A bitterly disappointed Anthony Watmough says he’ll cop his four-game ban on the chin after failing to win a downgrade of his dangerous lifting charge at the NRL judiciary on Thursday.
The Manly and NSW back-rower will miss the final State of Origin clash in Brisbane on July 9 and the Sea Eagles’ encounters against Cronulla this Saturday in addition to meetings with the Sydney Roosters, Canterbury and the Wests Tigers.
The three-man panel of Don McKinnon, Paul Whatuira and Bob Lindner took less than 10 minutes to uphold the grading after Watmough was put on report for lifting Queensland prop Nate Myles into a dangerous position in Wednesday’s Origin II clash at ANZ Stadium.
“We thought we had a fair crack but it wasn’t to be,” Watmough said.
“It’s disappointing not just to miss games for Manly but also the Origin game.
“It was great to make a bit of history with the boys and it would have been good to go up there and win 3-0.
“We got a good hearing. I didn’t go into the tackle with any intent. I would never do that.
“It was one of those incidents that looked ugly and I’ll take it and move on.”
Watmough’s counsel Nick Ghabar argued that the incident, which also initially involved James Tamou merited a downgrade because Myles only fell to the ground after the prop released him while the back-rower held him around the legs.
He used an example of Penrith’s Adam Docker, who was hit with a grade-one charge for a lifting tackle on Canterbury’s James Graham after the ball had been played in round three this year.
However, Peter Kite for the NRL claimed successfully that Watmough had driven Myles towards the ground and, although he landed on his arm first, was unable to prevent himself from putting pressure on his neck and head as he fell.
Watmough will return to action for Manly against St George Illawarra in round 19.
Andrea
Guest
I hope that the powers that be are waiting for the beginning of next season to enforce harsher penalties for the spear tackle. They've screwed up a few times this year. Bowed down to media pressure on the McLean incident and forgot about those same issues so other players seemed to get off scot free. It's a pathetic system when they don't even follow their own rules... The rule states that any player that is lifted and tilted past the horizontal is put in a dangerous position. I think they have forgotten the "past the horizontal". The NRL's duty of care is to their players and they are sadly lacking in that department. Will it take another Alex McKinnon for the NRL to wizen up, or a big law suit with intense media scrutiny? I love watching this sport but I detest the inconsistency of the NRL judiciary. If they lift past the horizontal it should be an automatic 3 weeks, extra if they land dangerously. No ifs, buts, or maybes.We don't need it in the game and that would very quickly stamp it out.
Gappy
Guest
WQ Reynolds didn't drive Tate into the ground and Tate landed on his back. All this factors are taken into the ruling. Just like EJ and MyGen are trying to say
WQ
Guest
How on earth was Watmough's any worse than Reynolds tackle? My point here is why all the BS, either get real about lifting tackles or just admit that they only really give a s**t when somebody gets seriously injured!!!
eagleJack
Guest
Explain to me how Watmough being out for 4 weeks suits my team? Again the only similarity is that the tackled player was lifted. So you are suggesting they ban lifting all together which may need to be the path the NRL must take. But that isn't the case now. The judiciary's hands are tied by the inconsistency of the MRC. In the Reynolds incident they used video evidence of several lifting tackles in the Manly v Melbourne game that not only didn't garner a grading, but didn't even get a penalty on the night. A Grade 1 was sufficient for that incident based on video evidence. Perhaps they need to wipe the slate clean and only rule on incidents from this point on? But that isn't how the MRC and judiciary work. The implication that it is some sort of conspiracy is embarrassing from our friends up north
WQ
Guest
eagleJack and MyGenration, if you cannot see the similarity in the tackles and the absolute joke that the NRL are making of the whole lifting tackle issue, I can only believe it is because the decisions suited an outcome that you wanted for your Team. That's ok I understand how you feel, I just hope that nobody else has to get their neck broken before they start to take this seriously!
Joel
Guest
EJ, if you don't know what is termed as a "dangerous position", how can you begin to contest my argument? You can not make a judgement on a ruling? A rule is a rule. And the rule states that any player that is lifted and tilted past the horizontal is put in a dangerous position. I didn't make that rule up, the NRL did. You can make a judgement on an area where maybe a rule can not apply to a situation, and that is what a judiciary is for. Though for the judiciary, any argument that takes place after the player was put in a dangerous position is not applicable to the case. Maybe this clarifies my previous statement for you.
Sir Jamie Lyon
Guest
So Reynolds with the series in the balance cops nothing for a worse tackle but now the series is ours old watmough cops a month. Straight Bs the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing seriously.
eagleJack
Guest
That would mean lifting would have to be banned completely. Which it currently is not. We are making judgement based on the current rules in place, and the differences in rulings between the MRC and the judiciary. Namely the inconsistencies in the gradings set by the MRC which often leaves the judiciary with little choice but to downgrade when presented with video evidence. Nothing to do with state or club bias, sorry Joel. But I'm sure the Federal Govt would love to hear from you.
Joel
Guest
The risk is putting the player in a dangerous position, it is not the action that follows, this is were the rule lies. You mitigate the dangers by not putting the player in a dangerous position, not the actions taken after the player is put into a dangerous positions because like every tackle now has 2 defenders in the tackle it is unpredictable of any action taken by one player. This has always been the case. Anything that a blues supporter says in contrary to the before mentioned is to mislead the conversation and the rulings to justify an obvious unbalance judiciary system for their own advantage. They are comments that lead to the resultant injuries caused and are therefore somewhat responsible. I think supporters in a move to clean up the game need to make a formal complaint to the Federal government to start an inquiry.
Clark
Guest
This makes it all that more strange that Josh Reynolds got off.
MyGeneration
Roar Guru
Agree 99% eagleJack. But my disappointment is balanced slightly by the thought that Choc could use the rest to get rid of maybe 32 or 33 of his 45 niggling injuries! As for the tackles, they really were chalk and cheese, the main difference being that Watmough continued to drive Myles into the ground after he was put into danger. Reynolds did no such thing. Once again, Manly fan speaking here.
eagleJack
Guest
The two tackles were completely different. Only similarity was that Tate was put in a dangerous position. But he landed on his back. Myles actually had pressure applied to both his head and neck when he came into contact with the ground. A fair result. But bitterly disappointed as a Manly fan.
eagleJack
Guest
The severity of the injury has always played a significant part in determining the length of sentence. Just like in every judicial process in society Watmough got 4 weeks. Is that not more than 3?
WQ
Guest
Just another farcical decision by the NRL judiciary! Now that Origin is a dead rubber we will suspend somebody for a lifting tackle that was just the same as the one that they chose to ignore 3 weeks ago by Reynolds!!
Silver Sovereign
Guest
If they are serious about getting rid of lifting and spear tackles, the penalties have to get serious like the McLean one. Obviously we now know poor Jordan only got such a lengthy suspension because the NRL succumbed to the media and legal pressures after the neck injury. The Tate and Myles tackles in both games should have got the tacklers at least 3 weeks off