PRE-GAME [Round 1, 2026] - Broncos vs Panthers

[JayPee]

Two things were certain tonight:
1. Cleary would get off
2. @JayPee would come in and tell Broncos fans they are wrong

Will be interesting what happens from here. Do the NRL come out when the next one happens by a no name and say nah Cleary isn’t a precedent - 8 weeks for you or do ex-players log this away for future litigation?

Consistency has never been the NRL’s strong suit so who knows what happens next.

Take away the farce it obviously is, I’m glad he’s playing. You want to see the best v the best just not in this way.

Doesnt seem like you are glad he is playing.

 

[JayPee]

If panthers weren't playing broncos rd 1 he would be out

I don't know if you follow the NBA but you dudes truly are the Lakers fanbase of the NRL. It is amazing. How have you guys ever survived with so much going against you.

 

[Swordfish]

How have you guys ever survived with so much going against you.

Because we’re the the only team that wins with pure talent and grit unlike show pony’s who fluke or pretend. We’re the biggest club with the biggest fanbase.
All you sore grapes console each other for eternity. Period.

 

[BroncosFever]

I don't know if you follow the NBA but you dudes truly are the Lakers fanbase of the NRL. It is amazing. How have you guys ever survived with so much going against you.

You're jealous.

If Cowboys had any sort of a fanbase, you wouldn't have to spend your time in here.

 

[broncos4life]

Doesnt seem like you are glad he is playing.

You might want to lay off other fanbases when your one is clearly so shit that you have to spend so much time here.

 

[Sproj]

Doesnt seem like you are glad he is playing.

Well in one way you are right. I don’t like the process that has allowed him to play, it is embarrassing but not surprising to the NRL has literally allowed players off ‘for the fans’ in the past and shock horror, for this very club.

At the same time, I don’t like when players miss games because of something that happens in rep or preseason footy. The issue is that this tackle just can’t be defended. He hits him square in the head at pace and his feet literally leave the ground. You can freeze frame anything you want to see but those two things clearly happened and he has to off by a prosecution that clearly don’t even bother. The result was decided before they went in and they knew it.

I hate corruption and this whole thing is corrupt. I don’t believe preseason games should lead to in season suspensions but my view is not consistent with how things currently stand.

So I’m not happy he’s playing because of how it’s occurred, you’re absolutely right. However since the farce has now happened it is what it is and I’m glad my team will have no excuse to be complacent.

 

[Dexter]

On SEN yesterday morning J8mmy Smith commented on why he thought Cleary wouldn't be exonerated. He asked Alexander if he thought they could get the downgrade. Alexander says , we wouldn't be going unless we were very confident.
I had no doubt on the outcome from that point .

 

[JayPee]

Well in one way you are right. I don’t like the process that has allowed him to play, it is embarrassing but not surprising to the NRL has literally allowed players off ‘for the fans’ in the past and shock horror, for this very club.

At the same time, I don’t like when players miss games because of something that happens in rep or preseason footy. The issue is that this tackle just can’t be defended. He hits him square in the head at pace and his feet literally leave the ground. You can freeze frame anything you want to see but those two things clearly happened and he has to off by a prosecution that clearly don’t even bother. The result was decided before they went in and they knew it.

I hate corruption and this whole thing is corrupt. I don’t believe preseason games should lead to in season suspensions but my view is not consistent with how things currently stand.

So I’m not happy he’s playing because of how it’s occurred, you’re absolutely right. However since the farce has now happened it is what it is and I’m glad my team will have no excuse to be complacent.

I can't agree with that particular tackle but anyway.

And Ill be real even if it was fishy that he was let off which imo it wasnt I wouldnt care. Every sport does this for their biggest players. They get the benefit of the doubt. Its an entertainment business at the end of the day and when the biggest stars are playing its great for the game.

If it isnt an egregious incident I dont care if it is weighted to benefit the biggest stars in the game. The game is better when we have guys like Walsh, Cleary, Tedesco etc in the game playing games.

Its not like Cleary has had years of being treated like a protected species by the judiciary and MRP. He has been out for long periods of time with shit that the "administration" could have come over the top and lessened. Its cost him dally ms.

It has always been like this for stars. And it should be imo. Those are the breaks.

