NEWS Judiciary: Live blog - Carrigan Four Week Suspension

[Big Del]

It’s the only thing an old man can pick on when he’s been wrong 15 times in a row and needs to get his win back.

But the real answer is my iPhone thinks it’s American and changed it without my permission.

I spell theatre Frenchie style .
Like metre .

 

[broncos4life]

So you actually pick up everything the ref says?

I always thought you just picked up the audio from the broadcast on TV.

There are two types you can get mate. The more expensive give you both the cheaper ones just the commentary.

 

[Big Del]

They are great mate, I thought they were a bit of a gimmick when I first got them but now I miss it when I am not at the stadium and can’t hear the refs mic.

That`s where Q Cup is interesting .
Refs are mic ed . Usually can hear every thing they say .

 

[Mr Fourex]

There are two types you can get mate. The more expensive give you both the cheaper ones just the commentary.

This all kinda feels like secret technology. Do others use these head sets....?

I've never heard of them before. What a great idea.....re hearing the ref (..and I'm assuming players near by as well?)

 

[LittleDavey]

The Honourable Justice GJ Bellew
Judiciary Chairman
2 August 2022

Summary of reasons: Justice Geoff Bellew

The decision of the panel was unanimous and did not require a casting vote from the Chairman pursuant to Rule 89.​

​

The panel took into account that by his plea of guilty, player Carrigan had acknowledged that he had:​

1. made contact with player Hastings in circumstances where such contact carried with it an unacceptable risk of injury; and
2. acted carelessly, or in other words failed to play with the level of care that the responsible playing of the game requires.

In the panel’s view, there were a number of characteristics which rendered the offence a serious one. They included the fact that:​

1. player Hastings was placed in a highly vulnerable position at the time that the contact was made by player Carrigan, and was unable to protect himself;
2. player Carrigan applied a significant level of force, and his actions gave rise to a commensurately high risk of injury;
3. that risk materialised, with player Hastings suffering a serious injury which will require internal fixation surgery and which, on the medical evidence, will render him unfit to play for a period of up to 5 months; and
4. the force was applied by player Carrigan at a time when player Hastings was already held upright by two other players.

As to the last matter, and the issue of the involvement of other players in the tackle, the panel considered the opinion of Dr McMeniman that player Hastings’ injury was “significantly exacerbated by the other two tacklers pushing [player Hastings] backwards” and that this combination “produced the significant forces required to sustain (player Hastings’) injury”.​

​

The panel also noted Dr McMeniman’s opinion that the contribution made by the other two tacklers “increased the likelihood” of such injury. The panel accepted that the other two players made some contribution to the force which was applied and took this into account as a mitigating factor.​

​

At the same time, the panel was mindful of the fact that neither of the other two players had committed any illegal act, and that player Carrigan had acted carelessly by placing himself in the position that he did, in circumstances where he must have been aware that the other two players would attempt to put player Hastings to the ground.​

​

The panel took into account player Carrigan’s plea of guilty and his limited history of offending.​

​

However, the panel considered that, consistent with the published policy of the National Rugby League of which all clubs were put on notice more than two years ago, it was necessary to again make it clear to all players that dangerous contact of this kind in particular has no place in the game given the risk of injury that it presents.​

​

The fact that such risk materialised in the present case was, in the panel’s view, a stark indicator of why such dangerous contact is simply unacceptable.​

​

In the panel’s view, it followed that there was a fundamental need for the penalty in this case to carry with it a strong element of both personal and general deterrence, so as to make it clear to all players, including player Carrigan, that the commission of this offence is likely to result in the imposition of a substantial penalty.​

​

The penalty was less than what it would otherwise have been having regard to the plea of guilty and the contribution of the other players involved in the tackle.​

Carrigan cops four matches for "unacceptable" tackle

A remorseful Pat Carrigan insisted he didn’t intend to injure Jackson Hastings after receiving a four-match suspension for a hip drop that left the Wests Tigers lock with a broken ankle and syndesmosis injury.

