Four weeks. Four…
Are you joking Michael Buettner? Are you joking Todd Greenberg?
Directly after the Match Review Committee decided that Michael Ennis’ shoulder charge on Blake Green on Saturday night in Melbourne was just hunky dory and “The Menace” was free to play this weekend – no doubt along with his wrist-strapping artiste teammate Andrew Fifita – the very same committee decided to rub Jack Wighton out for the season for an incident that is overwhelmingly viewed as no worse than Ennis’ effort.
Match Review Committee Coordinator Michael Buettner released the following statement:
We look for three key indicators when determining whether a shoulder charge has been made.
They are:
The upper arm of the defender must be tucked in to his side at contact.
The defender is making no attempt to wrap in the tackle with both arms
There is forceful contact by the defender to any part of the body of the attacking player.
If all three of these indicators are clearly identified in an incident then a player will be charged with a shoulder charge.
In the case of Michael Ennis, it’s very clear that the left arm of Ennis is away from his body and not tucked into his side. So no charge was laid. In the Wighton incident the MRC was satisfied that all three indicators were present and so a charge has been laid.
So the fact that the MRC believes that Ennis’ arm was away from his body – something I’ve seen absolutely no evidence of – was enough for the MRC to ignore that he made absolutely no attempt to wrap his arm around Green and that he left the Storm five-eighth crippled on the turf.
Under these stated terms it should be virtually impossible to get charged with a shoulder charge. Ennis’ effort is case in point. Everyone in the world bar Buettner and his mates thought it was a clear shoulder charge. However, they found a way to let the Sharks hooker off.
Well done you! For NRL HQ’s next trick the Integrity Committee will declare Andrew Fifita a top bloke who is just misunderstood.
There is no question that Jack Wighton smashes ex-team mate Joel Edwards and smashes him good. This season he has also smashed Sam Perrett and numerous others. However, the video clearly shows that his arms are both well away from his body.
However, Mick Buettner and his mates decided that it was conclusive that Jack was guilty of all three factors. And not just that but that it was also worthy of a four-match suspension.
Have a look at the videos. Do you really think that there is evidence conclusive enough to say Wighton’s arms aren’t away from his body at the point of impact and that there is any evidence that Ennis’ arms are?
Remember, the tribunal does not and cannot compare the Wighton incident and the Ennis incident as a way of dropping the charges against Wighton. It has to be done on the actual incident and only the incident.
For mine, Buettner seems to have given the Canberra Raiders legal team their ready-made defence. All they have to do is show that any one of those three criteria aren’t ticked off. That assumes that the tribunal operates from the same rule book as the MRC. However, given how the NRL seems to operate that is no sure thing.
But how on earth did it come to this?
Back in July 2002 Referee Bill Harrigan was stood down for – rightly in my opinion – sin-binning four Eels players. Then referees boss Graham Annesley, now the Titans CEO, told Bill that, although his rulings may have been correct that he should have thought about the “bigger picture” before carrying them out.
Ironically, the first of the four players that Harrigan sin-binned was none other than Mick Buettner himself.
Surely the MRC Coordinator could have thought of the bigger picture before handing down two such vastly different decisions on similar incidents.
Surely Buettner should have realised that after the season they’ve had that Todd Greenberg and his besieged bunker just wanted this week to be about football and not inconsistency.
Because that is what it will now be about.
If Buettner had just been smart enough to think of the bigger picture and given Wighton Grade 1 instead of a Grade 2, then the Raiders may have sucked up a one-week ban.
However, Buettner wasn’t that smart. Four weeks is ludicrous. It’s inconsistent and it is not fair in any way.
The city of Canberra, that was bubbling with excitement of their sides first top-four finish in 21 years, is now white hot with rage at this incredible hypocrisy and injustice.
If you wanted to breed a siege mentality down in Canberra, Yass, Goulburn and Queanbeyan, you couldn’t have done it better than Mick Buettner and his mob have managed.
This incident is the straw that must break the Buettner’s back. After years of poor charges being laid and other players inexplicably escaping suspension (let’s talk ref touching for starters, and Nathan Brown getting off for stomping on Agnatius Paasi), this incident is hard proof that they aren’t up to the job.
I pray that the tribunal will see common sense and that Jack Wighton will be cleared of all charges on Wednesday night and will take the field on Saturday evening.
We want to see the best of Rugby League this September and Jack Wighton is part of what is best about season 2016.
Let’s pray for common sense from NRL HQ. I’m awfully tired of being disgusted with them…
Renegade
Guest
Yeah can't wait for Saturday Geoff, it will be a beauty!
V.O.R.
Guest
Rene, whatever it is, both the Ennis and Wighton incidents were 100% shoulder charges every day of the week and therefore the inconsistency is a joke. So, so many fans are shaking their heads at the administration of our game. Everyone knows what a shoulder charge is. These get time during the year, no doubt. Come finals all of a sudden the due process becomes overly technical. It stinks of something...bums on seats..who knows, but the process itself is definitely off. As for the players themselves I think most people are happy to see them in the finals.
Footy 101
Guest
Hahahaha
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Nobody was trying on the woe is me story here Renegade. Just anger at the bewildering stupidity of the MRC exonerating Ennis for a shoulder charge while charging Wighton. Justice is served. It will be 28,000 screaming Vikings on Saturday- they'll be hanging off the rafters. Can't wait.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I have thought about it. You can change your actions. It is like when you walk around a corner and suddenly jerk out of the way to avoid the person who is right up in your face. Even if you make contact, people (the judiciary) can see that you were trying to avoid the other person. Frizell did not try to avoid anything. If people don't mind this kind of interaction with the match officials, fine. But do not complain once players who aren't captains start charging in to complain to the referee and.. oh wait. Go the Gumboot Goannas.