 

[Morkel]

I stand by my statement. No reasonable court would downgrade that. It's an absolute joke, and worst thing of all is that the media will not point out how insane this is.

 

[JayPee]

You might want to lay off other fanbases when your one is clearly so shit that you have to spend so much time here.

I dont live in an echo chamber champ. I dont need people agreeing with shit I say to feel good about myself. You can keep yappin all ya want. I have heard you. You have repeated it about 10 times. Get new material. Its old.

 

[Sproj]

I can't agree with that particular tackle but anyway.

And Ill be real even if it was fishy that he was let off which imo it wasnt I wouldnt care. Every sport does this for their biggest players. They get the benefit of the doubt. Its an entertainment business at the end of the day and when the biggest stars are playing its great for the game.

If it isnt an egregious incident I dont care if it is weighted to benefit the biggest stars in the game. The game is better when we have guys like Walsh, Cleary, Tedesco etc in the game playing games.

Its not like Cleary has had years of being treated like a protected species by the judiciary and MRP. He has been out for long periods of time with shit that the "administration" could have come over the top and lessened. Its cost him dally ms.

It has always been like this for stars. And it should be imo. Those are the breaks.

But even then, it isn't even consistent either. There is absolutely no doubt Walsh really shouldn't have been playing the prelim after head butting Young but he was always getting off being finals and Carrigan was able to be the one they could target instead.

And on Carrigan, would you say he is a star? I would but he never seems to get off lightly. That four weeks or whatever it was he got for the non-hip drop was farcical. What about Staggs having to serve a suspension after injury in the only time this has ever happened before or since but perennial moron May getting off 'for the fans' and serving his suspension months later?

I can live with big names being treated differently if even that was consistent but it just isn't. The MRC is traditionally a lottery but in this instance, whether Cleary being rubbed out or not is the right result is less of an issue than the fact the whole thing was obviously decided before they even went in.

So is the NRL now going to give a heads up to every club every time their star player is at risk of suspension and then not even bother when it comes to the judiciary?

I doubt this situation would be happening for any other player or any other club...except the Roosters of course because Roosters.

 

[1910]

Cleary has successfully argued that there wasn't contact with head, so who is accountable for charging him and saying it hit the head?

Cleary's argument that he wasn't given a HIA and the trainer didn't call for a head assessment or the independent doctor is interesting.

That will become the first thing you check now if you want to argue a grading. Trainer and doctor didn't think it hit his head so why are we here?

 

[BroncsFan]

But even then, it isn't even consistent either. There is absolutely no doubt Walsh really shouldn't have been playing the prelim after head butting Young but he was always getting off being finals and Carrigan was able to be the one they could target instead.

Actually that would've been completely inconsistent... there were several headbutts, including one from Smithies, that only copped a fine.

 

[JayPee]

But even then, it isn't even consistent either. There is absolutely no doubt Walsh really shouldn't have been playing the prelim after head butting Young but he was always getting off being finals and Carrigan was able to be the one they could target instead.

And on Carrigan, would you say he is a star? I would but he never seems to get off lightly. That four weeks or whatever it was he got for the non-hip drop was farcical. What about Staggs having to serve a suspension after injury in the only time this has ever happened before or since but perennial moron May getting off 'for the fans' and serving his suspension months later?

I can live with big names being treated differently if even that was consistent but it just isn't. The MRC is traditionally a lottery but in this instance, whether Cleary being rubbed out or not is the right result is less of an issue than the fact the whole thing was obviously decided before they even went in.

So is the NRL now going to give a heads up to every club every time their star player is at risk of suspension and then not even bother when it comes to the judiciary?

I doubt this situation would be happening for any other player or any other club...except the Roosters of course because Roosters.

You are weighting these incidents differently to me. I do not see the cleary tackle to have been bad enough for a grade 2. I just don't agree.

I don't remember the Staggs stuff. Ill take your word for it. On the carrigan incident. If you remember that was around the time it was a hot topic. I think some NSW cup guy had a bad injury off one just bwfore if ai recall? Maybe the timeline is off. I usually think they they are the biggest crock of shit since the crusher because alot of the time they are penalising for accidents of players moving forwards dragging grown men but that carrigan one imo was bad. He was in a stationary position and he just fell straight down and because it was a hot topic he probably got a week more than he should and that was unlucky he was the first guy that came up with these ridiculous crackdowns they always have randomly.

