Huge bans handed down in busy night for NRL judiciary

By News / Wire

Canterbury prop Luke Thompson will miss the start of the next NRL season after he was suspended for four weeks after being found guilty of an eye gouge, while Melbourne’s Max King pleaded guilty to a hip drop tackle with the judiciary issuing him a ban of three weeks.

Thompson has concerns for his reputation
A three-man judiciary panel of Bob Linder, Sean Garlick and Ben Creagh took 30 minutes to determine the 25-year-old England prop was guilty of careless dangerous contact with James Tamou’s eye.

Flanked by high-powered solicitor Nick Ghabar, Thompson denied intending to put pressure on the eye and said he didn’t know his hands were on Tamou’s face during the Bulldogs’ loss to Penrith on Saturday.

However, the panel determined he intended to intimidate Tamou by making contact with his eye.

“I’m disappointed with the outcome, it wasn’t intentional to eye gouge or whatever they’ve accused me of,” Thompson said.

“I was just trying to win the tackle and take him to the ground, so I’m a bit confused.”

When asked if he is concerned for his reputation, Thompson said: “Yeah, that’s why it’s upsetting and disappointing but it is what it is, so we move on.”

It comes after Tamou told the panel he had hoped to get a penalty for the incident after waiting two minutes to make the official on-field complaint to referee Henry Perenara.

Three days before leading the Panthers into a qualifying final against the Sydney Roosters, Tamou appeared via video link to give evidence in which he said he felt hands on his face and “wholeheartedly believed it (was an eye gouge) if I hadn’t seen the footage.”

Replays were shown of Thompson making contact with Tamou’s eyes, but the Penrith skipper said he didn’t believe there was intent to gouge.

Tamou said he had no eye irritation, no soreness and didn’t feel any raking at the time but had hoped to earn a penalty for his side by making the complaint to the referee.

He said he also made the complaint and gave evidence to mitigate the risk to other players in the future if Thompson were to intend to cause damage by putting pressure on players eyes.

After backtracking on his on-field claim he had been eye-gouged, Tamou was asked if he believed whatever happens on the field stays on the field.

“Yes, but no,” he said.

“If he had motive to do damage, I have no doubt he could do some damage.

“My eye was fine and it was fine afterwards. 

“The reason I’m here tonight is because I think Luke could do some damage.

“At the time I was hoping for the penalty but I don’t believe his intentions were to do some damage.”

Thompson explained that he was trying to pull Tamou to the ground but “readjusted when I realised he wasn’t coming down”.

Ghabar unsuccessfully argued the contact was momentary and not enough to meet the standard of “unacceptable risk of injury” required to prove the dangerous contact charge.

Thompson becomes the fourth player suspended for an eye gouge recently.

North Queensland’s Josh McGuire missed three weeks for an incident involving David Fifita, while Canberra’s Hudson Young served a five-week and eight-week suspension for two separate charges.

Former South Sydney forward George Burgess was whacked with a nine-week suspension for an eye gouge on Robbie Farah in July last year.

King banned for three weeks
Melbourne forward Max King has been hit with a three-week ban by the at the NRL judiciary for a hip drop tackle after pleading guilty on Tuesday.

The 23-year-old is now likely to miss the remainder of the Storm’s finals campaign after dropping onto the lower leg of St George Illawarra prop Blake Lawrie on Sunday.

The ban means should the Storm lose to Parramatta in Saturday night’s qualifying final but make the grand final, King will be eligible for selection.

King was referred straight to the judiciary for the dangerous contact charge, where the panel of Bob Linder, Ben Creagh and Sean Garlick determined the penalty.

It was graded as a 500-point penalty, but a 25 per cent discount was deducted from the final penalty due to the early guilty plea.

The panel also considered his clean record after 50 NRL games across four seasons after the NRL’s counsel Peter McGrath asked for a four to five week suspension.

“This is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre that has a high risk of injury,” McGrath said.

King’s body “dropped” onto the bottom half of Lawrie’s leg in the Storm’s NRL win over the Dragons.

Lawrie was forced from the field, and stayed off for 20 minutes with a minor medial ankle strain before playing the final 33 minutes of the game.

Defence counsel Nick Ghabar argued fellow tacklers Christian Welch and Brandon Smith contributed to the awkward bend in Lawrie’s leg, and therefore King was only partially responsible for the risk of injury.

However, the panel disagreed and hit King with a 500-point penalty – and with the guilty plea deduction he has 75 carryover points.

King has played just six games this season and could have been considered on the extended bench in Saturday night’s qualifying final against Parramatta.
The NRL has begun stamping out the controversial tackle this season.

In August, King’s Storm teammate Jesse Bromwich copped a one-match ban for a similar offence.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Saturday’s incident sparked controversy off the field, with former Dally M winner Greg Alexander claiming on Fox League’s commentary there was “intent to injure”.

Storm coach Craig Bellamy later slammed Alexander’s comment as “ridiculous”, insisting no player in the NRL would go out to purposefully hurt a rival.

Previously, the Storm have grown frustrated of questions being raised over their tackling techniques almost routinely late in the season.

The Crowd Says:

2020-09-30T04:29:27+00:00

Ian_

Roar Rookie


4 weeks for eye gouging seems light to me. It's one of those things where you're either guilty or not guilty, and if guilty the penalty should be 1/2 a season or a season, and if not guilty, zero. Four weeks says kind of "we think you're a bit guilty but not totally convinced". For things like the King tackle and any other type of thing the NRL wants out of the game, I think the appropriate action is for referees to send players off. The impact is immediate, it punishes the player and their team, and I think would force the behaviours out of the game quicker than suspensions after the event.

2020-09-30T04:18:50+00:00

Hoy

Roar Guru


Kings was horrible. He deliberately fell sideways onto the St George player's leg, then pulled him back over his own body, to bend back against the leg... it was about as bad and as vindictive a thing as I have seen that wasn't a punch or gouge!! As for Tamou, I am ridiculously uncomfortable reading his statements about trying to get his team a penalty. That is so close to an admission of staging, I don't know how to take that, and to put that statement in public... boy. To excuse himself by saying he was making a statement to prevent future damage? How noble of him, but it sounds like rubbish after his earlier comments about trying to milk a penalty... a bit yucky anyway.

Read more at The Roar