If Justin Hodges doesn’t beat the dangerous throw charge at the judiciary then he must take the matter to court so he can play.
I remember the first time I really heard about Justin Hodges. He was the new wunderkind at the Broncos star factory.
However, the reason I was hearing about him wasn’t because of his superb play on the field, it was because the 17-year-old had done the unthinkable and signed to play with the Sydney Roosters. He hadn’t just forsaken the team, he’d turned his back on Wayne Bennett who had provided special attention to the kid from Cairns.
So put out was Uncle Wayne that the young Hodges was dropped to the Toowoomba Clydesdales for the Remainder of the season.
Even from down south I inexplicably felt a feeling of dislike for Hodges because of this desertion. I say inexplicably because it was the first time that I could remember that the behemoth Broncos had lost or not got a player they’d really wanted. Greg Inglis is the only other one that comes to mind.
However poorly justified, I didn’t like him.
Then he went to the Roosters. For three seasons they made the grand final. Then in 2004 things got shaky for Hodges at the Roosters and coach Ricky Stuart dropped him to reserve grade for a period.
He shortly afterward went and saw Wayne Bennett and asked if he could come home. Bennett and Hodges sorted their issues out and the prodigal son was welcomed back.
I still didn’t like him. When I watched him he was always mouthy and niggling. He always wore that obnoxious look on his face as well.
That never changed for his whole career. When his schadenfreude gave rise to him giving Ryan Hoffman a patronising pat on the head following the latter making a crucial error during Origin 1 this year, the New South Welshman firmly explained to Hodges what a douchebag he was. Everyone raced in thinking it was going to be push and shove. But it wasn’t.
Ryan was just telling Hodges directly and calmly what a tool he thought he was. Notably ex-Storm comrades Cam Smith and Cooper Cronk didn’t try too hard to stop Hoffman from conveying that message to their Queenslander team mate.
Hodges may be a great bloke, he may be a total tool. Most probably he’s somewhere in the middle like most of us are. From the sidelines I can only speculate on his true character. I don’t know him.
However, I know he is a gun player. His performance at fullback in the 2006 grand final, just for example, must have been a struck match off getting the Clive Churchill medal.
This season as captain of the Broncos he has been fantastic. He has the third most try assists for the Broncos behind Hunt and Milford and has brought a calm leadership to the side that I didn’t think he had in him.
He has been injury prone over his career, doing knees, shoulders and most recently his Achilles’ tendon.
Perhaps that time off is why he’s still able to play at the age of 33, but in spite of those multiple layoffs he has played 297 games for club, state and country – and three for the Indigenous All Stars.
But 297 is where his story now seems destined to stop.
Referee Matt Cecchin put him on report for turning Aidan Guerra onto his melon in the 57th minute of the preliminary final against the Roosters.
Hodges had carry over points and the match review committee adjudged it a grade one dangerous throw. It all added up to a measly one-game ban.
Here’s the thing: the Broncos wouldn’t even bother fighting this suspension if it was costing Hodges any other match than a grand final appearance. Just like the Raiders inexplicably didn’t fight the suspension that Jack Wighton got for what looked to most like a great tackle on Jamie Soward in Round 25 – if it was just a home-and-away match they’d probably wear it.
But this is a grand final.
And it isn’t just a grand final, it’s also Hodges’ last game. Is this how it should end?
Perhaps it is karma for being an apparent jerk. Given my sentiments above you’d think that I would be fine with that.
But I’m not. Not at all.
I want Hodges to play. For a starter, just from a spectacle point of view, the first all Queensland grand final needs the boy from Cairns to play. If he’s out of the side there will be a giant hole for the Cowboys to target. If he plays he’s a giant problem for the Cows.
Secondly, for a player to be suspended for a grand final I want to see an offence that really warrants it. Like the Lomax head high on Billy Moore in the 1994 preliminary final or – for the AFL fans out there – the Anthony Rocca elbow in the 2003 preliminary final against Port Adelaide. Both justified suspension from such a huge match.
Hodges’ tackle doesn’t.
Hopefully the judiciary will see reason and point out that a) the leg lift he performed was nowhere near enough on its own to turn Guerra on his head and that b) Hunt’s effort on Guerra’s top half was actually the reason for the result – and he certainly didn’t lift.
That would be the best result: not guilty, free to play.
However, should Hodges be unsuccessful in fighting the ban there is a precedent for how he could still play.
The Dunkley precedent.
In 1996 Andrew Dunkley was playing in a preliminary final for the Sydney Swans against the Essendon Bombers at the SCG. The Swans won the match by one point with Tony Lockett famously scoring a point after the final siren from 65 metres out.
