Souths fury at Inglis’ three match NRL ban
Related coverage
A furious South Sydney contingent stormed out of Rugby League Central without making comment after Greg Inglis was banned for three matches by the NRL judiciary on Wednesday.
Inglis was attempting to get his grade four dangerous contact charge reduced to a grade two following his shoulder charge on St George Illawarra lock Dean Young on Saturday.
However, the three-man panel of Michael Buettner, Chris McKenna and Mal Cochrane took just over 10 minutes to rule that the incident deserved a grade three punishment, ruling Inglis out until round 24 when Souths take on Cronulla.
Souths’ counsel Nick Ghabar argued that Inglis’ challenge was not worthy of such a high grading and used video footage of incidents involving Brisbane’s Ben Te’o and Canterbury’s Sam Kasiano that received grade two and grade one charges respectively.
Ghabar said Te’o's shot on Wests Tigers’ prop Matt Groat in round six and Kasiano’s on Gold Coast’s Luke O’Dwyer in round 10 were worse than Inglis’, which saw Young leave the game on a medicab at ANZ Stadium.
He argued that Young was running in a sideways direction across the field looking for support and was side-on when Inglis initially ran towards him, and subsequently did not straighten in time to absorb the challenge.
“Player Inglis is bracing for impact, there is no arm in the air, his feet are not off the ground and the aim of the tackle is attack the ball,” he said.
“But the parameters changed in two-tenths of a second and it was careless but not reckless.”
“There needs to be a far higher level of recklessness for a grade four.”
“That charge is so far out of the ballpark it’s not true.”
Peter Kite, for the NRL, argued that with the height difference between the two players and the fact Inglis attempted to hit above the ball carried a significant risk to Young.
“Player Inglis is 195cm and player Young 184cm and he remained upright,” Kite said.
“The only conclusion that can be reached is that Inglis is making contact high.
“It was marginal tackle and hitting above the ball carries a risk and players have a duty to minimise the risk.
“Young does not have a duty to protect his head and Inglis should have foreseen the risk. It was not careless, it was reckless.”
In a long summing up, judiciary chairman Greg Woods urged the panel to disregard “unhelpful” comments made about the incident during the week from coaches and players.
He also said rugby league was “not gladiatorial and not cage fighting,” before asking the panel to make their decision.
Inglis, who was supported by a large contingent that included coach Michael Maguire, chief executive Shane Richardson, left the building without commenting after the verdict.
However, he Tweeted: “Thanks every1 for all your support .. unlucky result, got handed three weeks better than five weeks on the sidelines.”
Earlier Te’o appeared for the second time this season where he successfully had his careless tackle on Gold Coast’s Luke Bailey reduced to a grade one offence.
He now avoids a one-match ban and will be free to face Parramatta at Suncorp Stadium on Monday.
![]()
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Greg Inglis, NRL, Rugby League, South Sydney Rabbitohs


July 26th 2012 @ 3:15am
Gremlin said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:15am | Report comment
Just because they madw no comment dosn’t nessacerily mean they are furious. It would have been dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t. Sometomes it just better to say nothing.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:30am
Boydy said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
The reason they kept their mouths shut was so that everyone couldn’t hear them laughing. It was a dog act and he’s just lucky he didn’t get the rest of the season and they know it. If that had been Frank Pritchard or Clint Newton or any other non so-called “superstar” of the game they would have got three times that suspension. It not just the bad standard of refereeing that turning people away from the game it’s the inconsistencies all round, refs, video refs, judiciary, the works!
One set of rules for some clubs and players and another set for the others.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:16am
steve b said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:16am | Report comment
No consistency by the judiciary or the refs this year ,,Ingliss was lucky this time …
July 26th 2012 @ 6:41am
Gremlin said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:41am | Report comment
Steve, agree with you on the connsistancy of officials. Can’t belive Cam Smith didn’t even get cited after Blair got a week, MRC must have ducked out to grab another beer when reviewing this match.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:16am
Luke M said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:16am | Report comment
C.Smith is a koala bear. Can’t have the Aussie Captain look bad can we?
