NRL Round 18 Judiciary Update: JWH to Dispute Charge

[The Real King]

As it turned out, that worked in our favour as the crowd booing directed at Slater was so loud it made Latrell Mitchell's post-Manu reception sound like a polite round of applause. Slater had a very quiet game and the usual critics (Tallis et al) went on about how the Roosters's fans showed a lack of respect.

The booing was just sensational, I was in the nose bleed section, but it made no difference, we all booed, that was a great Grand Final.

[roosterproud]

It certainly was a great gf.
billys a w4nker

[ism22]

10 in the bin should have been sufficient. Absolute BS that Jared now has to face suspension or fine as well. These bloody clowns have the most biased agenda against the big dog, always have.
In the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan- “tell ‘em to get stuffed”.

How many of our players have faced 3-4 week suspensions this year?

IMO they hurt, are usually coupled with the punishment of being booted off the field and are overkill for what's happened.

Stupid crackdown.

[ism22]

It certainly was a great gf.
billys a w4nker

Yeah I'm glad he got to play hahahah

[The Lip]

How many of our players have faced 3-4 week suspensions this year?

IMO they hurt, are usually coupled with the punishment of being booted off the field and are overkill for what's happened.

Stupid crackdown.

Crackdown against Roosters Footy

[Chook2]

Maybe we can use the storm tactic from 2018 with the nrl to allow the retirement narrative to not suspend him?
not hopeful but let’s see

[player 1]

I think JWH will need a lot of luck and a nostalgic-minded judicial panel to get a downgrade.

The case will resolve around the level of force and I assume contact (mitigating circumstances)

Slow it down and go frame by frame

https://www.nrl.com/news/2024/07/07/...nt-to-the-bin/






Final Decision

• Grade 1 Charges will generally see key indicators in the low to moderate range with no aggravating factors.
• Grade 2 Charges will generally see key Indicators in the moderate range with some aggravating factors. There may also be some other mitigating factors.
• Grade 3 Charges will generally see key indicators in the moderate to high range with several aggravating factors. There is generally no mitigating factors for the player charged.

Good, objective post.

I really think if they are objective JWH has a chance of having charge downgraded. Which after all is why the club are bothering with this, given how targeted we are and how in almost every other case in recent years they have taken the guilty as charged option, recognising we can't expect any favours.

I've looked at the incident multiple times and the reality is:

JWH went at him to make a very strong contact.

There is no way he deliberately aimed high or at his head.

The recipient of the tackle ducked his head down just before impact. Had he continued in full stride at a normal height the impact would have been at waist level or below.

The ridiculous concept that the tackler is always responsible for the outcome of a tackle, irrespective of how the tackled player adjusts his posture and height in the milliseconds before impact, is to be deplored.

This reeks of a legal liability deflecting policy by the NRL. This is a contact sport and either they acknowledge that accidents are inevitable or the game should be changed to touch or tag footy.

JWH went in to make a statement with forceful contact in that tackle, but there is no way he aimed high, and the point of contact compared to the tackled player's normal running height was not high.

King Salvo, you're a baseball fan - if a batter ducks before a pitch passes him, so his knees are 1 inch above the ground, it doesn't entitle him to have the pitch called a ball if it would have been a strike if his knees were at normal address height.

So I believe there are mitigating circumstances.

Then again I'm a biased roosters fan, and the NRL are biased against us.

So I know who will have the final say.

[Spirit of 66]

Good, objective post.

I really think if they are objective JWH has a chance of having charge downgraded. Which after all is why the club are bothering with this, given how targeted we are and how in almost every other case in recent years they have taken the guilty as charged option, recognising we can't expect any favours.

I've looked at the incident multiple times and the reality is:

JWH went at him to make a very strong contact.

There is no way he deliberately aimed high or at his head.

The recipient of the tackle ducked his head down just before impact. Had he continued in full stride at a normal height the impact would have been at waist level or below.

The ridiculous concept that the tackler is always responsible for the outcome of a tackle, irrespective of how the tackled player adjusts his posture and height in the milliseconds before impact, is to be deplored.

This reeks of a legal liability deflecting policy by the NRL. This is a contact sport and either they acknowledge that accidents are inevitable or the game should be changed to touch or tag footy.

JWH went in to make a statement with forceful contact in that tackle, but there is no way he aimed high, and the point of contact compared to the tackled player's normal running height was not high.

King Salvo, you're a baseball fan - if a batter ducks before a pitch passes him, so his knees are 1 inch above the ground, it doesn't entitle him to have the pitch called a ball if it would have been a strike if his knees were at normal address height.

So I believe there are mitigating circumstances.

Then again I'm a biased roosters fan, and the NRL are biased against us.

So I know who will have the final say.

If motive is not considered, would there not be a case to charge a player for a careless act that injured a player on his own team? If the NRL is serious about player welfare, then they must make a stand on this issue! Connor Watson should have been suspended for putting that gash in Jarred's head!

I'm being ridiculous, I know, but if you'd told me 12 months ago that player of colour would be suspended 8 weeks for a racist slur against another player of colour, I'd have said you were being ridiculous too.

[SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva]

This whole notion that the tackler (defender) is solely responsible is BS. For example, in a hypothetical situation, say its the GF and the final play unfolds as per the below:
10 seconds to go, scores are 19-18 with the defensive team up.
The attacking team (behind by one point) plays the ball 30 metres out. The ball carrier charges at the defence at full speed, and deliberately ducks at the last split second, knowing that the defender doesn't have time to adjust.
The attacker knows full well that he will probably get a concussion, but views it as a small price to pay, knowing that a penalty will be given, and his team will be able to kick a goal from infront to win the GF.
How can the defender solely be responsible in this situation?