The NRL judiciary has banned Canberra forward Hudson Young for eight games for making dangerous contact with the eyes of Warriors centre Adam Pompey.
Canberra’s Hudson Young has been banned for eight games, with the NRL judiciary dismissing victim Adam Pompey’s evidence and finding the Raider guilty of dangerous contact with the eyes.
In a dramatic 160 minutes on Tuesday night at NRL headquarters, the panel rejected Young’s claims he’d not made any contact with Warriors centre Adam Pompey’s eyes.
They went against evidence from Pompey, who had appeared via video link to defend Young.
In arguably the most-important moment of the case, Pompey claimed he did not feel any contact with any of his face, but then agreed he believed what happened on the field should stay on the field.
It prompted judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew to later tell his three-man panel to consider if Pompey’s evidence was “influenced by a sense of loyalty to another professional footballer”.
The visibly upset Raiders’ youngster had to sit through a further hearing to determine his suspension, with the NRL pushing for up to 12 games amid claims it was intentional.
In contrast, Young’s lawyer Nick Ghabar argued the ban should be five or six weeks, given his view it was only careless.
“Although I’m disappointed with their decision, I’ll accept my punishment and learn from it,” Young said afterwards.
“I’d like to thank Adam and Nick for speaking on my behalf tonight. It’s much appreciated.”
The ban does take into account some level of loading, although the judiciary panel of Mal Cochrane, Tony Puletua and Dallas Johnson did not indicate a full 100 per cent was applied due to two prior offences.
The blow comes on the eve of Canberra’s finals campaign, with his ban to begin from Saturday’s clash with Melbourne and extend into next season.
In his defence, Young had claimed he was merely trying to hold Pompey up when he dug his hand down for a second time, and that it slipped off the Warriors’ hand.
He claimed he felt his hand on Pompey’s face, prompting him to quickly pull it away without making contact with his left eye.
“I just felt his face,” Pompey told the panel, adding his head was down and he was not looking as he braced for possible contact.
“I didn’t know if it was his cheek. But it definitely wasn’t his eyes.
“I’d know if I got someone in the eye because it’s soft and a completely different feel.”
But the NRL’s counsel vehemently disagreed, telling Young he believed he’d raked at Pompey’s eyes.
“You said you were trying to grab anything to stop him scoring a try. And that included his face,” Peter McGrath said.
“You didn’t pull away as soon as you felt contact. You have a grip on Pompey’s eye socket.
“And you had a finger in his eye socket. It was after that you pulled that right hand away in a raking motion.”
The ban is Young’s second this season for dangerous contact with a player’s eye. He was also suspended for a similar incident in round 12 involving Canterbury prop Aiden Tolman.
Both the NRL counsel and Young’s lawyer agreed this contact was not as bad as the one on Tolman, or George Burgess’ ugly contact on Robbie Farah in July.
Ben Lewis
Roar Pro
Pompey completely destroyed his evidence's entire credibility by admitting that what happens on the field stays on the field. No way was the panel going to agree with his version of events after that. I tend to agree with Tim Gore somewhat; 20 weeks would have been completely ridiculous but you can't just ignore something that blatant, especially since he served a suspension for the same thing earlier in the year. That being said, it was nowhere near as bad as George Burgess' horrendous effort. Overall I think 8 weeks is a reasonable suspension. If he does the same thing against next year he could well be looking at upwards of 12-15 weeks so lets hope he uses this as an opportunity to clean up his game, especially if he is watching the Raiders in the grand final from the sidelines.
nearkurnell
Guest
nothing to do with the refs - we're talking about the judiciary. You have heard of 'carry-over points' haven't you?
steveng
Roar Rookie
HaHaaa, another clueless comment that inflates and makes those bugalugs at the MRC make decisions like with JWH, typical and not surprising as the mentality is astounding and typical of your comment!
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Nothing wrong with extra effort, go for it. But when a guy is already tackled and your 'extra effort' serves only to increase damage or intimidation then it's risky, careless and potentially reckless. AND if damage occurs you were it and cop the penalty.
