JWH charged for his crusher tackle yesterday

[Thirteen]

These carry over points could cost us later in the season. Another minor charge added to this offence could mean Jarred misses important games.

[Johnny Tobin]

I agree Hawkeye about JWH strategy.

I don't think Oldfield's was intentional with Toups. Daniel's head got caught under and the real damage came from the weight of the third man in.

I didn't think it has to be intentional. He got him into the dangerous position and that should have been enough.

[Team Evil]

These carry over points are so bad, for such an innocuous charge he could now miss a final. If we didn't have so many injuries I would rather he just missed the next game.
In regards with Toups tackle I don't think it was intentional either but he then had two players apply pressure when he was in a helpless position.
And what about Rapana , coming in with the knees, so blatant unnecessary contact on Ikuvalu.

[The Axe]

I didn't think it has to be intentional. He got him into the dangerous position and that should have been enough.

Agree 100%, especially if they charged Manu last year in exactly the same circumstance. At the time the nrl argued it is the tacklers responsibility whether intentional or not

but as we’ve all said so many times, the nrl is inconsistent with every decision. Management on the fly

[ism22]

I sometimes think that the guilty plea, take the carry over points and play the weekend, often comes back to bite you later on. A small infringement at seasons end means the carry over points makes you miss a semi final. As happened to Latrell in the prelim final v Vermin last year.

Fair point. One tactic could be that even if you think you did it... you challenge it, cop the suspension and plead guilty when charged during the finals.

IMO it's a BS system.

[crikey chris]

These carry over points could cost us later in the season. Another minor charge added to this offence could mean Jarred misses important games.

Exactly.
Would rather Jared miss next week, than for some other minor charge around in the semis or origin time.
Going to the judiciary is a 50/50 call, especially with Sean Garlick on the panel. Our recent record is not too flash.

[Random Rooster]

So this is what i wrote the day before the Canberra game on another thread....

Im more concerned about the present. Every round im seeing crusher tackles that are a lot worse than the one Joseph Manu got cited for and subsequently his appeal denied. What i don't get is sometimes its deemed a penalty or sometimes a accident. Manu's crusher tackle was called by every commentator as being accidental and soft..... no one believed he would get cited.When he got cited no one believed the appeal would be turned down at the judiciary. Then i think back to Latrells appeal failing at the judiciary last year in the semi finals, Slater getting off at the judiciary....and somehow the judiciary letting Maloney off last week.

If im being paranoid/or one eyed someone tell me i am please! I think i trust Sean Garlick as much as the pigeon meat he puts in his pies


So can i ask you all again.....am i paranoid or one eyed??? I think JWH should go and fight the charge but its like sending a horse to the knackery.....you end up shot, chopped up and served in a Garlo's pie. The only "luck" we had was when Napa wasn't cited last year for his tackle on McCullough-but even then Jewberg complained he should have been.

[Arties Pie]

I say fight the charge and the club bring as much attention to the inconsistencies of the MRC to the media, if he sit's out the week so be it, as people here have stated better now rather than latter when it could really matter.

[The Lip]

So this is what i wrote the day before the Canberra game on another thread....

Im more concerned about the present. Every round im seeing crusher tackles that are a lot worse than the one Joseph Manu got cited for and subsequently his appeal denied. What i don't get is sometimes its deemed a penalty or sometimes a accident. Manu's crusher tackle was called by every commentator as being accidental and soft..... no one believed he would get cited.When he got cited no one believed the appeal would be turned down at the judiciary. Then i think back to Latrells appeal failing at the judiciary last year in the semi finals, Slater getting off at the judiciary....and somehow the judiciary letting Maloney off last week.

If im being paranoid/or one eyed someone tell me i am please! I think i trust Sean Garlick as much as the pigeon meat he puts in his pies


So can i ask you all again.....am i paranoid or one eyed??? I think JWH should go and fight the charge but its like sending a horse to the knackery.....you end up shot, chopped up and served in a Garlo's pie. The only "luck" we had was when Napa wasn't cited last year for his tackle on McCullough-but even then Jewberg complained he should have been.

“Jewberg” really

[RoosterChick]

If he fights the charge and loses he will miss a week and have more carry over points than if he takes the early guilty plea. That’s how it works. I’ve looked at the tackle a number of times and if he fights it I don’t like his chances.

[Rooster_6]

So this is what i wrote the day before the Canberra game on another thread....

