OFFICIAL 2023 TEAM UPDATE: SECOND BEST

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

GRAND FINAL

Panthers v Broncos

Penrith Panthers versus Brisbane Broncos match centre includes live scores and updates. Includes official live player and team stats. Run metres, fantasy points scoring.

www.nrl.com

SUSPENDED

INJURED
Willison: ankle, season over.

Casualty Ward

Check the Official NRL Casualty Ward, which players are injured, and who is expected to make their way back onto the field and in the game.

www.nrl.com

https://twitter.com/nrlphysio

LATEST JUDICIARY

Official NRL Judiciary News Updates & Information

View updates for the most breaking Judiciary NRL news, analysis, scores, team list updates, squads, casualty ward, injury news, signings and judiciary.

www.nrl.com

 

[McHunt]

Say what you like about Fifita being dumb, but how often do you see an opposition player doing a solid like this?

 

[Foordy]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

 

[Kaz]

I still want to know if Verrils, who was "mic'd up" was close

Sound malfunction, is my bet. haha

 

[Foordy]

I'm sorry Mr. Knowles ... but what you believe isn't evidence.

you must have been sick the day they taught law at law school

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

"Fairly obvious" lol... that sums this up really...

 

[Super Freak]

Say what you like about Fifita being dumb, but how often do you see an opposition player doing a solid like this?

Well the last time we had one, I believe was Guerra in the Hodges case back in 2015.

 

[Organix]

Isn't the official meant to determine that?? Isn't that his job??

If he was chirping at him outside of questioning decisions then he can penalise him for dissent... if he thinks he directed a verbal at him he can bin him.

Why did the ref decide that the most appropriate action was marching him 10m and telling Reynolds that if he does it again he's off... after telling him at half time that he's had enough of him questioning every decision.

If he had been giving him verbals all game and abusing him then I'm pretty sure he's going with something a bit harsher than marching him 10m

Watch it. You will end up banned for questioning their integrity soon.

 

[Organix]

Say what you like about Fifita being dumb, but how often do you see an opposition player doing a solid like this?

That is true

 

[Browny]

Lol fairly obvious my arse

 

[Dash]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

Strange how he can say with certainty who it was said to, but people who were actually there couldn't possibly say for sure.

 

[McHunt]

Isn't the official meant to determine that?? Isn't that his job??

If he was chirping at him outside of questioning decisions then he can penalise him for dissent... if he thinks he directed a verbal at him he can bin him.

Why did the ref decide that the most appropriate action was marching him 10m and telling Reynolds that if he does it again he's off... after telling him at half time that he's had enough of him questioning every decision.

If he had been giving him verbals all game and abusing him then I'm pretty sure he's going with something a bit harsher than marching him 10m

Yes. If Walsh was being an annoying prick the ref has every right to march the team. But this charge came up after the game. So my question is if all Walsh has done is made a persistent dick of himself maybe being marched was enough punishment already. Case dismissed.

 

[Fozz]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

 

[Culhwch]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

To which Reece was heard to remark, '**** off, c***.’

 

[Morepudding]

So fucked. Walsh was next to Patty.

 

[Organix]

7.57pm – The NRL's legal counsel Patrick Knowles SC is has added his summation.

"Either player Walsh said the words to the referee, or even if the words were not said to the referee, they were directed at the referees on-field ruling. It is my belief that those words are clearly directed towards the referee. It is only after the referee said “obstruction’ that player Walsh said those words. It is fairly obvious in my submission that the words were directed to the referee and the referee’s decision.”

This is some low level private school debate team shit. "Well, even if it wasn't, it's fairly obvious it was naughty"

 

[Kaz]

Fifita better not face the judiciary, as they will skin him alive for daring to undermine them.

 

[Browny]

Cos you’ve got a gambling problem

 

[Foordy]

8.10pm – Knowles continues. "This is a case in which the players giving evidence have spoken about their evidence.”

"You will have to make an assessment of the evidence from player Walsh and players Carrigan and Fifita. You heard evidence in this case that both players had conversations with player Walsh before the hearing tonight. They got their story straight.”