The problem for Dunkley is that he was charged with striking Essendon’s James Hird and the key defender was unsuccessful at beating the charge at the judiciary.
What the Swans did next should – and I’ll bet will – be the model for the Broncos to follow should Hodges lose at the judiciary.
The Swans took the matter to the Supreme Court claiming procedural unfairness. In the delay to have the case heard Dunkley was free to play. Innocent until proven guilty.
It is now history that Wayne Carey towelled up Dunkley and the Swans lost. But Dunkley played.
If Hodges fails at the judiciary I’ll be stunned if the Broncos don’t do the same thing to make sure he plays.
And I think they should.
The Hodges story needs to end on the field, not at the judiciary.
And this grand final needs the obnoxious tool to play, even if it means going to court to make sure it happens.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
It looked like a rule was broken but in fact, it wasn't. The referee, in real time, thought there was more to it and refers to the MRC who thought, since Guerra goes beyond horizontal and Hodges' hand is in connection with Guerra's foot, that Hodges may have a case to answer. The judiciary then allows for a more indepth analysis of the offence which subsequently shows Hodges not guilty of the original charge. Where is the problem here?
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
1. Based on minimal evidence, the ref penalised Hodges and puts him on report for the MRC to check out 2. The MRC sees Gueraa going over parallel and, given the current climate on going past horizontal, sends Hodges to the judicary. 3. The judiciary allows evidence for and against to be presented and is satisified that Hodges is in fact innocent. Three different levels of 'legal proceedings' all fulfilling their legal roles. Where is the problem?
Broadly Speaking
Guest
Mate, if you were a NRL referee why don't you give us your name to check your credentials and the amount of games you refereed (and when) seeing as though you question the intelligence and credentials of the "Guyus" and others here. Looking at your comments, it appears that you have biases (Bulldogs/Broncos/Bennett) and if you used similar tone and sarcasm when addressing players, you would be very disliked and would not have earned the respect that other referees do. I would have expected NRL referees to have better communication skills and an open attitude toward alternative opinions and never resorting to condescending comments . Actually, you appear vindictive and I would like to see replays of your games to observe your refereeing style and reactions from players. Maybe we could see if you have been involved in any judiciary decisions that resulted in players being exonerated AFTER being penalised, put on report and a MRC referral.... Now that Hodges has been cleared, what happens to your "Black and White" world???? What happens now that the MRC and Judiciary are (in reality) not the same even though "they live in each others pockets"!!!!. What happens to your belief that the "MRC IS THE JURY" now that their view that Hodgey was guilty, and after the grey areas were explored, the Judiciary made a black and white decision that he is, in fact, NOT guilty!!!!.... BTW if you believe that there is no grey when making decisions in law/rules, why believe that the media and fairy tales would have an influence on all panel members making judicial decisions. Really?? Three people changing their minds because of TV, printed or internet stories!!!! Three ex-players wanting Hodges to play in his 5th Grand Final (already winning 2) or play one last game!?!? Now that is reaching deep into some grey areas....... I suspect we will never hear from TS again or be able to verify his claim he is actually a former NRL referee....
Broadly Speaking
Guest
I had to wait until after the verdict and I still cannot understand what TS was talking about........ 1) The ref found Hodgey guilty of lifting in a tackle, based on the facts as he saw them, and penalised him.... 2) The match review committee accused him of lifting in a tackle and ordered him to appear before the judiciary, based on the facts as they saw them.... 3) The judiciary weighed up all the evidence and decided that Hodgey was NOT guilty of lifting in a tackle, based on the facts as they saw them.... Well there is a HUGE GREY AREA somewhere if he supposed to miss a week because the MRC, the match referee and a former NRL says he's guilty (based on the facts as they saw them), yet the judiciary says otherwise...... I don't have to be a former NRL referee to understand that this is a reality in judicial processes (either in park footy, the NRL or the High Court of Aus)!!!!
Paul
Guest
That is rather annoying that autocorrect chose that moment to mess up. *Wrong on all counts as per usual, given I’m English...
Paul
Guest
Wrong on all counts as per usual, giving I'm English and my team is Hull FC lol. I'm just someone who likes rugby league and who doesn't care for stupid people making unintelligent comments. And by that I mean you, just to make that crystal clear.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Chris - Hodges cleared to play. Judiciary found that he played no role in putting Guerra in a dangerous position. Took them 10 minutes. come on you can do it...
The Barry
Roar Guru
TS Hodges has just been cleared to play. The judiciary found he played no part in Guerra being placed in a dangerous position. It took them only 10 minutes to determine. To quote you: there is no grey after the decision only black and white. Are you man enough to admit that you got this completely and utterly wrong?