www.nrl.com

I read this today and nearly hit the fucking roof. I'm sorry, I might be an outlier amongst league fans, and I might be biased cos it's our future captain, but I simply cannot accept this is in any way fair and reasonable based largely on the sections I've bolded and underlined and will repeat here:

"player Carrigan applied a significant level of force, and his actions gave rise to a commensurately high risk of injury; that risk materialised,...the force was applied by player Carrigan"

GTFO of here. As the Broncos' doctor witness apparently unsuccessfully argued, the force which caused the injury was NOT applied by Carrigan, it was applied by the two other men in the tackle pushing Hastings' back over the top. As I've said on here before, if they dragged him forwards, Pat wouldn't have contacted his legs at all. Therefore the force was NOT applied by "player Carrigan" you fucking numpties. Also zero mention that the referee hadn't called "held" therefore Pat had a very reasonable reason to get involved in the tackle.

"the panel was mindful of the fact that neither of the other two players had committed any illegal act, and that player Carrigan had acted carelessly"

Ohhhh so now it's about "a dude got injured so someone needs to pay"?

"it was necessary to again make it clear to all players that dangerous contact of this kind in particular has no place in the game...there was a fundamental need for the penalty in this case to carry with it a strong element of both personal and general deterrence"

There it is RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. To paraphrase, "we need to go hard as **** on someone and this guy will do" - regardless of what actually happened. We called it on here - they will make an example of him - and that's exactly what they have done, they even say it in their press release. Pat is not being punished solely for his actions here, he is being punished for others' as well and that is patently unfair.

Especially considering that on the same weekend we also see:
- a 110kg+ forearm to the head with clear intent, which breaks 2 of the bloke's teeth, go totaly unpunished and even defended by the NRL;
- a nearly identical tackle which also resulted in a long-term injury to another player also go completely unpunished;
- an old-style spear tackle about as nasty as they come punished with only one more week out of the game.

I'm annoyed as **** that the best defence we could provide focused on a tackle from 2020 (?) rather than more recent examples. And some of our arguments seemed pretty poor given the circumstances.

But **** me dead, the NRL admit that Pat is being made an example of. The punishment does not fit the crime. Paging @Morkel - and anyone who doesn't believe there are at least subconscious biases against our club in this administration. The NRL can get fucked, honestly.

 

[BroncosFever]

4 weeks is fair enough, I think

Still think he only got 4 weeks because Hastings suffered a broken leg as a result of it, if it were a high ankle sprain or something, 2 weeks would be my guess

 

[Big Del]

This all kinda feels like secret technology. Do others use these head sets....?

I've never heard of them before. What a great idea.....re hearing the ref (..and I'm assuming players near by as well?)

Can use them at the international cricket matches too for TV commentary .
No umpires or stump mics as far as I know .

 

[Organix]

I'm starting to wonder whether if Hastings' leg were to have been caught under Pat's belly, rather than his back, if the same actions from the others above would have had the same result. Like, it's just that the leg got trapped under Pat awkwardly, not so much that Pat dropped on the leg with intention.

Compare this to Cleary on Turpin, that was him bending the guy himself back over his body while trapping the legs to stop forward movement.

There are many instances where legs get trapped under bodies and twist awkwardly, but they don't always have two guys pushing backwards at the same time.

It really does seem unfair, but I mean it seems we're angling slowly ever closer to removing tackles from the game altogether.

 

[Morkel]

I read this today and nearly hit the fucking roof. I'm sorry, I might be an outlier amongst league fans, and I might be biased cos it's our future captain, but I simply cannot accept this is in any way fair and reasonable based largely on the sections I've bolded and underlined and will repeat here:

"player Carrigan applied a significant level of force, and his actions gave rise to a commensurately high risk of injury; that risk materialised,...the force was applied by player Carrigan"

GTFO of here. As the Broncos' doctor witness apparently unsuccessfully argued, the force which caused the injury was NOT applied by Carrigan, it was applied by the two other men in the tackle pushing Hastings' back over the top. As I've said on here before, if they dragged him forwards, Pat wouldn't have contacted his legs at all. Therefore the force was NOT applied by "player Carrigan" you fucking numpties. Also zero mention that the referee hadn't called "held" therefore Pat had a very reasonable reason to get involved in the tackle.