And yes there is a difference from Walsh to Carrigan will all due respect. I think you know that. One is a forward. One is a flashy superstar who is a genuine superstar off the field in popularity for a variety of reasons. He drags in eyeballs. Carrigan doesnt. You have to be a diehard to understand how good that man is as a player.

I cant agree with the any other team stuff. This happens all the time over many a season. We just don't bring it up when it benefits our teams as much when it benefits teams we already dont **** with because thats the "fan" of it but every team gets advantages from refs, mrps and judiciaries especially when they are on top. Its how it is.

My team couldnt barely lose a penalty count during the good thurston era years. It always evens out for top of the tree winning clubs and I just think its ignorance to say yall don't benefit ever. This time its Penrith and the game is going to be better for it. Commercially and competitively I would say.

 

[BroncsFan]

Cleary has successfully argued that there wasn't contact with head, so who is accountable for charging him and saying it hit the head?

Cleary's argument that he wasn't given a HIA and the trainer didn't call for a head assessment or the independent doctor is interesting.

That will become the first thing you check now if you want to argue a grading. Trainer and doctor didn't think it hit his head so why are we here?

Strange, because the direct quote from daddy Chin does acknowledge contact with the head and they pleaded guilty to the grade 1 ... why would they plead guilty to head contact if they didnt contact the head

Ivan Cleary is now summarising the Panthers defence. “We are seeking a downgrade so we are not completely absolving Nathan.

"What I want to discuss is that the initial contact was right shoulder to right shoulder. There was then indirect contact."

 

[1910]

Strange, because the direct quote from daddy Chin does acknowledge contact with the head and they pleaded guilty to the grade 1 ... why would they plead guilty to head contact if they didnt contact the head

Ivan Cleary is now summarising the Panthers defence. “We are seeking a downgrade so we are not completely absolving Nathan.

"What I want to discuss is that the initial contact was right shoulder to right shoulder. There was then indirect contact."

The word used was primary.

Judiciary Chair, The Honourable Geoffrey Bellew AM SC, said in his summary of reasons that the panel felt there were four factors which supported the conclusion that a Grade 1 was appropriate.

- That player Cleary had initially planted his feet prior to making contact.

- That on the Panel’s analysis of the footage, any upward trajectory on the part of player Cleary occurred after contact had been made with the ball carrier.

- The Panel considered that the ball carrier juggled the ball and simultaneously lowered his body height shortly before contact was made, which had the effect of significantly altering the point of impact.

- And the Panel were satisfied that the primary contact was player Cleary’s shoulder on the shoulder of the ball carrier.

 

[Sproj]

The word used was primary.

Judiciary Chair, The Honourable Geoffrey Bellew AM SC, said in his summary of reasons that the panel felt there were four factors which supported the conclusion that a Grade 1 was appropriate.

- That player Cleary had initially planted his feet prior to making contact.

- That on the Panel’s analysis of the footage, any upward trajectory on the part of player Cleary occurred after contact had been made with the ball carrier.

- The Panel considered that the ball carrier juggled the ball and simultaneously lowered his body height shortly before contact was made, which had the effect of significantly altering the point of impact.

- And the Panel were satisfied that the primary contact was player Cleary’s shoulder on the shoulder of the ball carrier.

They could have summed it up way easier:
- The Panel has been told to let him off and this we will do. Done.

 

[Sproj]

It always evens out for top of the tree winning clubs and I just think its ignorance to say yall don't benefit ever.

Sure, I've never claimed this though, so not sure what point you are making. I literally mentioned it about Walsh as a recent example. We benefitted with Hodges back in 2015 as another clear example and Piaks should have been binned in the Gf for a clearly late shot on Paps.

Doesn't change any of the irrefutable claims about inconsistency and some teams are definitely favoured over others.

The funny thing about that though is that the train wreck that is Annersely said the better teams get penalised less at a time when we were comfortably the most penalised team despite running in first place. So you can't even say that teams doing well get breaks because it isn't even true.

Your team got the rub of the green for years not because of JT but because the NRL was trying to make up for the 7 tackle mistake that knocked you out of finals.