MRC At It Again - Verrills Suspended

[King Salvo]

This is a direct quote from Michael Robertson (head of MRC): “Some of the indicators we always look for are force to the head, risk of injury and whether the contact was direct.”

The worry for me is that somehow the people in charge don’t understand that all three of those things are directly related. The more direct the contact to the head is the greater the force to the head will be. The greater the force to the head the greater the risk of injury. All three are directly correlated yet these are the three things that they’re looking at separately??

The other issue that this highlights in my opinion is how the measures of “carelessness” used by the MRC panel are not actually related to the level of care taken by the player in question.

The actual amount of force in the collision may have nothing to do with how much care was taken. The Verrills tackle is the perfect example. Verrills has to set himself for a tackle around the ball and Kelly’s level drops too quickly for him to adjust. A lack of care in the tackle has not been the cause of the direct contact, amount of force and risk of injury. A lack of care would be evident if it was Verrills movements that caused the contact and amount of force, but it was clearly Kelly’s and for the most part out of the control of Verrills.

My point is that their judgements will be inherently flawed if they continue to look towards indicators that aren’t directly related to the level of care or recklessness in the tackle. It seems to me that while the people in these positions may be competent with the process involved they clearly are not expected to fully educate themselves (this is the NRL’s responsibility) around concepts related to physics and human processing. I know they are ex-footy players but if they are incapable of doing the job well then why are they in the job at all. It just seems to me like we’ve set too low a standard when it comes to some officials and decision-makers in the game.

If no injury to Kelly ( Broken Nose) it would have been grade 1 and a fine for Verrills i would say

Force to the head - subjective at best to know what the level of force was- also the size and strength of the player comes into the equation too as say Walker and Nelson Asofa- Solomoa commit a similar high tackle with the same level of force - Walker's skinny arm would do less damage compared to Nelson Asofa-Soloma arm.

Risk of Injury - is a grey area and very subjective as any hit to the head there is a risk of injury

Contact was direct - also a grey area as it seems to me there is no mitigating circumstances i.e arm hitting the shoulder then the head which by definition is not direct contact - direct contact i assume is the defenders arm hitting the ball carrier in the head without firstly hitting some other part of the ball carriers body i.e shoulder in this example

To make a complaint to the NRL - feedback@nrl.com.au OR

Mailing Address

National Rugby League Ltd
Rugby League Central
Driver Avenue, Moore Park NSW 2021

Locked Bag 5000
Paddington, NSW 2021

[barryd]

This is a direct quote from Michael Robertson (head of MRC): “Some of the indicators we always look for are force to the head, risk of injury and whether the contact was direct.”

The worry for me is that somehow the people in charge don’t understand that all three of those things are directly related. The more direct the contact to the head is the greater the force to the head will be. The greater the force to the head the greater the risk of injury. All three are directly correlated yet these are the three things that they’re looking at separately??

The other issue that this highlights in my opinion is how the measures of “carelessness” used by the MRC panel are not actually related to the level of care taken by the player in question.

The actual amount of force in the collision may have nothing to do with how much care was taken. The Verrills tackle is the perfect example. Verrills has to set himself for a tackle around the ball and Kelly’s level drops too quickly for him to adjust. A lack of care in the tackle has not been the cause of the direct contact, amount of force and risk of injury. A lack of care would be evident if it was Verrills movements that caused the contact and amount of force, but it was clearly Kelly’s and for the most part out of the control of Verrills.

My point is that their judgements will be inherently flawed if they continue to look towards indicators that aren’t directly related to the level of care or recklessness in the tackle. It seems to me that while the people in these positions may be competent with the process involved they clearly are not expected to fully educate themselves (this is the NRL’s responsibility) around concepts related to physics and human processing. I know they are ex-footy players but if they are incapable of doing the job well then why are they in the job at all. It just seems to me like we’ve set too low a standard when it comes to some officials and decision-makers in the game.

The first indicator they look for is force to the head. I thought it would be easily argued that the force came from his head and Sam was standing his ground.
After seeing it again last night, as someone else suggested, it looked like he hit near Sams collarbone.

[Johnny73]

If no injury to Kelly ( Broken Nose) it would have been grade 1 and a fine for Verrills i would say

Force to the head - subjective at best to know what the level of force was- also the size and strength of the player comes into the equation too as say Walker and Nelson Asofa- Solomoa commit a similar high tackle with the same level of force - Walker's skinny arm would do less damage compared to Nelson Asofa-Soloma arm.