Double standards at its finest. He may be a great footballer but he has a definite dark side to his game and is an obvious sore loser.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:47am
The Barry said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Why is it inconsistent ?
Three weeks is about right compared to other incidents this season. Pritchard and Te’o got one and two weeks respectively for their shoulder charges and Inglis’ hit was worse than theirs.
Tony Williams got seven weeks for a tackle that was far, far more dangerous.
The three weeks suspension puts this tackle right where it should be.
Let’s not blow things out of proportion, this was not a career ending injury. Dean Young has been named to play this week.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:24am
steve b said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:24am | Report comment
The Barry i don’t how you determine the degree of far more dangerous ,,, is it because young can play this week ,and if he couldn;t would that suggest it was as dangerous,,it was just luck was on Youngs side and he didn;t end up with serious injuryI ..I stand by my comment we have seen a lot less get a lot more and visa versa ,,,no consistancy !!!
July 27th 2012 @ 1:36pm
The Barry said | July 27th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Good point steve b, mine was a subjective call – it’s my opinion that spear tackles are more dangerous than shoulder charges. I read your story recently so accept that you probably have a vastly different view.
If I did a risk matrix of likelihood vs consequence then spear tackles would rate much higher than shoulder charges.
Like it or not injury definitely comes into consideration when suspensions are handed out – particularly for high shots, shoulder charges and punches. You can put your house on the fact that if Inglis had broke Youngs jaw then he would be looking at much longer on the sidelines.
By consistency I mean that Vatuvei got no time for his shoulder charge on a falling Willie Tonga, Pritchard got one week for his hit on Simmons, Te’o got two for his hit on Groat and Inglis three for his shot on Young.
My opinion again – but those are suspensions are consistent in terms of the worse tackles got longer suspensions. You may argue that all three should have got longer suspensions but I’m not sure you can say they’re inconsistent.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:17am
apaway said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The Barry
Didn’t the Sharks player Williams tackled play the following week too?
July 26th 2012 @ 9:28am
eagleJack said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Actually apaway De Gois played the rest of the game against Manly. He wasn’t injured in the slightest. He landed on his backside.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:32am
getoverit said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
i’m no lawyer and the judiciary is only quasi-legal but doesn’t woods direction to the panel that “This is not a cage fight” constitute bias and a prejudging of the circumstances? is it any wonder the nrl judiciary is widely regarded as inconsistent and by extension, biased?
July 26th 2012 @ 8:03am
DingoBob said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
So Te’o got one week for a second offence in the same season but GI gets 3. It doesn’t really make sense.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:34am
eagleJack said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
The 3 weeks for Inglis is spot on.
But I have an issue with Te’o being free to play. In my opinion if you are charged for a 2nd time in a season it should be an automatic week. If the NRL are serious about reducing head contact in the game then they must have a big deterrent, especially for repeat offenders. Kasiano was charged with a second offence this year but had the 2nd charge dropped so I have no problem with him being free to play (although I’m guessing he now wishes he took the week!). But the current points system obviously isn’t working if a player can front the judiciary for a high shot for a 2nd time in a season, not have either charge dropped, yet not miss a game.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:19am
apaway said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
3 weeks for that tackle is lenient.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:17am
Luke M said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:17am | Report comment
The MRC look like idiots with all these downgrades.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:39am
Pot Stirrer said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I think moving forward that any contact made to a players head with either an accidental head clash or shoulder as in the ingliss case by a player in attempting a shoulder charge in the refs opinion should be an automatic 4 weeks regardless of any other circumstances.
as for the refs i think any front on collision where they are not using there arms in making a tackle should be the guideline.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:46am
Ian Whitchurch said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Three weeks is slightly lenient.
Two would have been an injustice – Greg Inglis and the Bunnies got off lightly.
If you’re a big bloke going at a little bloke, go in lower.
Carna Rabbits,