Jacko
Guest
So now tackling with "extra" effort is a penalty? I want all my teams players to tackle with that bit of "EXTRA" please and if the opposition is injured because of something 100% legal then so be it......Maybe you dont believe coaches should as players for that "extra effort"......Not all injuries require someone to be found guilty of an offence.
Jacko
Guest
You couldn’t make this stuff up......................................... You just made it up
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Same argument has been used with other players who have been penalised and hauled before judiciary and had time off over accidents, simply because they hit the head. Not through anything obviously illegal. That JWH put extra into a tackle wasn't illegal, but if that extra resulted in an injury - as it did - then that 'extra' is careless = which it was and deserving of some time off the game.
Jacko
Guest
Oh of course John....All games where there is 3 HIA's and 2 reports should have JWH sent off and banned......
eels47
Roar Rookie
Fair enough punishment I guess, perhaps a couple more weeks would have been better though. I am amazed however that JWH gets off scott free, yet Evans can't even get a downgrade? Sure, the headclash following the hit from JWH was a "rugby league accident", but the hit itself wasn't. That is a disgraceful decision, especially given the other decisions from the same panel on the same night.
Jacko
Guest
Well if you have watched it several times and come to the conclusion that JWH did anything wrong then you clearly had biases against the player before the offence occured....JWH does NOTHING illegal by any rules of League...The outcome was not great but it was no ones fault.....Now extra shoulder and arm is an offence?...And you could tell he did all that in the split second it took for the tackled player to drop 500mm?.....maybe with such sharp reflexes JWH should have been a formula 1 driver
Jacko
Guest
So nearkernell you believe that Refs should now be aware of players previous record and go far harder on those players who have had a high tackle or other offence previously?...Every act is a totally independent act of anything done previously.....When the verdict is given then is the only time a previous foul play act should have any bearing on the sentence...
Diplomatt
Guest
Very interesting precedent they have set with JWH. If a bloke with the ball is falling in a tackle he's fair game to whack in the head. I'm surprised they didn't put Knight on report. Tackling support players without the ball is also condoned - not even a penalty. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Old School
Roar Rookie
Hudsons penalty of 8 games is deserved. The hysterics asking for 20 weeks or a life ban were over the top. I'd just like to point out that rugby league is a very forgiving game: * You can seriously assault people and still play the game * An entire team can take peptides and be banned for 2 or 3 games * You can take recreational dr-gs and become an immortal * You can do dodgy things in a NZ hotel room and work in the media As Cameron Munster would say, what happens on the field stays on the field...except when the cameras catch it.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Watched it several times. JWH clearly puts extra shoulder and arm than a normal tackle would expect and clearly not a 'catching' tackle as argued at judiciary.
John
Guest
JWH getting off scott free is an absolute joke, the fact that in that game alone, there were 3 HIA's for the Bunnies and Roosters gets two reports that results in one charge and they successfully defend it should highlight how serious the NRL is on CTE.
nearkurnell
Guest
swings and roundabouts - Sam got away with his shot on Moylan but his poor judiciary record has caught up with him. Those who say he shouldn't be suspended for a hair pull need to consider that his suspension is the culmination of a series of grubby acts throughout the season.
steveng
Roar Rookie
And on what planet are you on Sammtoocaan? This is absolute nonsense "Cmon, if the guy doesn’t clash heads , and there’s no claret, the tackle is a non event" if you look at this incident and if JWH didn't go into this tackle late (as Knight was already tackled and going down) Knight wouldn't of clashed heads, it was JWH's action that increased the 'head clash' and the MRC let him off, irrespective, JWH would have gotten him in the head, that was his intention and that is his form, its on his record! Never mind, we will prevail and it will be 3 zip to the Bunnies, no unfair advantage will get the chooks to win on Friday night!
Nick
Roar Guru
Nope. 15 wks at the minimum.
Nick
Roar Guru
What is the truth of the matter? I thought the NRL presentation of events was spot on. I think young and pompey were lying.
Nick
Roar Guru
?