After an early guilty plea for a shoulder charge on Justin Hodges, North Queensland forward Tariq Sims was hit with 525 penalty points. Every 100 points cost one game.
If the Cowboys win their next two matches he misses out on a semi-final, a preliminary final, and a grand final, and two games for his new side – Newcastle – next year.
If the Cowboys lose this weekend, Sims misses one game for the Cowboys and four for Newcastle next year.
For Sims, 200 points could be worth a preliminary final and a grand final for the club he made his first grade debut with, or Rounds 1 and 2 of the regular season with a new club.
During the State of Origin period Josh Reynolds faced the possibility of missing the second game for a dangerous throw on Brent Tate in game one.
He told media at the time, “I don’t even want to think about missing Game 2. I’ll truly be devastated.”
The charge was eventually downgraded, and Reynolds was cleared to play.
Reynolds would also have missed a club game , however I didn’t see any media releases or interviews where he complained about missing that. Reynolds placed a higher value on the Origin game than the club game, and I would suggest every player in league who isn’t Jamie Lyon would feel the same way.
There would have been enormous pressure on the judiciary panel from the NSWRL to downgrade the charge on Reynolds, and many thought he got off lightly.
So why not acknowledge the value of games to players when sentencing them? I don’t know what the perfect value system would be, but surely some games are worth more than 100 points.
Perhaps make rep and finals games worth 200 points, and if the player gets somewhere in between 100 and 200 they miss the next regular season game? It could also take some pressure off the judiciary before big games.
What do you think Roarers? I feel like players already play State of Origin as if there are different rules, would the finals become the same if players thought they could get away with more?
The Barry
Guest
Oh well...looks like Sims will be missing for the knights next year.
The Barry
Guest
I think forget careless, reckless,etc. You can't judge intent so just make them grade 1, 2 & 3. We don't need 15 layers of charges.
Fairy fairfax
Roar Rookie
The referee has to actually see the incident, and therein lies the problem. The touchies are failing to do their job because they,like all officials are terrified of the consequences of taking decisions, and I don't blame them. My point is to cut the dross around the point system and de-mystify the demerit point system.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Have to disagree. To misquote Animal Farm, some games are more equal than others. No, they should all be treated the same whether they are SOO, tests, finals or normal club games.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
This is the problem. What is a grade 2 dangerous throw or a grade three shoulder charge. Were they careless, reckless or deliberate?
cedric
Guest
my argument is why can't the refs give the decision right away, like Sims immediatley gets 10 minutes in the bin or sent off; when this happens, at the time of the incident, then the aggeived team can get some compensation for the incident, instead of the team only getting a penalty. And maybe later the judicary gives Sims some more time off? If the player is not sent or binned there and then, next week the player is suspended, WHO BENEFITED, probibly the next team playing the aggreived!
Joe McGrath
Roar Rookie
I'd argue that my logic is applied to speeding tickets. My suggestion isn't to change the role of the officer (/referee) at all, they still give out the same ticket (penalty + on report), it's the role/punishment of the court (judiciary) I'm talking about changing. In fact, should your licence be suspended you can go to court and argue that your licence is in fact more "special" than someone else's. In my student days I had to do court reports, and one of the most common things I saw was people arguing that their licence was more important, e.g they needed it for work or they lived too far from public transport, so a 3 or 6 month ban would disproportionately affect them, compared to the average licence holder. Same principle here, the next 3 matches could disproportionately affect Sims as he could miss games that the average player values more highly than 3 regular season matches. In this example the driver would usually then never have to serve their suspension though, which isn't quite what I'm arguing for... A more accurate example from the real world could be someone serving a prison sentence who is allowed to leave prison for a day for a funeral. That day is valued as being significantly more "special" for the prisoner than the average day, therefore they are allowed out of the prison for the day. I don't know exactly how those things work but if they get an extra day tacked on the end of their sentence, that's pretty similar to what I'd suggest the judiciary adopt. I understand it's not exactly the same because if the prisoner is deemed too dangerous/their crime is considered too bad to release them, I'm sure the funeral day they miss out on wouldn't count as two days served.
peeeko
Guest
i think its got some merit especially around origin.
Fairy fairfax
Roar Rookie
Add what I said to what you said and the way is getting clearer.
The Barry
Guest
Exactly. So the reasoning of the judiciary is inconsistent is a furphy.
steveng
Roar Rookie
Sims's shoulder charge was a low act and he definitely did that on purpose to take Hodges out because Hodges was the main playmaker for the Broncos and was making an impact on the game and maybe he would have won it for them. The shoulder charge was late, it was on purpose and that is why it was punished so severely. The Cowboys should have contested the charged and maybe it would have been reduced to 2-3 weeks, but why didn't they?
LexTeeS
Guest
Maybe because they know as well as everyone else that it's a lottery. But then so are the downgrades. Perhaps a secondary appeal process would help. Between the confusion of the initial grading compared to previous cases, loading for an unrelated offense, extra weeks for unsuccessful hearings, considering whether the player while be missing any important games. Add just about anything on to this list and we will all forget what we are arguing about.... Problem solved. We could then happily get on with watching a great weekend of footy!!
Jay C
Roar Guru
Don't allow penalties to be downgraded at a judiciary. Have a panel make the call on Tuesday morning and that is the punishment. Why give teams an avenue to argue? Have a spine, make the decision, and enforce it. Probably why players think it is ok to argue with officials on the field, because they are allowed to at the tribunal. It's just a silly attempt to keep NRL in the new cycle midweek, but it is always negative. No matter the verdict half the people will be upset. Dumb.
The Barry
Guest
This logic is back to front. The penalty (ie the number of points) remains exactly the same. There is no change to the process at all. There is no reduction in sentence based on the circumstances.
LexTeeS
Guest
Looks like I will be the first one to point out the elephant in the room. The judiciary already do acknowledge it. It just depends which side you play for whether you get a downgrade, or in Tariq's cause an upgrade. I wonder whether it possibly matters who you committed the offense against also. I whole heartedly stand by my very first point on this matter. If he was due to be lining up for the blues next week his punishment would have been 5-7 pats on the back for sorting out that serial pest Hodges. God it was a stupid tackle though given the circumstances.
Don
Roar Rookie
The Cowboys didn't fight it because a downgrade still demands 2-3 weeks suspension. There was no way he was going to get off completely and that was the only way he could play again. Given he was going to be out for the rest of the finals anyway, why would the Cowboys waste their efforts and have a disrupted week just to enable Tariq Sims play more games for Newcastle next year? The talk about not arguing the charge because of no confidence in the judiciary, whilst being a reasonable statement, is really all just "spin" to plaster over the fact the club saw no benefit in defending it.
Monday's Expert
Guest
I like it
Monday's Expert
Guest
Particularly given that failure to get it downgraded had no effect on them. They should have had a crack.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
I don't agree but if this was to happen then surely points awarded for, say, a high tackle in a SOO would be higher than for the same high tackle in a club game. swings and roundabouts I think adelaideWill nailed the lack of logiuc in this
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
One of the biggest complaints that NRL fans have is the lack of consistency in rulings, on the field, at the judiciary, etc. So a solution is to create inconsistent rulings? Judiciaries are designed to fill the role of the courts in general society. All things are considered equal in society.