Risk of Injury - is a grey area and very subjective as any hit to the head there is a risk of injury

Contact was direct - also a grey area as it seems to me there is no mitigating circumstances i.e arm hitting the shoulder then the head which by definition is not direct contact - direct contact i assume is the defenders arm hitting the ball carrier in the head without firstly hitting some other part of the ball carriers body i.e shoulder in this example

To make a complaint to the NRL - feedback@nrl.com.au OR

Mailing Address

National Rugby League Ltd
Rugby League Central
Driver Avenue, Moore Park NSW 2021

Locked Bag 5000
Paddington, NSW 2021

Send it registered mail. That way they need to sign for it. It means they got it. Even if it goes in the garbage.

[Spirit of 66]

This is a direct quote from Michael Robertson (head of MRC): “Some of the indicators we always look for are force to the head, risk of injury and whether the contact was direct.”

The worry for me is that somehow the people in charge don’t understand that all three of those things are directly related. The more direct the contact to the head is the greater the force to the head will be. The greater the force to the head the greater the risk of injury. All three are directly correlated yet these are the three things that they’re looking at separately??

The other issue that this highlights in my opinion is how the measures of “carelessness” used by the MRC panel are not actually related to the level of care taken by the player in question.

The actual amount of force in the collision may have nothing to do with how much care was taken. The Verrills tackle is the perfect example. Verrills has to set himself for a tackle around the ball and Kelly’s level drops too quickly for him to adjust. A lack of care in the tackle has not been the cause of the direct contact, amount of force and risk of injury. A lack of care would be evident if it was Verrills movements that caused the contact and amount of force, but it was clearly Kelly’s and for the most part out of the control of Verrills.

My point is that their judgements will be inherently flawed if they continue to look towards indicators that aren’t directly related to the level of care or recklessness in the tackle. It seems to me that while the people in these positions may be competent with the process involved they clearly are not expected to fully educate themselves (this is the NRL’s responsibility) around concepts related to physics and human processing. I know they are ex-footy players but if they are incapable of doing the job well then why are they in the job at all. It just seems to me like we’ve set too low a standard when it comes to some officials and decision-makers in the game.

Intelligently argued. Unfortunately, the MRC and the judiciary have proven themselves to be not interested in intelligent arguments.

[Spirit of 66]

So, 2 weeks for Sam, a player who has never received a caution in his career and whose suspension was the result of him standing in the wrong spot, and 6 weeks for Latrell, a serial offender who launched himself like a missile at a player's head. Seems the NRL still has some work to do to fit the punishments to the crimes.

[Rooster90]

This is a direct quote from Michael Robertson (head of MRC): “Some of the indicators we always look for are force to the head, risk of injury and whether the contact was direct.”

The worry for me is that somehow the people in charge don’t understand that all three of those things are directly related. The more direct the contact to the head is the greater the force to the head will be. The greater the force to the head the greater the risk of injury. All three are directly correlated yet these are the three things that they’re looking at separately??

The other issue that this highlights in my opinion is how the measures of “carelessness” used by the MRC panel are not actually related to the level of care taken by the player in question.

The actual amount of force in the collision may have nothing to do with how much care was taken. The Verrills tackle is the perfect example. Verrills has to set himself for a tackle around the ball and Kelly’s level drops too quickly for him to adjust. A lack of care in the tackle has not been the cause of the direct contact, amount of force and risk of injury. A lack of care would be evident if it was Verrills movements that caused the contact and amount of force, but it was clearly Kelly’s and for the most part out of the control of Verrills.

My point is that their judgements will be inherently flawed if they continue to look towards indicators that aren’t directly related to the level of care or recklessness in the tackle. It seems to me that while the people in these positions may be competent with the process involved they clearly are not expected to fully educate themselves (this is the NRL’s responsibility) around concepts related to physics and human processing. I know they are ex-footy players but if they are incapable of doing the job well then why are they in the job at all. It just seems to me like we’ve set too low a standard when it comes to some officials and decision-makers in the game.

As in ex Manly winger and premiership winner Michael Robertson?

I see no issue here....

