The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Watmough decision shows the judiciary's consistent inconsistency

Watmough dumps Myles during Origin Game 2 (Image via Channel Nine)
Roar Guru
21st June, 2014
25

Anthony Watmough’s four-week suspension is a sure sign that the NRL is cracking down on dangerous tackles…or is it?

The tackle seems like further evidence of inconsistency and the lack of coordination between NRL policymakers and the various individuals in the judiciary.

The Jordan McLean on Alex McKinnnon decision, which was seven weeks, is completely inconsistent with other dangerous throw cases. The Josh Reynolds on Brent Tate decision – no weeks – and now Origin 2’s Watmough on Nate Myles decision are just some examples of the lottery that players face when charged.

However, one important thing to note is that the judiciary is not always composed of the same panel judges. Maybe consistency can be found in this mess by looking at each hearing and decision in terms of the members of those judiciaries.

This shocking inconsistency could lead to the framing of new betting markets. I bet eyes are lighting up all over the SportsBet office after reading this great idea! Surely a ‘numbers man’ can discover some correlations between ‘Garlick-Vella’ decisions and ‘Bob McKinnon-Lindner’ decisions.

Finally, a Tuesday night revenue stream to fill the void!

There is one downside we should consider – maybe individual judiciary members could be unduly influenced by parties seeking to benefit from their decisions and decisions would stop being based on the on-field events. Nah, that’s probably too far-fetched…

But the average punter (or the informed punter for that matter) has no chance whatsoever predicting judiciary rulings. While the bookmakers might like to get a slice of the judiciary betting pie, there is a good chance that the results are too unpredictable for them to get involved.