The Sydney Roosters will be forced to rely on a third-string hooker to get them to the grand final after Sam Verrills was banned for two games at the NRL judiciary.
In a horror night for the Roosters, Verrills failed in his bid to have his careless high tackle charge downgraded to a fine.
The Roosters No.9 dropped his head in disappointment when the verdict was read, knowing he will miss Friday’s semi-final against Manly.
He will also skip the preliminary final against South Sydney if they win, meaning he will only return if they reach the October 3 decider.
It means Trent Robinson will likely have to turn to rookie No.9 Ben Marschke, who began the year outside the Roosters’ top 30 and behind Jake Friend and Verrills.
It comes after the Roosters had already lost representative prop Siosiua Taukeiaho because of a calf complaint.
Verrills could have accepted a one-game ban for the charge but his bid to downgrade it from a level-two to a grade-one has proven costly.
In an 80-minute hearing, Verrills’ legal team argued the dummy-half had minimal culpability for collecting Gold Coast centre Brian Kelly’s face.
Lawyer James McLeod claimed the shot was almost a without-blame rugby league incident, stating the force was caused by Kelly and Verrills’ teammate Sitili Tupouniua.
Verrills did not speak during the hearing, but watched on via video link as McLeod claimed Kelly had fallen into his shoulder after charging at the line hard and deflecting off Tupouniua.
“This case is also a reminder that you can at the elite level of rugby league where you can have high contact where there is very little done wrong by the defending player,” McLeod said.
“That does arise at sometimes, that is a reality.”
“He is not projecting his arm forward.
“Sam has the least role in terms of the force that was generated and the outcome.”
McLeod also claimed a hit from Junior Paulo in Parramatta’s win over Newcastle had showed less control when he collected Kurt Mann high, only to cop a lesser grade-one charge.
The defence also made an emotional plea to the three-man panel of Ben Creagh, Bob Lindner and Dallas Johnson to understand the contact as men who had played the game.
But it took the trio just 13 minutes to disagree, siding with NRL counsel Peter McGrath’s claims Verrills did not show enough care after aiming to tackle above the ball.
“That’s perfectly legitimate, but it does carry with it risk of contact with the head or neck area and a higher duty of care,” McGrath said.
“(He) makes directs contact with head or neck of Kelly.
“In the circumstances there is very little in the way of mitigating features that would reduce the seriousness of the tackle.
“Verrills had plenty of time to get set. Tupouniua did not push Kelly off his attacking line so Verrills was wrong footed.
“And the impact of Tupouniua did not drop (Kelly’s) head level.”
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
The tackle by Verrills was a shoulder to the face that resulted in a broken nose, careless or otehrwise if this tackle isn’t a one match suspension then what is? He should not have challenged the grading and took his punishment.
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
Mushi all as I am trying to highlight Shoulder contacting head, broken nose = suspension. How could they expect him to be exonerated. As a famous fullback said recently ‘you can’t go around breaking people’s faces’ . True that.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
That they should be penalised? Yes.
steveng
Roar Rookie
That is not true "Ironic that fans of a club which is only in the competition because they took the NRL to court" as we had the financial backing and we are a foundation club, if that can't be supported and/or reinstated into the NRL then the NRL has allot of problems and has forgotten their history, that is what we were protesting about! As there are allot of clubs that purely rely on import signings as they have no juniors to back them up! Anyway, I'm not whinging about the judiciary at all, all I'm saying is that the Chooks want it both ways, as they think that they can manipulate upfront with Robbo's whinging n the press and Nick pulling strings administratively in the NRL in the background. That is why I gave the judiciary a wrap in this instance and especially at this time of the year to suspend Verrills, as I also had no complaints about Trell's punishment either but, all I'm asking as I'm sure every fan is, is for them to be consistent.
matth
Roar Guru
That’s why he got 1 week and Mitchell got 6
mushi
Roar Guru
TBH I think the majority of dissent here is a group of fans trying to make case that it’s unethical or immoral to attempt to make use of the valid process to get a down grade. (I imagine their team owns up to knock-ons, and offside and has never milked a penalty…) As soon as he went on report I’d be surprised if anyone at the roosters didn’t assumed it was 1-2 weeks on the sideline. All year suspensions have seemed light versus the player safety rhetoric, LMs was only large because of loading.
mushi
Roar Guru
Ben Marscke. If it was 1000-1 it was still worth the risk
mushi
Roar Guru
so every high tackle is the same?
mushi
Roar Guru
It’s not both ways. The charges reflect that was an incredibly different incident to the Mitchell tackle. It’s not like they lied about a crime so he could play….
matth
Roar Guru
Well it was a 1 week suspension, until the decision was taken to fight it. That seems right to me. He aimed above the ball which increases the risk and it’s his duty of care not to hit someone in the face. It was high, it was forceful and should have been 10 mins
mushi
Roar Guru
It wasn't a reckless high shot according to the MRC or judiciary it was careless. And pretty sure the rules are set up to allow them to challenge it so yep they can have it both ways. They just need to risk the outcome that occurred. It's not like they've come out attacking the integrity of the process when it didn't work. Who did that again... sounded like Mouth's Wham Sturgess?
matth
Roar Guru
That’s why there was no extra weighting. The grading is about the incident itself.
mushi
Roar Guru
Ironic that fans of a club which is only in the competition because they took the NRL to court object to using the judiciary process.
mushi
Roar Guru
"I do not say that Mitchell’s tackle or punishment was wrong," Actually you made a giant song and dance to that effect Big MIG so not sure you've got great grounds to cast the hypocrite tag
Ben Lewis
Roar Pro
Ah, a rare occasion where the Roosters don't get special treatment; you love to see it!
Mon
Guest
Is that a verbatim quote from McLeod? That hurt my brain trying to read. Did they pick this guy out of a sales bin??
Poss
Roar Rookie
Only difference Verrills doesn't have form,hasn't been in trouble before,again have to agree to disagree!!
Steve
Guest
True...they are different. But in both instances the victim was injured....broken Cheekbone and broken nose. Like it or not the MRC and judiciary take this into account. If Verrils had broken the guys jaw I guarantee you he would be gone for 4 weeks not 2. Just the way it is. Both players (Mitchell and Verrils) injured an opponent and therefore both deserved to be suspended...end of story.
Kay Merda
Roar Rookie
Heads up, NRL HQ My 2 boys (one a rooster, one a rabbit) actually inquired about playing and following AFL next year. Why? "Mum, how can you possibly suspend someone for 2 weeks for standing in front of a falling player"? Other players can knee people in the back, puncture lungs, smash cheekbones, take people's heads off, concus opponents and get 3 weeks? Children have an innate sense of justice and to all and sundry it seems if the "player protection" by the judicial system is simply hot air. If kids growing up in league families feel their heroes are being unprofessionally judged and not protected... you're losing young people VERY quickly
Poss
Roar Rookie
Steve,come on the difference between Mitchell's hit on Joey Manu & Sam Verrills on Kelly's is worlds apart,look at the vision on both hits!!