By Melissa Woods
October 1st 2008 @ 3:05am
Get a Roar profile
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
I’ve been made a scapegoat, says Smith
Melbourne skipper Cameron Smith today admitted the two-game suspension which has rubbed him out of Sunday’s NRL grand final was deserved, but said he still felt like he’d been made a scapegoat.
More league
Inglis says he’s ready to turn it on
Lyon is driven by premiership dream
Souths look long-term as they embark on Perth
The Storm hooker described missing the ANZ Stadium match-up with Manly as the most disappointing experience of his career as he called for answers as to why similar grapple tackles to the one he committed on Brisbane backrower Sam Thaiday had gone unpunished.
“The most disappointing thing for me was that I was charged for a tackle that I believe, and the club believes, has happened prior to my offence and nothing happened to it,” Smith said.
“In saying that, I’m happy to cop the two weeks.
“It’s in the rules that it’s illegal, but we just want some clarification there as to why there was nothing else done about it before that.
“I accept that my hand was in the wrong place but there had been tackles two weeks leading up to that game that were quite similar to that and nothing was done about it.”
There is no denying the NRL sent out a clear message that it was serious about eradicating the grapple tackle from the game with Smith’s suspension.
Not only is Smith the current Test and Queensland captain and reigning Golden Boot player of the year, but the fact the two-match ban covers the NRL grand final means is carries extra significance.
“It probably has,” Smith said when asked if his suspension made a statement.
“… but I’d like to think that there shouldn’t be any extra pressure on making a decision on myself.
“I’d like to think I’m as equal as any other player in the competition.
“If it’s good enough to suspend myself, than why not anyone else?”
Coach Craig Bellamy used his post-match press conference after Friday night’s preliminary final win over Cronulla to attack the media, the NRL and the judiciary over the Smith suspension, a stand reiterated by Melbourne chief executive Brian Waldron.
It resulted in the Storm being issued with a $50,000 fine, NRL chief executive David Gallop adamant the integrity of the game could not be called into question.
Former Canterbury premiership-winning skipper Steve Mortimer said the Storm had every right to feel aggrieved.
“To be quite truthful I can understand how the Storm boys felt,” Mortimer said today.
“It’s not that I support them but I can understand them blurting things out because it was a trial by media in the early part after that game when they played the Broncos … I think Cameron Smith was hung out to dry.”
Smith, who trained with his Storm teammates today despite his playing ban, said Bellamy let his emotions get the better of him but he didn’t feel similar anger.
“There’s no anger at all,” Smith said.
“Obviously there’s been a lot of talk about this issue and the coach and CEO came out after the game last week and things probably got a bit out of hand, they went a bit further than what they wanted to.
“Craig runs high on his emotions and probably let it get away from him in there and there was quite a big build-up to that.
“He was quite angry all week at what happened, that was probably the message he didn’t get across well enough, that he wanted an answer.”
Smith said he was trying to stay positive and help his teammates in his quest for back-to-back titles as best he could.
“It’s obviously the most disappointing thing I’ve ever experienced in my career and probably my life so far but at the end of the day if this is the worst thing that happens to me I’m going to have a charmed life.”
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(26)
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write and one them was (notice the past tense): 'Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan...'
Loading ...
Rabbitz said | October 1st 2008 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Awww geez, but they did it first Mum. Harden Up Sook. If you want to “push the limits” of the rules, occasionally you will get slapped. Even if it is pathetic rule, it is still a rule and you were well aware of it. Stop snivelling and get over it by counting the ridiculous amount of money you get paid.
sheek said | October 1st 2008 @ 8:57am | Report comment
C’mon Rabbitz,
We’ve done this to death. Smith acknowledges the tackle was illegal, & he deserved to be suspended.
That’s assuming the system is consistent, which it ain’t And that’s the gripe. Had the NRL been consistent against the grapple tackle all year, then no problem, all’s fair.
