problem.

The MRC are working within their system and people are too dumb to figure it out.

But will push conspiracies about race and favouritism.