Im more concerned about the present. Every round im seeing crusher tackles that are a lot worse than the one Joseph Manu got cited for and subsequently his appeal denied. What i don't get is sometimes its deemed a penalty or sometimes a accident. Manu's crusher tackle was called by every commentator as being accidental and soft..... no one believed he would get cited.When he got cited no one believed the appeal would be turned down at the judiciary. Then i think back to Latrells appeal failing at the judiciary last year in the semi finals, Slater getting off at the judiciary....and somehow the judiciary letting Maloney off last week.

If im being paranoid/or one eyed someone tell me i am please! I think i trust Sean Garlick as much as the pigeon meat he puts in his pies


So can i ask you all again.....am i paranoid or one eyed??? I think JWH should go and fight the charge but its like sending a horse to the knackery.....you end up shot, chopped up and served in a Garlo's pie. The only "luck" we had was when Napa wasn't cited last year for his tackle on McCullough-but even then Jewberg complained he should have been.

I think you are being a little paranoid. I think the inconsistencies around the crusher tackle rulings are coming from a lack of leadership. It hasn't been clearly defined what a crusher tackle is and it hasn't been clearly defined what constitutes an accidental crusher tackle that isn't worthy of suspension and a careless crusher tackle that is worthy of suspension.

It's another unfortunate side effect of clubs having wrestling coaches and trying to dominate the play the ball. But there are still those that are just unfortunate and have always been apart of a very rough game.

In the absence of leadership individuals will take it upon themselves to make decisions on their own beliefs and opinions and that's where the inconsistency is coming from, multiple individuals apllying their own interpretation. Unfortunately that also opens up the opportunity for individuals to act in their own self interest whether it's consciously or sub consciously.

So whilst Sean Garlick may hate the chooks and his opinion may be swayed on that because the game has allowed it to I don't think it's any more widespread than an individual or two just making bad calls, whether they have sinister intentions or not.

It's an easy fix... clarify the ruling on what is a crusher tackle and what players need to do to avoid it in the future and you'll go some way to fixing the issue.

[Random Rooster]

I think you are being a little paranoid. I think the inconsistencies around the crusher tackle rulings are coming from a lack of leadership. It hasn't been clearly defined what a crusher tackle is and it hasn't been clearly defined what constitutes an accidental crusher tackle that isn't worthy of suspension and a careless crusher tackle that is worthy of suspension.

It's another unfortunate side effect of clubs having wrestling coaches and trying to dominate the play the ball. But there are still those that are just unfortunate and have always been apart of a very rough game.

In the absence of leadership individuals will take it upon themselves to make decisions on their own beliefs and opinions and that's where the inconsistency is coming from, multiple individuals apllying their own interpretation. Unfortunately that also opens up the opportunity for individuals to act in their own self interest whether it's consciously or sub consciously.

So whilst Sean Garlick may hate the chooks and his opinion may be swayed on that because the game has allowed it to I don't think it's any more widespread than an individual or two just making bad calls, whether they have sinister intentions or not.

It's an easy fix... clarify the ruling on what is a crusher tackle and what players need to do to avoid it in the future and you'll go some way to fixing the issue.

Your probably right and i am paranoid......its just that Manu charge is what i couldn't get my head around. It was so obvious it was a accident as is a lot of the crusher tackles that are just penalised. Then to go to the judiciary and have the charge upheld was odd.....adding to my paranoia about Roosters poor record at facing the judiciary. Do you think that if that was JWH yanking at Batemans arm he would have got off at the judiciary.....or if Latrell would have been allowed to play in a GF if he shoulder charged like Slaters tackle on Feki in last years major semi? Oh oh my paranioa is back!

[RoosterChick]

Has anyone heard yet whether he took the early guilty plea?
nothing on the website yet.

[zac]

Has anyone heard yet whether he took the early guilty plea?
nothing on the website yet.

As you probably know already, he's taken the early guilty plea.

[fletch]

Has anyone heard yet whether he took the early guilty plea?
nothing on the website yet.

The Sydney Roosters have elected to enter an Early Guilty plea after Jared Waerea-Hargreaves was cited by the NRL Match Review Committee in Round 9.

Waerea-Hargreaves received a Grade 1 Dangerous Contact - Head/Neck charge for an incident that occurred in the 14th minute of the match on Canberra Raiders player Dunamis Lui.

With the Early Guilty Plea, he will be available for selection ahead of our Round 10 match against the Brisbane Broncos and hold 90 carry-over Points.