"the panel was mindful of the fact that neither of the other two players had committed any illegal act, and that player Carrigan had acted carelessly"

Ohhhh so now it's about "a dude got injured so someone needs to pay"?

"it was necessary to again make it clear to all players that dangerous contact of this kind in particular has no place in the game...there was a fundamental need for the penalty in this case to carry with it a strong element of both personal and general deterrence"

There it is RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. To paraphrase, "we need to go hard as **** on someone and this guy will do" - regardless of what actually happened. We called it on here - they will make an example of him - and that's exactly what they have done, they even say it in their press release. Pat is not being punished solely for his actions here, he is being punished for others' as well and that is patently unfair.

Especially considering that on the same weekend we also see:
- a 110kg+ forearm to the head with clear intent, which breaks 2 of the bloke's teeth, go totaly unpunished and even defended by the NRL;
- a nearly identical tackle which also resulted in a long-term injury to another player also go completely unpunished;
- an old-style spear tackle about as nasty as they come punished with only one more week out of the game.

I'm annoyed as **** that the best defence we could provide focused on a tackle from 2020 (?) rather than more recent examples. And some of our arguments seemed pretty poor given the circumstances.

But **** me dead, the NRL admit that Pat is being made an example of. The punishment does not fit the crime. Paging @Morkel - and anyone who doesn't believe there are at least subconscious biases against our club in this administration. The NRL can get fucked, honestly.

Oh I'm here, I haven't left.

But in this case I will concede that maybe the NRL has a point. They have been warning players for a while, about this exact potential outcome if it goes bad. As much as players have been injured, had knees buggered by twisting etc, to actually have a player get a bone snapped by it shows the severity (players can **** their knees by stepping funny, they don't break bones). It just sucks that it was our guy that was the unlucky one.

However, just because I can understand this decision, it absolutely does my fucking head in how the known grubs not only get away with deliberate dirty tactics, but the media defends them. I agree when people say the NRL too easily bends to the whims of the media, because it was only when certain sections of the media started drumming up outrage over the incident that the NRL decided to go in so hard against Carrigan. In reality, especially in these times where even incidental head contact causes the game to stop and everyone watch slow-mo replays to see if someone's being binned, how they can let the NAS incidents get swept away so easily is borderline criminal. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. With the potential of lifelong brain damage from concussion, when the NRL does not outright condemn such actions they are effectively enabling behavior that directly causes it. Behavior that is DELIBERATE, not incidental or careless.

Considering what happened with Carrigan, where players have obviously not taken the warnings as seriously as they should have, it really should have been cracked down on way harder, way sooner. McGuire got whipped for it but even when genuine serious injury occurred, it was only when someone had their leg broken did the NRL decide to send a message. I can't help but think that by letting these deliberate grub acts go unpunished, a player is going to get a serious facial injury, or worse, someone is going to get their fucking skull cracked in. By then it will be too late for the NRL to get serious about it.

 

[Big Del]

Compare this to Cleary on Turpin,

on Billy Walters .

 

[theshed]

on Billy Walters .

Told you they look the same

 

[Big Del]

Told you they look the same

Specsavers ?

 

[Big Del]

12 mins in Gus talks hip drops , cannon balls .

 

[Scorchie]

Have they ever released a statement of findings/facts like they did today?

 

[Foordy]

Have they ever released a statement of findings/facts like they did today?

it's not usual, but I'm pretty sure they've done it before

 

[Organix]

on Billy Walters .

Thanks. Yeah, my mistake.

 

[McHunt]

Kevvie denies coaching the technique:

 

[Organix]

Kevvie denies coaching the technique:

One tackle goes awry and suddenly WE'RE the club that is coaching the hip drop? Surely NRL fans aren't that stupid to go along with that media narrative.