Before we go any further, I’m not going to argue that the NRL judiciary is crazy, inconsistent or that there needs to be an investigation. I’m not Geoff Toovey.
It takes 80 minutes at the end of a thirty-week NRL season to win a grand final. On Tuesday night at a NRL judiciary hearing, it took just 11 minutes for Issac Luke to be denied that chance through suspension.
We can debate the merits of his suspension all we like, and other Roar writers will do exactly that.
We need to recognise that removing a player from the chance to play in a grand final decider is far too harsh a penalty. Some simple facts reflect this. There is one NRL decider each year. Even the theoretical pinnacle of the game, State of Origin, comes with three bites at the cherry per season.
MORE NRL GRAND FINAL:
But quite apart from that, I’d be willing to bet the contents of my punting account that a poll of players would show that if given the choice between playing in a winning State of Origin team or winning a premiership, the majority would choose the premiership.
That’s why rubbing a player out of the game that decides that is an unfair and disproportionate penalty. But here’s the solution.
For grand finals, a suspended sentence should be available. This would work by handing down a suspension to the player, but allowing the guilty party to serve that suspension in a later game. Any other game but the grand final.
This would be available at the discretion of the judiciary, meaning some common sense options would be available to the panel. The NRL could also put some rules around that discretion. For example, a coward punch when their opponent wasn’t looking or intentional trip (cough, Josh Reynolds) would mean that the discretion would not be available to that player.
But for an unintentional high shot that bounced up off the ball or a lifting tackle that caused a player to fall awkwardly due to momentum, the panel could weigh up all the alternatives and hand down a suspended penalty.
This would be simple to implement, as there is already a grading system that players are charged with to determine the seriousness of their offence.
Our actual legal system has exactly this kind of discretion with sentencing built into it after hundreds of years of evolution and refinement for one reason – it makes good sense.
Unfortunately under the current NRL system, fans are robbed of seeing the best players playing in the biggest game of the season. Cameron Smith suffered the same fate a few years ago, changing what would have been an even match into a 40-0 thrashing.
Now a loyal one-club player who has played over 150 games will miss his team’s first chance to win a premiership in 43 years, a chance which he contributed to in a big way. And that doesn’t seem fair.
What’s your opinion Roarers? Is suspended sentencing a solution that the NRL should consider for the grand final or other big games?
Blackie
Guest
This is the rule. all I am saying is that it was arguable that the first part of SBW's body to make contact with the ground was LIKELY to be his shoulder. Luke gets off scott free and plays in the grand final! Dangerous throw If, in any tackle of, or contact with, an opponent that player is so lifted that he is placed in a position where it is likely that the first part of his body to make contact with the ground will be his head or neck (“the dangerous position”), then that tackle or contact will be deemed to be a dangerous throw unless, with the exercise of reasonable care, the dangerous position could not have been avoided.
Johnnyball
Guest
Use the judiciary's decision as motivation Souths
Ian
Guest
Never mind, if Burgess keeps up some of the stuff he does in the NRL he'll be getting a nice collection of red cards in English rugby.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Carry over points are there to reward players who do not commit offences. If carry over points were removed then the "points" for a penalty would need to be increased so that all offences would yield a week. They're only there to ensure that in cases like this, if the player has a clean record they don't have to meet a big game. Luke doesn't have a clean record so doesn't get off in this case.
Ian
Guest
Then he should have been more careful both with the previous offence/s and this one. Looking at the picture above, I'm suprised it was only a grade 1 .... it looked pretty dangerous, and Luke was fortunate SBW was agile enough to get himself into a relatively safe position. I have no sympathy for players getting rubbed out for big games for this sort of stuff. (there are other offences where I would be more sympathetic). If you didn't want carryover points to apply, the logical extension would be that suspensions based on the points system be rounded up rather than down. So 125 points becomes 2 weeks not one.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Haha finally a league fan that sees the madness behind articles like this
joister
Guest
and don't forget burgess got off last week for a high shot on sbw ... just that sbw showed some ticker in getting up
The Barry
Roar Guru
What about someone who gets four weeks in round 26? What about someone who gets 12 weeks in round 18?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Sorry Craig - but they were all such clear, concise and eloquent explanations that they all needed to be recognised.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Because some people are pants on head.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
can you say it again please ... :)
The Barry
Roar Guru
Coops - I don't necessarily disagree. There needs to be a lot more thought put into the unintended consequences and what ifs before that happens. Either way it's pointless applying it to Luke's situation. This unfortunately was the only decision that the judiciary could reach.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know why that simple explanation has been so difficult for so many to understand.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know why that simple explanation has been so difficult for so many to understand.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don't know why that simple explanation has been so difficult for so many to understand.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Chris, The rule says that if it's likely that the player could land on his head. With SBW coming down at beyond 45 degrees it is likely that he would have landed on his head. The only reason he didn't land on his head was that he raised his arm above his head to protect himself. A dangerous position is a dangerous tackle. Your playing semantics and not very well. I feel very, very sorry for Luke but there was never going to be a different outcome in this one.
Blackie
Guest
I have had a look at the rule. The misconduct is called a dangerous throw. The throw is dangerous if a player is placed in a dangerous position. The wording is important. A dangerous position is where a player is placed in a position where the LIKELY point of contact will be the head or neck. As I saw it SBW was LIKELY to impact the ground with his shoulder. If that was the case then he was not placed in a dangerous position. I do not know what Souths argued but they should have concentrated on the first LIKELY point of contact being the shoulder. The fact that his arm touched the ground first is only relevant in showing the angle of descent. A very disappointing result.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Reynolds didn't get off, he admitted guilt with no priors and argued for a downgrade (to a grade 1, same as Luke was charged with) and therefore wasn't suspended. Exactly the same as Luke would've been if not for his prior offences.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Jackson didn't actually perform a chicken wing, he might have had the arm caught but he didn't put enough pressure on it to take the shoulder beyond a natural range of motion -- thus why Starling was able to remain on the park and throw punches moments later. If you want to talk about an actual chicken wing, refer to George Burgess deliberately going after the shoulder of Steve Matai earlier this year.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Josh Reynolds got the charge downgraded to a grade 1 and pled guilty. He didn't have carry over points at the time.