NEWS Judiciary: Live blog - Carrigan Four Week Suspension

Organix said:
guess we're going to be seeing consistent rulings on this for approximately 1.8 weeks
Click to expand...
Regardless of whatever gripes the usual cynics might voice about previous decisions, I can't fault the transparency of this entire process.
 
Huge said:
What's the eater?

You mention it with your last sentence.
Click to expand...
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.
 
McHunt said:
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.​


www.nrl.com

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 www.nrl.com
Click to expand...
I wonder if those factors applied to NAS.
 
I think everyone has a better idea of what a "hip drop" is or more importantly, what not to train, than we did a few months ago, when Ivan Cleary and Gordon Tallis couldn't even define them:

www.foxsports.com.au

Nathan Cleary charged over ugly tackle on Broncos No. 6 Billy Walters

‘I don’t know why’: Cleary charged over ugly tackle on Broncos No. 6 Walters
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au
 
McHunt said:
Regardless of whatever gripes the usual cynics might voice about previous decisions, I can't fault the transparency of this entire process.
Click to expand...
I really have no issue with the process or the penalty either, all we want is consistency in both the MRC and the judiciary, and unfortunately it is still not happening.

If hip drops hereafter of similar severity are all dealt with the same way, I will have no issue.

The two decisions of the MRC regarding the Storm players from the weekend was an absolute farce and travesty.
 
McHunt said:
Here is the explanation. The key is "insufficient evidence."

www.nrl.com

'Forceful tackle': Why NAS was cleared over Egan incident

The MRC considered three charges over the tackle that left Egan with broken teeth but found insufficient evidence for any.
www.nrl.com www.nrl.com
Click to expand...
And the explanation was nonsense, the video provided sufficient evidence as did the injury to the player which is completely inconsistent with the explanation from the MRC. The maxim res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) applies here in relation to the injury and the question as to whether there was forceful contact with the jaw.
 
lynx000 said:
And the explanation was nonsense, the video provided sufficient evidence as did the injury to the player which is completely inconsistent with the explanation from the MRC. The maxim res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) applies here in relation to the injury and the question as to whether there was forceful contact with the jaw.
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've seen video of that incident. What a blatant dog act.

This game, honestly.
 
broncos4life said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you actually pick up everything the ref says?

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

Unread

Active Now

No members online now.
Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top