- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,491
- 51,917
Yeah it was a great kick in these conditions
NRL 2026 Round 4 Discussion
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,491
- 51,917
Feel like it won't be a Siebold coached team for too much longer
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,491
- 51,917
Funny thing is Saab could play the Cleary defence
- Arm low
- Feet planted
- Ball runner dropping
... Only thing standing in the way is if it's HIA... which it probably is... but if it's not then Cleary defence all the way and just a fine
- Arm low
- Feet planted
- Ball runner dropping
... Only thing standing in the way is if it's HIA... which it probably is... but if it's not then Cleary defence all the way and just a fine
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,690
- 10,166
Haha was just going to post that. Reminds me of something not sure what. Magneto?
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,690
- 10,166
Nah Cleary claimed first contact with the shoulder plus Saab left his feet no doubt.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,491
- 51,917
But they didn't dispute that there was shoulder contact to the head... the judiciary doesn't care about about the first contact only if there was contact.
Cleary also left his feet, but that was after contact... and so did Burns who got off a grade 2 on Ponga... Saab doesn't leave his feet until after contact.
Hugo also hasn't gone off for a HIA... so Saab has all 4 that he can play to get the fine if they want it
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,690
- 10,166
But they did dispute direct contact.
Saab won't get off that.
I get what you're saying and that Cleary decision was IMO wrong and will get used all year.
ROUND 4
Nathan Cleary learns fate at NRL judiciary
Penrith Panthers star halfback Nathan Cleary will be free to play Round 1
The panel found Cleary's defence - which argued the first contact was not directly with the head of Tigers' gun outside back Heamasi Makasini, but rather well below that before bouncing up - was warranted in deciding to downgrade his charge.
The coach in his defence confirmed they were not absolving the halfback of the tackle in only seeking a downgrade.
The NRL's prosecution had argued that the recoil of Makasini's head in the tackle was consistent with the force of a Grade 2 charge, rather than Grade 1.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,491
- 51,917
I don't think direct contact is anything that the judiciary cares about... it's force that they judge on... so it doesn't matter if it's primary or secondary contact.
Panthers mainly argued that he didn't go off for a HIA so how could the force be deemed moderate.
Hugo didn't go off for a HIA, so they could easily argue that the force wasn't moderate... this is now part of the precedent
Hugo was also falling, so they can easily argue mitigating factors... definitely falling more than the Cleary tackle.
Everything else is inline with the Cleary precedent.
I don't think they will contest the grading, because the argument for force will be hard just from the optics of it... but the independent Dr didn't pull him from the field... so it's there if they want it... thanks to Ivan
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,690
- 10,166
Not sure if you read the decision and argument in my post but its clear they do care about direct contact
The panel found Cleary's defence - which argued the first contact was not directly with the head of Tigers' gun outside back Heamasi Makasini, but rather well below that before bouncing up - was warranted in deciding to downgrade his charge.