[roostermcgregor]

Don't you find something amazing in all the commentary after the Verrills decision?
Every commentator & ex- player is in disbelief as to how Verrill's got two weeks.
But the Judiciary is actually run by ex- players.
How can they come to this conclusion, when every other ex- player comes up with the opposite result?
Something is not right, and not as it seems.
It is about time that the Judiciary is run by ex- players and has its salaries paid by the players association.
That is , the judicary makes decisions for the betterment of the game, for the benefit of players, and is only answerable to the organisation that represents the players.
That way, we get fair, unbiased decisions made, for the enhancement of the game.
The stupid and ludicrous decisions for Verrills, and even Slater (2018) highlight the ridiculousness of the current system, and those cases outline a directive from above decides the fate of players - not a fair hearing.

[gragra]

The personnel who make up the MRC and judiciary need a complete overhaul. That Michael Robertson, ex Many player, adjudicating on a Rooster player before a big game is just plain wrong. Even if there was no intentional bias, the underlying look is bad. Those bodies need at least 5 or 7 on the panel, and perhaps have a couple of commentators on the panel. They could be chosen from a pool selected by the players representatives . That he MRC and judiciary can have such arbitrary and inconsistent findings to what the majority of the league followers see is breathtaking. The panel discussion at the judiciary could be televised as an event and the voting and discussion transparent for all to see.

[zac]

the normal argument is that it's good to have ex-players on the judiciary cos they know the game so i don't know what happened on tuesday

[Spirit of 66]

How can they come to this conclusion, when every other ex- player comes up with the opposite result?
Something is not right, and not as it seems.

The SMH indicated that the NRL (presumably Anusley) had announced to the world that Verrills should have been sin binned. The MRC took this lead and registered a charge that was in keeping with Anusley's assessment. The pseudo-court that is the judiciary had no choice to confirm this.

Absolutely nobody (except that vermin idiot who comes here now and then) thinks Verrills deserved a suspension.

[roostermcgregor]

"Originally posted by Spirit of 66


The pseudo-court that is the judiciary had no choice to confirm this.




My point exactly.
If the judiciary is a pseudo- court, what is the point of having it, anyway?

[ROC181]

No I'm Evil

Well I haven’t seen you get evil for a while. Either you’re dropping your bundle or just getting on…Get with it son!

[ROC181]

The thing I dont get - amongst all of it really, starting with the 3 blokes who have no legal quals pretending to be real judges ? - is that you get punished for defending the punishment ! An extra week for his judiciary efforts is circus music stuff

They are more like a jury, I think because it’s not like they hand out the punishment. They say guilty or not guilty though I could be wrong. Is the Manly guy from the MRC or the Judiciary? Either way that con artist came out on the SMH trying to explain the difference between Verrills and Paulos tackle. It was a lot of ‘hogwash’!


Amazing how 1. They can be so wrong according to all the media and still double down on their decision and 2. How there is no appeal process. If they get it wrong, tough!

Considering the importance at this time of the year, these matters should be better scrutinised to make sure that they don’t make a wrong decision and disadvantage a player and club…The other unfortunate thing is that Sam now has a record and next time he will cop a higher charge. The same thing happened to Angus after shoving Kelly in the Broncos game which started a procession of suspensions. It’s all BS!

[chopstiks]

They are more like a jury, I think because it’s not like they hand out the punishment. They say guilty or not guilty though I could be wrong. Is the Manly guy from the MRC or the Judiciary? Either way that con artist came out on the SMH trying to explain the difference between Verrills and Paulos tackle. It was a lot of ‘hogwash’!


Amazing how 1. They can be so wrong according to all the media and still double down on their decision and 2. How there is no appeal process. If they get it wrong, tough!

Considering the importance at this time of the year, these matters should be better scrutinised to make sure that they don’t make a wrong decision and disadvantage a player and club…The other unfortunate thing is that Sam now has a record and next time he will cop a higher charge. The same thing happened to Angus after shoving Kelly in the Broncos game which started a procession of suspensions. It’s all BS!

I'm still dirty about that Kelly push fiasco

I dunno mate about the manly bloke, all I know is they're like the bunker - conditioned to say No , itching to find No Try reasons, looking for ways to disagree with a judiciary defence

You're right about the process, a law unto themselves with no accountability. That tool anusley wheels himself out like a politician. Comparing tackles is part of the spin. I dont care about Paulo getting banned, it still makes Sams punishment a joke.
The media are mostly no use, they all have their buddies and allegiances. NRL HQ too busy selling 300 dollar GF tickets so they can book guy Sebastian and tell us how great this season is through all the adversity and let's thank the people of Queensland arent they wonderful for keeping our game afloat. they don't care !