Renegade
Guest
Yeah it's a definite conspiracy. Thank god, he got off... Don't think I could've handled anymore "woe is me" stories. Maybe this is all a conspiracy to get Canberra crowds above 10,000 again ?
Zedman
Roar Rookie
He just got off, i knew it was a conspiracy.
Wiz
Guest
Are you actually for real ? You know you can't make a tackle with arms wrapped around with your forearm right ? If first contact is with the forearm it's almost worse then a shoulder charge, and the fact you're whinging so hard about something you clearly have no concept on is baffling. If first contact is with the forearm then its possible for his arms to be wrapped, meaning its a shoulder charge, it's pretty simple man....
3_Hats in Sydney
Guest
The one thing that MANY of you may not know about the rules of when Grading Shoulder Charges is that if a player while committing a shoulder charge comes into contact with that player's head, then the minimum grading will be a Grade 2. Wightons Head not his shoulder did come into contact with the Tigers players head but nether the less there was contact. So a Grade 2 is correct. If the defender's Shoulder comes into direct contact with a players head then it will be a minimum of Grade 3 Grade 1 is, of course, there is NO contact with a players head. Mick Ennis should have been charged, Grade 1 WHAT we should be objecting to is the amount of points allocated to each of the actual gradings. Grade 1 is 200 points, Grade 2 is 350, Grade 3 is 500, Grade 4 is 650 and Grade 5 is 800 points or 8 weeks. My View is that a Grade 1 should be 100 points, Grade 2, 200, Grade 3, 350, Grade 4, 450 and Grade 5, 600 points. If the allocated points were fair and my system of fair gradings was adapted then Wighton would miss 1 or 2 weeks, not 3 or 4.
Moz
Guest
Why isn't simply a penalty sufficient for a shoulder charge (unless contact with head)? Why do have to suspend players and lose one of our assets? I am pretty sure this was the case when the rule change first came in.
Footy 101
Guest
Sleiman. Frizell didn't even deserve any form of penalty. If anything he should have received a merit certificate for being so polite. Think about it Sleiman: can you change muscle memory from when you are 7 years old and learn how to calmly pass someone you nearly collide with? (throw in it's a physically and mentally draining sport). Do you suggest teams spend time each week on how to avoid the ref in case there's an accidental collision? I stand by my word, that was the worst call in NRL history and if you say otherwise you should give up on NRL and go support the local gumboot throwing league.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I think we all know what a shoulder charge looks like, and arms out or in aside, they were both shoulder charges, and Ennis should be given a charge as well. That is what is so stupid here. The MRC has legalized what we all know, plain as day to be a shoulder charge, and as such, have created odd little ins and outs of how to get around it... Again, a better option is at time of review on the field, bin the bloke, and it ends there. If it is really bad, send him off, and then the MRC looks at it.
MAX
Guest
Hi Tim, Imagine if you would Edwards is a winger flying for the corner and Wighton applies exactly the same tackle carrying him into touch. We see similar try saves several times each round and applaud such defence. Play on ... and that is how this should be treated. No more, no less. It was noticeable that when Jack was returning to his position, the camera panned his face just as he was uttering his disgust with the word "f@#k" Could Buettner conveniently interpreted this as an admission of guilt. I agree, it will be overturned.
Doogs
Guest
You make fair points Tim and Ennis annoys the hell out of me just by being there breathing. But would you be so passionate about this if it wasn't Canberra? I would feel you probably would not write a story if Wighton was from a rival club.
DJ
So, that was a yes, look out for next week's article?
Harry
Guest
I wouldn't break up the Rapana/Leilua combination. Santo at fullback was one of the Raiders' best players in the loss to Brisbane. Losing Wighton would be a blow but a couple of weeks ago we were all worried about Austin's injury and the Raiders have scored 96 points in two weeks without him. Of all the teams in the top 8 I reckon Canberra probably have the best depth - that's the way Ricky Stuart's built them.
Tim Gore
Expert
Listen DJ, Mick Ennis would be taken back by every club he has played at. He is an awesome competitor and club man. This rant is only against Ennis because he's the comparison, not because I think he's the devil. Does he annoy me, sure, sometimes. But I appreciate he is a great player and how he's helped lift the Sharks has been magnificent to watch.
Tim Gore
Expert
You are my type of guy Ian! We can be idiots together!
DJ
I'm so excited that the Raiders have a double chance - more opportunities for a Gore rant! Annoyingly I have to agree though, 4 weeks?! Now I am not a fan of the shoulder charge, but a four week suspension is excessive. The comments from the MRC are particularly strange - it is as though they're opening up a loop-hole to legalise shoulder charges again, while at the same time handing out an over the top penalty. Can't wait for next week's contribution Tim - no doubt a bagging of Mick Ennis!
Rob
Guest
You now what's funny is if you sat down and read some of the rule interpretations very few can cover every situation. I had a disagreement about a ball travelling forward? I was told Refs view it in relation to the players hands I was told? Palms Forward or backwards it was simple. I thought ball passed from point A to point B was easer or dropped towards opposition goal line was simple. It was similar to the rubbish along T. Williams scenario? Can someone tell me how it's a knocked when the ball is dropped into the preverbal breadbasket and the palms are pointing backward then? Just joking guys. But I'm a Cowboys support bitter about Foran playing volley ball with my team.