Latrell – 6 Week Suspension

[King Salvo]

Charged with a grade 2 high tackle reckless - 500 points - Grade 1 is 400 points and a Grade 3 is 600 points - no loading for prior similar offence and 4 non similar offences - 20% each

Even a down grade to a grade 1 - 400 points would be 720 points with the 4 x 20% non similar offence loading - 25% early please discount - 540 points - so 5 games

Who was the Vermin player running the ball back from the kick off who turned side on and lead with the shoulder striking Thomas in the head and ending his night - why was this not put in report and the player charged - other way around the defender would be on report/ maybe sin binned or sent off and charged by the MRC

[roosterchook]

Annesley on 2GB at 1pm.

https://omny.fm/shows/triple-m-rocks...tchell-high-ta

[King Salvo]

Without loading it would’ve been a 3 week suspension which I think is soft. Probably should’ve been a grade 3 reckless but I reckon they probably knew he had lots of loading and factored that in.

I also don’t understand how his “dangerous contact with the head/neck” are considered non-similar offences. The MRC process makes no sense to me. Surely his elbow to Nofaluma’s head after he had passed the ball is a similar offence to what happened last night?

Different offence as per the NRL Judiciary code- needs to be a similar offence/ charge - Has no previous Reckless High Tackle charge last 2 years- Dangerous Contact - Head /Neck only

Dangerous contact -head or neck - Grade 1 $1500 fine or 100 points / Grade 2 - 300 points / Grade 3 - 500 points

Reckless High Tackle - Grade 1 - 400 Points / Grade 2 - 500 points / Grade 3 - 600 points

I thought he may get charged with a grade 2 Dangerous Contact - Head or Neck as a minimum as he has one previous similar offence

Would have been 300 x 50% loading - 450 points plus 4 x 20% loading's for non similar offences - 240 - 1 of the non similar offences dropped off as he would have had 5 otherwise

450 +240

690 points less early plea 25%(172.50)

517.50 - 5 games and 17 carryover points

[Johnny73]

And if you drive into that pedestrian by accident, do you then start abusing them and challenge them for a fight while half their face is hanging off ? since its an accident and you didn't mean it and all that ?

Exactly, logical absurdity.

[King Salvo]

I am hoping they fight it.

Even if they are successful in a downgrade it will be 5 games - reckless high tackle grade 1 is 400 points / Grade 2 is 500 points

I would assume they would be arguing it was an incorrect charge myself - most likely going through video for similar offences and charges as we speak.

[zac]

6 weeks is good enough. loading's bs - the offence deserved about 6 - 9 weejs

[BUDDY]

Even if they are successful in a downgrade it will be 5 games - reckless high tackle grade 1 is 400 points / Grade 2 is 500 points

I would assume they would be arguing it was an incorrect charge myself - most likely going through video for similar offences and charges as we speak.

I'm hoping they fight it because they can't possibly win and the pr!ck gets the 9 weeks he deserves.

[roosterproud]

Charged with a grade 2 high tackle reckless - 500 points - Grade 1 is 400 points and a Grade 3 is 600 points - no loading for prior similar offence and 4 non similar offences - 20% each

Even a down grade to a grade 1 - 400 points would be 720 points with the 4 x 20% non similar offence loading - 25% early please discount - 540 points - so 5 games

Who was the Vermin player running the ball back from the kick off who turned side on and lead with the shoulder striking Thomas in the head and ending his night - why was this not put in report and the player charged - other way around the defender would be on report/ maybe sin binned or sent off and charged by he MRC

the reason no one was put on report for that was the defending players (where nearly all concussions occur) are not covered under the new concussion law. protect the ball runner and nothing to the head except if its roosters. the games fukked

[crikey chris]

Because he was NOT sent off, 12 game ban should of been the judiciary decision

[rented tracksuit]

I'm okay with 6 weeks to be honest. I think that's a fair suspension and I doubt anyone could argue he deserved less

No but we can certainly argue he deserves more.

[rented tracksuit]

He'll need to move to front row after the ban

He wouldn’t dare. He would have to face up to some real hard men there.

[player 1]

This from Warren Smith, whose commentary I've always liked. I agree with the highlighted text particularly:

“I think it’s fair to say, had the bunker and the referee got the Mitchell high tackle punishment correct, none of the c**p that’s happened since would have occurred. None of the officials from this game should be involved in the finals.

“Remember, it was only a few weeks ago that the Mitchell tackle on Manu would have been an automatic send-off. The crackdown was a four week farce, and what has happened since proves it.

“The game has been turned inside-out over the past 12 months with so many rule changes and interpretation twists that the fans don’t know what’s happening and neither do in-game officials.

“We’ve gone from the bunker not knowing how to react sufficiently to foul play, to the NRL’s massive over-reaction for four weeks until they couldn’t stand the criticism anymore, and now back to wherever the hell we are now. The officials are lost, and so is the game.”

[rented tracksuit]

He'll have to challenge the charge, but has ZERO chance of success, so will cop the 9 weeks.

That'll likely be 4 weeks for this year and the first five rounds next year.

Good riddance.

They won’t make 4 weeks this year. Next week then gooorrrn in straight sets in the finals. Fark em.

[Cyril Snodgrass III]

The Letters on Mitchell's Souths jumper say it all....TCL..........Totally Crass Lout