Don’t judge Burns before NRL trial: Newton
Penrith five-eighth Travis Burns must now wait another week until he faces the music over his intentional high tackle charge at the NRL judiciary, and teammate Clint Newton understands his pain.
Back in 2004, while playing for Newcastle, Newton copped a massive 12-week suspension for striking St George Illawarra forward Ashton Sims flush in the head with a stray elbow.
South Sydney and Brisbane decided on Tuesday to challenge the grading of charges for their respective stars Greg Inglis and Ben Te’o at Wednesday night’s judiciary, while the Panthers pleaded not guilty to Burns’ intentional charge.
Penrith announced they had submitted a notice of preparedness to plead to a lesser charge of a reckless high tackle, however their hearing has been adjourned until the following Wednesday.
Although Burns is contracted to the Panthers for 2013, critics have speculated whether a maximum 15-week ban would spell the end of the 28-year-old journeyman’s NRL career.
Newton recalls being labelled a “coward” and a “dog” in the days leading up to his hearing in `04 and says from his experience, the hardest thing for Burns to deal with will be the feeling he’s being pre-judged.
“The media have to do their job and they have to report on the incident and everyone has an opinion … but I think sometimes (trial by media) can happen,” said Newton.
“I was in an unfortunate position where mine happened on a Friday night, in front of a million people. It didn’t look great. I said that at the time, but I still maintain it was an accident.
“I had five or six days before I got to the judiciary and then bang I was hit with 12 weeks.
“As I said in my hearing, I’ve got a duty of care, and my duty of care is to not do what I did, it was careless. But you shouldn’t be hung, drawn and quartered prior to the hearing.”
Although the Panthers were granted leave by NRL judiciary chairman Greg Woods on account of the seriousness of the charge, Burns is not eligible to play against Cronulla this weekend because he has accepted a three-match ban for a chicken wing tackle from the same game.
In regards to the separate high tackle charge, Newton said it was dangerous practice to try and judge what a player was thinking when foul play incidents are examined.
He advised Burns to block out other people’s opinions leading into the hearing.
“That was my biggest mistake. I went in thinking I might not get as long as I did, and came out going, `that’s not what I expected,’” he said.
“No one truly knows what’s going through that player’s head at the time.”
Inglis is disputing the severity of his grade four dangerous contact charge on Wednesday, where he’s facing four weeks on the sideline if unsuccessful.
Brisbane’s Te’o is seeking a downgrade on his grade two high tackle charge in a bid to play this weekend, while teammate Josh Hoffman took the early guilty plea on his dangerous contact charge and will miss a game.
© AAP 2013The Crowd Says (13) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Greg Inglis, NRL, Rugby League, Travis Burns

July 25th 2012 @ 10:25am
Damn Straight said | July 25th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Would love to know when Cameron Smith will be cited for the dodgy stuff he gets away with every week. I’m not saying Travis Burns doesn’t have a case to answer, but the length of suspension they are suggesting, makes an absolute mockery of this judicial system. On those numbers, Cam Smith should have had numerous lengthy spells on the sidelines. He should have been put on report for that leg twist in the Parramatta game last weekend. The guy, whilst being a great hooker, is a protected grub.
July 25th 2012 @ 11:02am
oikee said | July 25th 2012 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Poor old Burnzy. For the good of the game, the Gods ahve spoken, Burnzy, you are to be made a sacrifice, for all the sins of our game, our players, our lust for wanting to change what is a beautiful thing, and turn it ugly. Burnzy, you my friend will pay for the Cam Smiths, the Steve Matai’s, the Jared Wharea Hargraves, the Chicken wings the turtles and the drumsticks, you are the choosen child.
We, the Judy (judiscary, or one who is law unto themselves) have desided to act. And we found the perfect scapeg, whoopps person who is not playing by the rules, our rules, when and if we care to enforce them, act.
And we shall act, so the crowds, the fans, and maybe whoever it may cioncern, can see, we are a law to be reckoned with, did i say law. I meant panel, look your making me edgy now, lets just say that dont mess with us, or we rub you out for whatever we feel like that week.
Queenslanders, they get 5,
NSW, let them off with 2.
Kiwi, give him 5, they close enough to being queenslanders.
Where is he from, ? dont know, give him 5 for being hard to get.
July 25th 2012 @ 3:07pm
Mals said | July 25th 2012 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
Don’t forget Oikee, Travis Burns played a few seasons at Manly. Worth a life ban eh?
July 25th 2012 @ 12:28pm
Hoy said | July 25th 2012 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
15 weeks is a massive call. I read it would make Burns the third highest ban handed out in recent times.
The grubs fighting last year from Manly and Storm weren’t given anything remotely close to this. 15 weeks? It was not a good tackle by any stretch of the imagination, but the difference in length of ban from 15 weeks for that, to the general 3-4 weeks for others is massive.
What are they basing that difference on?
July 25th 2012 @ 12:40pm
eagleJack said | July 25th 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
You do realise it’s for 2 separate incidents right?
If he took the early plea on BOTH incidents it would only be 12 weeks.
July 25th 2012 @ 3:57pm
Hoy said | July 25th 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I had forgotten that, you are correct.