However, the NRL has sat on its hands for most of the year, only to get aroused 2 weeks out from the GF. For many of us, whether Smith deserved to be suspended isn’t the issue.
It’s the dereliction of duty by the NRL, being asleep on their watch. If it’s okay for them to hand out suspensions whenever & however they feel like it, it’s a shame they don’t put themselves in the out-house for a year!
Maybe it’s the Irish in me, but had I been Waldron & Bellamy, I would have taken the NRL to court for inconsistency & failing to administer their own policies & procedures. Why should they get off scot-free.
sledgeross said | October 1st 2008 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Good luck with your court case Sheek. I find it humorous that you “charged” the NRL with “failing to administer its own policies and procedures”. The laws of the game (specifically Section 15 “Players Misconduct”, 1 (a) states that a player is guilty of misconduct if ‘when effecting or attempting a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly”. Cam Smith was charged with contrary conduct, with the 2 week suspension occuring mainly due to the fact that Smith pleaded guilty to a similar charge earlier in the year, and had some of the dreaded “carry over points”.
The “evidence” put forward by Melbourne showing other “grapple” tackles can, at face value, look to be inconsistent. However, Smith was charged because he attacked or “reefed” the head/neck of Sam Thaiday rather than merely wrapping his arms around the neck. The judiciary was quite specific in its judgement, and complied with the laws of the game.
If you are a Melbourne fan, I can understand the calls for more consistency, but since when did we ever have a level at any tribunal in sport that was satisfactory for everyone involved. It wont ever happen, because people teams are ruled by self interest and bias. What the Storm dont realise is that when you are the best team in the comp, their will be more interest in thinags that affect your team. If it was Joe Picker in round 3 being suspended, noone would bat an eyelid.
oikee said | October 1st 2008 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Smith had all year to clean up his act, unfortunately he got caught, its like a prankster that always gets away with pratical jokes and then you try it and get caught. Smithy has been doing grapples all year if you watched him closely, this time he went to far and the camera’s picked it up, i still blame the N.R.L for not doing something earlier but the players were warned, so a punishment has been dealt out and now he is crying, good leason learnt all round and it should be cleaned up properly next year, 2 refs will sort it out real fast. Speed the game up even more to boot.
oikee said | October 1st 2008 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Storm still will win even without smith.
sheek said | October 1st 2008 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Sledgeross,
You obviously haven’t read my post in full. It’s a shame the NRL didn’t apply consistency across the board. Funny how they suddenly get vigilant around finals time.
And no, I’m not a Storm fan. In fact, their tackling style has aggravated me at times during the season. Had the NRL dealt with it as they went along, then Cameron Smith might actually be playing this weekend. But I do believe Smith is a wonderful ornament for rugby league.
And league isn’t my favourite football code, although I enjoy the game, especially the finals.
Your last paragraph is correct, but that doesn’t mean we should do nothing about the lack of consistency. How hard is it to say, “this is what you can do, & this is what you can’t do”? End of story. First offence - ‘x’ weeks; second offence - ‘xx’ weeks, & so on.
Bugger this plea bargaining system, & points accumulation, that’s American crap. And if I was on the judiciary I wouldn’t accept “unintentional” & “carelessness” as excuses. I didn’t come down in the last shower. Poor self-discipline might wear different clothes, but it’s the same animal.
And I would ban lawyers. Since when does being defended by a Queen’s Counsel make football so important? Surely, QC’s have far greater humanitarian issues to consider? Or is it merely their bank balance?
Consistency. Let players know the crime & punishment is the same, whether committed in the 1st round, mid-season or preliminary final. END OF RANT!
Ahhh, better now……….
sledgeross said | October 1st 2008 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Agree with everything you have added Sheek.
I would add though that the grapple tackle is not defined in the laws of the game, it is a media construct that is alluded to in the law I mentioned previously. The judiciary has to decide whether the degree of the contact to the head/neck is classified as misconduct or not, and of course that leads to ambiguity.
