OFFICIAL 2023 TEAM UPDATE: SECOND BEST

Watch this space for latest injuries, suspensions and training updates.

GRAND FINAL



SUSPENDED

INJURED

Willison: ankle, season over.



LATEST JUDICIARY
 
7.38pm – Titans forward David Fifita is also now being called to give evidence on behalf of Walsh and will appear via video link.

7.36pm – Knowles says to Carrigan that his actions do not correlate with someone who believed Walsh wasn't speaking with the referee in his comments.

"You are an articulate person. If you believed that player Walsh wasn't speaking to the referee, you would have approached him," Knowles said.

"I didn't go up to the referee because he said 'another one and he will go [to the sin bin]' and I didn't feel it was in the interests of the team to go and argue with the referee. I had no idea that the comment was the reason for the 10-metre penalty."
 
Knowles: So Mr Carrigan, you play for the broncos correct?
Carrigan: Yes
Knowles: the Broncos of Brisbane or Denver?
Carrigan: Brisbane
Knowles: so the Brisbane broncos?
Carrigan: yes
Knowles: and when you say you “play” for the Brisbane broncos, what exactly do you play?
Carrigan: Rugby league
Knowles: do you communicate verbally when playing rugby league?
Carrigan: Yes
Knowles: with your teammates?
Carrigan: yes
Knowles: no further questions
 
How can one of the judiciary that is meant to be impartially deciding on this also be fighting the prosecutions case?
 
Now David Fifita being called in... this could be interesting 🤔🤔

Meant to be on behalf of Walsh... but is he smart enough to answer in the same way that Patty was.
 
Knowles: So Mr Carrigan, you play for the broncos correct?
Carrigan: Yes
Knowles: the Broncos of Brisbane or Denver?
Carrigan: Brisbane
Knowles: so the Brisbane broncos?
Carrigan: yes
Knowles: and when you say you “play” for the Brisbane broncos, what exactly do you play?
Carrigan: Rugby league
Knowles: do you communicate verbally when playing rugby league?
Carrigan: Yes
Knowles: with your teammates?
Carrigan: yes
Knowles: no further questions
What is this even meant to mean? Knowles seems like a bloke that watched a few episodes of Matlock and thought he’ll give it a crack.
 
How can one of the judiciary that is meant to be impartially deciding on this also be fighting the prosecutions case?

Nrl shareable image
 
Now they are saying that Carrigan is articulate person and if he believed Walsh was talking to another player Carrigan should've let the referee know. That makes zero sense, they were literally criticising Walsh for arguing with the ref Earlier
 
7.25pm – Knowles is now cross-examining Carrigan. “You heard Reece say, to 'I stopped, I stopped. Who was he saying that to”?

Carrigan answers: “You would have to ask Reece. I believe it was the referee”.
It’s funny that he can’t say Reece was talking to him, but they are happy for him to give evidence that Reece was talking to the ref.
 
Now David Fifita being called in... this could be interesting 🤔🤔

Meant to be on behalf of Walsh... but is he smart enough to answer in the same way that Patty was.
If fifita gives evidence that he hears Walsh and carrigan have a conversation the nrl are toast here. That's the third witness to give the same evidence. Fifita plays for a rival club, what reason would he have to lie?
 
Ffs Fifita you aren't doing a very good job
 

Active Now

  • Porthoz
  • leith1
  • JoeldTrafford
  • IceWorks
  • winslow_wong
  • Dash
  • broncsgoat
  • Ondi
  • davidp
  • Mustafur
  • Xzei
  • ChewThePhatt
  • BooKhaki
  • Financeguy
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.