But looking at it, they are going for a 9 week ban if he pleads guilty early, for a grade 3 high shot. If he pleads not guilty, and loses, it is 12 weeks. So he gets 3 weeks for the Chicken Wing, and 9 weeks for the high shot. Who decides the 9 weeks? It just seems so much higher.
I know it is international rules, but Steve Matai only got a two game ban in 2007 after being sent off against Australia. It was apparently not a higher penalty due to his shoulder hitting Gasnier high, not his arm, but still, a big difference between being sent off and getting 2 weeks for a late high shot, than being sent off and getting 9 weeks for a high shot. Of course time has passed since Matai’s shot as well.
I have said before, I don’t know why you can’t fight the charge without fear of a higher penalty. This isn’t a law court where you please guilty early because you realise you shouldn’t have punched a bloke. I don’t understand the loading on being found guilty if you fight a charge. Because the way these things play out recently, there is no rhyme or reason to the charges, or penalties given out. So if you disagree, why shouldn’t you be allowed to fight it, without fear of losing?
If for nothing else, but to get some clarification on the thought process.
Anyway… no excuses for his tackle, but I just want to say it is a lot higher penalty that I have heard for a long time.
July 25th 2012 @ 4:52pm
Damn Straight said | July 25th 2012 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Very true. It really highlights the lack of consistency with the NRL judicial system, which really undermines what the judiciary is put there to do.
July 25th 2012 @ 5:52pm
Tony Archers Maroon Underwear said | July 25th 2012 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Sadly for him hes guilty and deserves the 9 weeks, if you don’t want to be suspended for weeks dont smash people in the head and try to wrench peoples arms of in the same game.
Perspective – if he’d done it on the street he’d be looking at a criminal charge
July 26th 2012 @ 12:03am
Tony Archers Maroon Underwear said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:03am | Report comment
There you go 3 weeks and a speedboat polish
Gentlemen start your engines as it is now time to go the head, as it has officially been condoned by the games administration.
Coaches should pay attention to this, all you need is an 80min backrower, a fit front row and then you can add an interchange player prepared to make their mark by putting their shoulder into somebody’s skull. If you can make that victim a key playmaker all the better.
Sure you’ll get an anoying three match suspension, but hey you’ll be on the radar with some sweet publicity and blokes you never met like Talis saying ‘hes a good kid’ and ‘its part of the game’ etc.
Well done NRL. Shots to the head are now OK. Hey why not bring back the spear tackle as well, it to looks great on tele you could even organise a first player to cripple some one gets a 2 weeks suspension in Noosa and a free Jet Ski competition!
July 26th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Gareth said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I know Travis Burns is a little grub with plenty of priors, but I just don’t get how his tackle is worse than Inglis’. Inglis ran, full pace at a bloke who was otherwise held in a tackle and put his shoulder square into his chin. I highly doubt he was aiming high, but he still went in with the intent to smash Dean Young as hard as he could. Travis Burns back pedalled slightly, jumped up and hit Kennedy with a swinging arm – the impact being midway down his forearm.
So what’s the magical element that makes this nearly 6 times worse in the eyes of the MRC/judiciary? Intent? If that’s the case, how is it any different to Michael Jennings punching Brent Tate in the back of the head? Or Jeremy Smith punching Jarrod Wallace in the head as he came in to make a tackle? I’m all for ignoring punches thrown in a fight, but if you’ve got a bloke deliberately striking an opponent who is completely unaware, I fail to see how that’s any different to an “intentional high tackle” from Burns.
Or if we’re going back a bit, what about Timana Tahu’s last Eels game against the Knights? Or Joel Reddy’s elbow on Terry Campese a few years back? Or Billy Slater’s elbow to the back of Jarryd Hayne’s neck after the infamous “headbutt that wasn’t”.
I don’t like Travis Burns, but I just don’t understand what he’s done to justify such a harsh punishment in a climate of lenience. The moral to me seems to be “don’t be a fringe first grader, or you’ll pay the price.”
July 26th 2012 @ 2:25pm
oikee said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Burnz jumped and went for the head. Are you sure you watxch our game. Nobody is allowed to intentionally go for the head. Burnz did, Inglis was accidental, and in any court of law in the land, you could never sue Inglis for intent, it was a accident.
Burnz on the other hand will have the book thrown at him because he did the worst thing you could ever do, close your eyes, turn your head sideways and go in for the kill, just like a white pointer.
Yes it seems life is not fair sometimes, but Burnzy got caught.
When we catch one, we really throw the book at them, hang them out to dry. teach him a lesson no one will ever forget, for the good of the game lets Quarter him and hang him out to dry on every corner post in Australia. What else can we do to him.
Lets have a blog on what we can do to Burnz to punish him.
I hope Matai goes high so we can hang him out as well, he will.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:27pm
tonysalerno said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
An over the top excuse for a grade.
Burns should not be risking 17 weeks for his head-high tackle and chicken wing.
Since Burns waits until next week for his hearing does that mean he is free to play this weekend?
July 28th 2012 @ 5:34pm
Damn Straight said | July 28th 2012 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Doubt it Tony…the 3 week chicken wing suspension would be effective immediately.