The Sydney Roosters have elected to fight a charge handed to Latrell Mitchell for a crusher tackle in the hope of having him available for their preliminary final.
While the tackle on Dugan during the second half of the Roosters qualifying final win over the Cronulla Sharks went unreported, the match review committee yesterday slapped Mitchell with a Grade 1 charge for dangerous contact on the head and neck of his opposite number.
With 70 carry-over points already on his record from a prior offence, Mitchell would will need to fight the charge and be cleared by the NRL judiciary to take part in the Roosters preliminary final after they have a week off.
Pleading guilty would have meant he will be only back for the grand final as will losing the contest at the judiciary, should the Roosters make it when they take on the winner of the semi-final set to be played between the South Sydney Rabbitohs and St George Illawarra Dragons on Saturday night.
Should Mitchell lose the charge, he won’t miss any more than the one game, so it will be worth challenging at the judiciary, even if the footage is damning against the centre.
Just a matter of weeks ago, Will Chambers was suspended for three weeks from a similar tackle, where he put his opponent onto the back and then dropped to his knees.
Given the similarity between the two tackles, Mitchell may be lucky to beat the charge.
The loss of the in-form centre would be a crushing blow for the tri-colours. He has been in excellent form and carrying out goalkicking duties for them throughout the season.
The hearing will be on Tuesday night.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Agreed. It’s sorta fun watching people work themselves into a lather about something that hasn’t happened though...
HazzaPoint
Roar Rookie
As much as I'd love him to get off, it aint going to happen. Chooks will have to play the Prelim without him!
Ray Paks
Roar Rookie
If they rule on it based on the evidence, he'll miss a match. He applied downward force onto Dugan's neck, that should be the deciding factor in their decision to hand down a 1 game ban. If they're big on clamping down on this crusher tackle thing, they'll suspend him. otherwise like most say, it's a lottery
Albo
Roar Rookie
Got it ! Thanks Baz !
Dutski
Roar Guru
Agree that he has history for brain farts but this year they’ve largely gone from his game. Not history as a dirty player though.
Dutski
Roar Guru
If there’s a drop in that position that is pretty dangerous. It’s his responsibility then. I saw the Chambers one. That was ugly and unnecessary.
Dutski
Roar Guru
TB it was Quentin Hull and Matt Elliot. They are both good readers of the game. I’m really enjoying the ABC commentary this year. Even Dene Halatau has grown on me and I didn’t like his work to start.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Mitchell has to be suspended for the same reason Napa needed to be suspended the first time he mauled someone with a flying head butt . If they let people off for any of these dangerous actions then they keep doing it. The game is brutal enough without this nonsense. Don't jump on a players head full stop.
stevesyd
Roar Rookie
So basically he gets off and from now on this becomes a legal tackle?
stevesyd
Roar Rookie
100% correct. They can't be that stupid not to have this as their main concern.
stevesyd
Roar Rookie
Gets off and thoughts about certain areas of the NRL being corrupt are further questioned. When asked on 100% Footy last night for their opinion, Paul Gallen answered by stating would be "shocked" if Mitchell got off. Gyngell and Politis patsy Phil Gould only came up with how Mitchell would be a big loss to the roosters if banned but fell short of stating whether he thought Mitchell was guilty or not. Answer the question Guss.
Major Bumsore
Guest
He could have refrained from dropping to his knees , and there would be nothing to see , but he did . Unfortunately in the past he has shown the need to tweak his decision making, and this will be a hard lesson learned. L Ron has determined that he has to get a week , or the bedwetters will have a conniption.
Nat
Roar Guru
IMO, at speed, it didn't look all that bad but there was a definite drop at the end. Slow it down on replay it looked worse. No where near the category of Chambers. From memory, the Ch 9 commentators spoke up after watching the replay as well. I think he'll find very hard to defend as the standard has been set and carryovers 'should' see him out for a game.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Who was commentating? I think it’s pretty fair. There is an onus on the defender to avoid the dangerous position. Latrell was probably still a bit vigorous once he realised Dugan was in a bad position. I think a grade one is about right. Mitchell wouldn’t be missing a game but for carry over points.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Listening to the ABC commentary on the night raised a couple of points. Firstly that Dugan backing into the tackle already had him in that position and that Mitchell made room for his head and neck. They asked what else he could have done. They also indicated that independent of the merits of the tackle itself, Dugan staying down should not be indicative of illegal play as it happens at least once every game. I’ve not seen good footage of he tackle. How does the vision line up with that live description?
kk
Guest
Has Nick phoned Todd?
Izya Bumsore
Guest
Con , the Major ( my father ) is currently in discussions with L Ron Hubbard in relation to what outcomes will be most fitting for the NRL season end , nothing is finalised just yet , but I can assure you the Roosters will feature quite significantly.
JVGO
Guest
I think they'd prefer a Souths Melbourne GF. Put your money on that one.
thecolumn
Roar Rookie
He surely can't win in the judiciary.
John
Guest
The no risk appeal seemed very strange to me too.