Having said that, Smith did quite clearly attack the head of an opponent, and also pleaded guilty to the same charge earlier this year. Melbourne have no right to complain too much, as their have been plenty of other people who have been suspended this year with harsher consequences.
Hoy said | October 1st 2008 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I might be a bit off here, but I also wonder at the inability of the NRL to be questioned. Where is their accountability in all of this if they can’t be questioned openly?
Coaches can’t question referees, obviously can’t question the process of the judiciary (even though I know they went too far in saying there was corruption) etc.
I also agree with Sheek. Get rid of points etc. Ban the bloke, if he does the same thing a second time, ban him more. Each offence should just have a timeframe for it’s punishment. Then maybe they could argue extenuating circumstances.
People complain that sending a man off for 10 or even the game ruins the game, but maybe that is a better system. What would they prefer? A game of 12 vs 13, or the ref putting people on report for bad tackles all game? Going on report doesn’t affect the team/player in that current game, so the attacking team gets a possibly concussed player and a penalty advantage. Not much advantage for a supposedly bad shot on the head.
For a bad head high, send off either for 10 or the game. Once clubs start losing players in games and then possibly losing games as a direct result, things might change. Then again, maybe not.
LK said | October 1st 2008 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
What is wrong with the Storm??? They have spent the last two weeks whineing. Why don’t they just get on with the footy? This guy and Bellyache are the worst offenders. They make Wayne Bennett seem like a happy-go-lucky guy. Smith has behaved like a world class sook not the Aust capt. I hate Manly but I hope the Eagles destroy the whingers in the GF.
Skull said | October 1st 2008 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
As far as I’m concerned I agree with Provan and Summons who said basically the only solution to this mess is a rule change prohibiting more than 2 in a tackle. You usually find its the 3rd bloke coming in that does the grappling, although not in Smith’s case. Any contact with the head, whether accidental or not should be penalised and this will be easier to pick up if only 2 tacklers are allowed to be involved. Whilst I’m at it I would also allow stripping the ball back in if there are only 2 tacklers.
This solution would have the immediate effect of getting rid of prowler type tackles as well and would likely result in speedier play the balls, which unfortuately would probabably lead to even more dummy half running.
Nicholas said | October 1st 2008 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Dear Cam Smith,
The quicker you shut your mouth the quicker your suspension will expire.
Furthermore, the quicker you have a shave and the quicker you treat a) your opponents b) all ajudicating officials and c) your own team mates with some REAL respect, the longer it willl be before your next suspension for pushing the limits of the law - WHICH - mind you, YOU ARE NOT ABOVE!!
Sit in the corner, cop it and pull your socks up. It is idiots like you who make professional sports-people look terrible and make any aspiring newcomer to your industry turn away from it out of fear of becoming an arrogant half-wit in the eyes of the community.
Hoy said | October 1st 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
All these rules though. The two man tackle will end up like the one on one ball strip. I can’t see how the two man tackle rule will work. It would be very hard to police.
The game has changed, and not necessarily for the better. The game can never go back from all this wrestling going on.
Skull, people are complaining about the style of 4 dummy half runners and a kick in the game now. The only way to stop dummy half runners is maybe like a touch footy rule, where if the dummy half is caught, then a hand over or something.
oikee said | October 1st 2008 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
And if you think that i am going to watch a game where there is penaties for being the 3rd man in evey game then Norm and Summons need there heads read. They wine now because the game is getting too many penalties, we dont have to worry about all this crap if we had 2 refs, one to police ruck the other standing on the 10. Wait untill we see this and what becomes of it before we all get 2 carried away. The game looks good except for one or 2 tackles that are a bit suss, but apart from that why would anyone want to have a tackle ruling, gee whiz, i thought the game was getting better from what i have seen over the last 5 years.
LK loved that Bennett comment.