Gad
Guest
Hodges found not guilty of charge, roll on GF day
TS
Guest
You must admire what I say. You called me "God". Too late to retract that now Paul whoever you are. Good luck to your team on Sunday as you sit with your Broncos jersey on, and wearing a Wayne Bennett mask. Failing that your team probably didn't make the 8. Anyway, thanks for the complement in calling me "God" Enjoy the great Grand Final ahead, and enjoy whatever you write in the future. Hope it makes sense. lol :)
greeneyed
Guest
Gorski, it saddens me to say you've completely lost the plot.
Bill
Guest
You can not be serious Tim! Yes it would be an injustice if he doesnt play because his tackle, while technically illegal, was on the bottom - the VERY bottom of the "dangerous" curve - but ILLEGAL it was.. If suspended and misses the Grand Final he will join an illustrious list of names - including Issac Luke from last year, Cameron Smith, Steven Roach, the great Arthur Beetson. Justin Hodges is NOT above any other player or above the rules. Yes, go to court to get the rules changed - for NEXT year. You cant change them now - think about all those players who have been suspended THIS SEASON for Grade 1 offenses - missed key games ( aren't they all?) The finals listing may have been quite different if you apply your logic to all charges. No - he should not be suspended - but according to extant rules, he must be.
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Jara If you read Al's definition below then that is exactly what happened. Sad, but true.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
He had him around the waist while reaching down trying to get a grip on his legs and he pulled up in a lifting motion. Meanwhile another player has the tackled player up high and is trying to pull him to the ground. When someone is pulling the top half of a player down, the tackler who has him around the legs has to be extra careful to avoid any lifting motion of he will very easily end up going head-first into the turf. It was probably just dumb rather than intentional, but that doesn't matter. You know what, you can argue the particular movements Alex McKinnon did were just as much the cause of his injury as the tackler, and the tackler probably didn't do anything worse than most lifting tackles like this that get a week or two, the only difference was possibly luck. When players are tackled they either try and fight through it or try to get to the ground quickly so they can get a quick play the ball. If they are going down to the ground and you lift up the legs then you are going to up-end them like that.
The Barry
Roar Guru
John - that comes down to the absolute core of the issue. You can't have a lifting tackle without a lift. Hodges very simply put did not lift Guerra. He was holding his ankle and Guerra dived to the ground. I'm not sure why so many are surprised at the concept - it's happened before. The absolute least likely way in the world to lift a two metre long, 100kg object would be to hold it by one hand at the end where less of that 100kg weight was distributed. I'd go so far as to say that it's physically impossible.
John
Guest
The exact wording of the NRL rules 2015 re a 'dangerous throw' are: "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." Hodges didn't lift the player, he lifted the player's ankle/leg. I'd love to see how anyone argues that Hodges could actually physically lift Guerra off the ground by 1 leg.
Al
Guest
Which rule? Surely not the definition of a 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." Hodges lifts Guerra's foot where, in a vast majority of cases, they'll fall to the ground together or Hodges will release the foot as Guerra falls - there's rarely enough speed or force so that the head or neck will be the first thing to hit the ground. Given that the additional rotation was applied by Hunt over the top, and Guerra's jump, the "likely" criterion cannot be fulfilled. Whether or not you think Hodges is guilty here, we do need to draw a line somewhere. It's important to protect players from serious injury, but if the first reaction is to suspend players as soon as a tackled player makes head-first contact with the ground, we WILL eventually see players intentionally dive head-first into the ground (if we haven't already!). There will always be an element in this sport to try and disadvantage an opponent, even at personal risk.
Birdy
Guest
3 Hats, I'm actually a Balmain Tigers supporter, no broncos supporter here, cows this week for me. Just amazing probably 500000 people are eye witnesses to the same incident and 100000 different accounts as to what actually happened. Imagine being in the legal profession . As I , and many others have stated it would be poetic justice if he were suspended anyway. Looking at the positive side of things , Sundays GF is the beginning of the end of wrestling in our game. Looking forward to a fast open contest of the highest calibre. And a BBQ and fridge full or beer.
Jara W
Guest
I don't know what rule makes this an automatic suspension. I am not saying he doesn't have a case to answer, but I think he should be able to fight it rather easily. But it is certainly not clear cut.
Jara W
Guest
"He lifted the players legs as he was going to the ground which results in a head-first descent to the ground." Geez there is a little poetic license in that isn't there? Just to even it out... He held one of the players boots in a stationary postition until Hunt (and arguably Guerra) effected a forearm first descent to the ground. Or even better... He assited Guerra in performing a rather ordinary somersault.