NRL Judiciary

[Big Pete]

Elbow to the face? Bah! Back in my day that's how we'd warm up!

At least JT isn't soft as that Big Mahn.



Boyd didn't even follow through with the elbow!

 

[Coxy]

I've thought for a while m1c had no idea. This confirms it

 

[m1c]

The slow mo replay is quite deceptive in this case. A far different story is told watching it at normal speed.

The judiciary are useless, but they don't get gradings as wrong as everyone is suggesting they have in this instance (I'm tipping I'm going to need to elaborate on this one). IMO the Burns tackle was far worse and was graded accordingly. Whilst the Prior hit certainly wasn't in the ballpark of similar incidents such as Newton on Sims - there is a reason he only got 4 weeks.

Tate would have done time for his love tap had it not been Origin.

 

[Browny]

Tate should have no case to answer as it was no worse then Haynes punch on JT

As for prior he got off lightly, burns is being smashed as a result of the media hype

 

[Coxy]

To me I think the grading is all wrong. Intent alone is irrelevant IMO. With Burns, intent may have been there (I'm still not convinced he INTENDED to hit him in the head, just hit him hard) but the hit itself wasn't that big. There wasn't a swinging arm, it was more a stiff arm, and less force in it than Hoffman's hit on Bailey.

There's no way in hell it's worth 12 weeks, or even 9 weeks with the early plea, which he's not taking.

Compare it with Tony Williams who could realistically have broken De Gois' neck with his flip tackle, that earnt him 7 weeks. And Prior's elbow. Burns is nowhere near those incidents IMO.

And if you want to talk intent, how about Stewart vs Blair as they were walking off last year? They got a ****ing slap on the wrist.

Burns has every right to feel hard done by, and I hope the judiciary sees sense and realises there wasn't a lot in it and it should be judged similarly to other tackles that make flush contact with the face. I'd say 3 weeks is sufficient.

 

[Big Pete]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Burns have a bad record and another charge? Which is why he's facing so many weeks? I agree that calling it an intentional high tackle can be argued, but his stint on the sideline is lengthy.

Then again, Prior should have been outed for at least 10 or so weeks. I don't care how soft the bloke is or what type of injury JT did or didn't sustain, an elbow to the face has no business in the game and we've exposed ourselves if we treat it like a normal tackle.

 

[Alec]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Burns have a bad record and another charge? Which is why he's facing so many weeks? I agree that calling it an intentional high tackle can be argued, but his stint on the sideline is lengthy.

Then again, Prior should have been outed for at least 10 or so weeks. I don't care how soft the bloke is or what type of injury JT did or didn't sustain, an elbow to the face has no business in the game and we've exposed ourselves if we treat it like a normal tackle.

I keep reading that Burns has a 75% load (so a 10 week ban becomes 17 weeks). Dunno if that's 100% true though.

 

[Kaz]

I keep reading that Burns has a 75% load (so a 10 week ban becomes 17 weeks). Dunno if that's 100% true though.

I googled for you.

Burns would be facing a combined ban of seven to 10 matches if not for his poor judiciary record, which includes two previous charges in the past two seasons.

As a result he receives a 70 per cent loading on his penalty for each charge - comprising a 50 per cent loading for a similar previous offence and 20 per cent loading for a non-similar previous offence.

With Penrith considered no chance of making the finals, Burns could be suspended until round 10 next season if he fails to have the charges downgraded.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ould-back-case-for-intent-20120723-22kr3.html

 

[Bucking Beads]

Burns got 9 matches for that tackle on Kennedy. That takes his suspension up to 12 weeks.

 

[Kaz]

:thumbup1: to the judiciary.

Wish he got a longer sentence.

IMO: He shouldn't have gotten the downgrade from a grade 3 to 1 intentional high tackle.

 

[Coxy]

It should've been downgraded to grade 3 reckless IMO.

 

[Kaz]

IMO: There should only be one grade for intentional.

You either intentionally did it or you didn't

 

[Dexter]

Watamong gets charges with grade 2 and gets off. Manly seem to have a knack of getting good results at the judiciary.

 

[Coxy]

Watamong gets charges with grade 2 and gets off. Manly seem to have a knack of getting good results at the judiciary.

As they have as long as I've been walking and talking...

 

[Twiztid]

It is going to continue. Lassick who attacks with his elbow is going to get less than Prior with only 2-3 weeks by the Daily Telegraph reports.

 

[The Brizz]

Well Prior should have got at least 12 so no matter what elbowing and the judiciary don't seem to make a lot of sense. Lussick is a wanker though.

 

[Dexter]

Minichello has been found guilty.......... of nothing, what a f@ck@n joke. So, these numpties are telling us all they have to do is get the charge wrong and it can be dismissed with no mechanism to alter the charge. The judiciary look ridiculous when someone can do something as blatant as Minichello did and walk away.

I'd have a little side wager with anyone that if it was a Bronco he would have done time.



http://www.nrl.com/minichiello-not-guilty-at-nrl-judiciary/tabid/10874/newsid/69444/default.aspx

 

[Coxy]

Minichello has been found guilty.......... of nothing, what a f@ck@n joke. So, these numpties are telling us all they have to do is get the charge wrong and it can be dismissed with no mechanism to alter the charge. The judiciary look ridiculous when someone can do something as blatant as Minichello did and walk away.

I'd have a little side wager with anyone that if it was a Bronco he would have done time.



http://www.nrl.com/minichiello-not-guilty-at-nrl-judiciary/tabid/10874/newsid/69444/default.aspx

Yeah that's what I don't get. Some players go in arguing to change it from say Reckless to Careless or whatever. Yet if you go in pleading not guilty you either get off or cop the original charge? That's crazy.

You should be able to go in and argue that you want the charge dropped, but in failing that, that it should be downgraded.
Likewise the judiciary should be able to accept that yes, you're not guilty of charge X but you are guilty of charge Y.