And yes the storm are going on abit to much about this one ruling, probably trying to sell some papers, nothing else to talk about, any scandals out there please report them to news so they have got something to write about.
oikee said | October 1st 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
And one more thing, have alook at smithy, hes no angel, put a 666 on his forehead and he could get apart in the next damien movie.
Nicholas said | October 1st 2008 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
haha - yes oikee, they probably are trying to sell more papers - after all, the are the “Filthly Wrestling News Ltd Owned Storm” according to one Sydney blogger…
skull said | October 1st 2008 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Thats good 2 refs, = twice the incompetence
skull said | October 1st 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
So Oikee I take it you are happy with all the wrestling involved. As for 2 refs see my comment above can you imagine anything worse than 2 Bill Harrigans controlling a game. There would be no room for anyone else on the field.
cosmos forever said | October 1st 2008 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
If the NRL was consistent the Smith wouldn’t have played more than about three games this season. He continually slows the play of the ball, throws forward passes and attacks the head of the opponent.
Agreed there are plenty of others who could have been done as well but he has absolutely no credibility on trying the ‘I’m a scapegoat’ routine.
Sledge - the ‘this isn’t actually against the rules’ is bunk. It’s a blight and a danger and rules were developed to be applied as required. You aren’t Phil Gould are you?
People who think tackles like this shouldn’t be against the rules simply haven’t pulled on the boots for many many years…and never took the punishment and potential consequences Thaiday was placed under in that tackle.
Where does the Smith attitude come from - the coach. It breaks my heart to have a go at a former Raider like this, but Bellamy has slipped from ‘respected passionate’ coach to blubbering, paranoid freak this season. I look forward to seeing he and Waldron defend themselves to the libel charges the judiciary will announce after the grand final!
westy said | October 1st 2008 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
One of Warren Ryan contributors suggested a simple solution…..any three man tackle does not count in the tackle count.
A self enforcing mechanism……….really up to the defensive team……..
sledgeross said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Cosmos, dont insult me! I never said it was against the rules mate, I was merely pointing out that there is no such charge as a “grapple tackle”, its classified as misconduct (refer to my earlier post regarding law section 15), so there is some ambiguity in the whole process. What I was saying that Smith clearly (as per the rules) attacked the head/neck of an opponent while effecting a tackle. Its a simple, open and shut case. Guilty.
cosmos forever said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
My sincere apologies for the slight Sledgie
Root of this problem - Robert Finch as coach of the refs - useless. Refs - inconsistent application of the laws. Review panel - no courage to cite consistently and continually until the thing is stamped out. Players and coaches - for pretending they don’t do it and in the process undermining the integrity of the game.
I haven’t been less interested in a grand final in years. Two ugly step-sisters and no Cinderella!
sledgeross said | October 2nd 2008 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
No probs mate, I thought Tom Learoyd was harshly done by with his throwing charge as well!
tuppo said | October 2nd 2008 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
wondeful paper is the rugby league week 1 / 10 / 2008 edition plenty of interesting articles until i reached paged 56 and glory be my eyes must be deceiving me but there it was in full color Jason King And Brett Kite with a full grapple tackle around the neck of warrior Ian Henderson who evidently was not enjoying it, as mush i looked i could not see where either had been reported or suspended it was good enough for cam smith to be suspended but the inconsistency of the tribunal borders on ridiculous,why weren’t these players reported and suspended if Gallop the tribunal and the NRl are to be believed or does this rule only apply to Storm players
cosmos forever said | October 2nd 2008 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
and as i now have to say again - if the tribunal was consistent Storm wouldn’t be able to field a team this weekend Tuppo
sheek said | October 2nd 2008 @ 11:44pm | Report comment
Cosmos,
Correction. If the tribunal had been consistent, the Storm wouldn’t have been able to field a team by about round 6 or 7. Not the grand final. The Storm would have heeded the message before the half way mark in home & aways.
I rest my case!
sledgeross said | October 3rd 2008 @ 8:55am | Report comment
So, what is a grapple tackle Tuppo???