Souths prop Tom Burgess could be banned for the rest of the season after copping a grade-two careless high tackle for a contentious hit late in the loss to Cronulla.
Burgess was sin-binned in the 76th minute after his tackle on Tom Hazelton left the Sharks prop dazed. There was contact with the head but it appeared to be incidental and Fox League analysts Cooper Cronk and Mal Meninga said they thought there was little untoward in the incident.
Meninga thought the sin-binning was “a bit harsh” while on Nine commentary, Phil Gould said “I don’t see anything wrong with that tackle” and Andrew Johns claimed “he doesn’t hit him in the head, it was chest on chest”.
But he now faces three weeks out if he submits an early guilty plea or risks four matches if he takes on the judiciary.
Souths coach Jason Demetriou did not dispute referee Todd Smith‘s decision to sin bin Burgess. “I liked the intent but you can’t make contact with the head,” he said. “It wasn’t clear if he made clean contact with the head but I’m not going to argue. I’m not going to argue with a single (refereeing) decision tonight.”
Souths only have three regular-season matches left, plus the bye, and after dropping to eighth after the loss to Cronulla, they could fall out of the top eight if Parramatta beat the Dragons by 22 later on Sunday.
Burgess may not play again this year if he gets suspended.
The inconsistency of the judicial process has been a major talking point throughout the round after Panthers star Jarome Luai can avoid a suspension despite appearing to shoulder charge a player in the head while Titans prop Moeaki Fotuaika will cop a small ban at the most despite being sent off against the Warriors.
The match review committee charged Luai with a grade-one careless high tackle for a shot on Storm forward Nelson Asofa-Solomona during Penrith’s win over the Storm on Friday night.
He was placed on report during the game and has subsequently been handed a lenient punishment by the match reviewers despite this being a “third and subsequent offence”.
Luai can pay a fine of $3000 to avoid a two-match ban.
Fotuaika was banished in the 17th minute of the Gold Coast’s defeat to the Warriors for his heavy contact on Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad which rubbed the fullback out for the rest of the match.
He was charged with a grade-two careless high tackle and is facing a ban of only 1-2 matches depening on whether he submits an early guilty plea.
“I think if you compare the one from last night I don’t think it’s the same sort of thing,” said Titans interim coach Jim Lenihan.
“I don’t think Mo is coming out of the ground or coming recklessly out of the ground, Mo is pretty much bracing for contact. Yes, there may have been a bit of contact to the head and maybe 10 minutes was sufficient.
“I don’t know it justifies at that point to probably ruin the game but it put us under a hell of a lot of pressure and pretty much the game was over at that point.”
His light punishment follows Roosters prop Nathan Brown copping the same sanctions 24 hours earlier after he was sent off in Thursday night’s victory over Manly.
Muzz Manyana
Roar Rookie
The refs are the real superstars of our game and they don't need to be consistent or accountable.If rock stars can improvise so can our games officials. 40 penalties and countless 6 agains makes for great RL viewing. A bronze statue of Ashley Klein should sit right next to King Wally Lewis.
NQR
Roar Rookie
I’m against the Luai hate. Time he was given an abundance of love Albo.
NQR
Roar Rookie
Sorry for chiming in. I’m with Nat on the Mo contact. Mo isn’t really rushing in like Brown IMO. The force of Mo’s contact is mostly generated by CNK speed also. It’s high and a sin bin no problem. Browns is intentional and he’s really coming in hard and high. Brown has to get 4 weeks IMO. Sadly CNK has suffered some serious concussions so any significant heavy contact is going to have him in trouble.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
Very True. Maybe a suspended sentence would have been the way to go...?
scrum
Roar Rookie
It’s simple - you aim that high and the likelihood of the tackle going wrong is also high. The evidence is overwhelming that contact to the head can have serious outcomes further down the line. There are already court cases going ahead and the NFL has already paid out millions and millions. If the NRL sits on their hands they will be sued of existence in the future. And please do not take Gus Gould’s opinion into account. He has bitterly opposed every move to clean up the game.
Nat
Roar Guru
Stop it - this is a serious debate… :silly: A clean sheet Brown (why does that sound dirty) I think is 2-3 weeks every day because of the action. Rushes out, leaves his feet - he has lost all control. The fact his jaw wasn’t broken was luck. At what point is low enough? Take Val, he could have lowered 8 inches and still got Campbell high. Again, not saying I wouldn’t consider it not a sin bin (triple negative - boom) but iof the attackers head is at chest height that’s not a normal tackling position either.
The Barry
Roar Guru
:thumbup: Your last sentence is the clincher I think injury has to be taken into account to some degree. That happens in real life too Brown got 1-2 weeks. If he’d have broken Burbo’s jaw with the same tackle would we have complained at 6-8 weeks? The smaller bloke argument gets us into murky ground. That’s all the MOE reason (get it, get it :silly: ) to bend your back and aim lower
Nat
Roar Guru
See I think there is a fair bit of difference (obviously) and enough so to justify a sin bin over a send off. Mo is 1inch taller than CNK but it took a fair effort for Brown to bounce the 4inches up to collect Burbo. Further the injury/effects shouldn’t be an determining factor because at any point on the head there is 1cm between playing on and knocked out cold. All of them should/will be penalised but the difference between sin bin and send off is massive, therefore, intent and mitigating circumstances have to be considered. Respecting, of course, we are asking for consistency between people’s opinions (refs) so just about impossible.
Albo
Roar Rookie
Panthers don't need him !
Albo
Roar Rookie
A love tap ! :silly:
Andy J
Roar Rookie
They certainly did
Andy J
Roar Rookie
Panthers star Jarome Luai can avoid a suspension despite appearing to shoulder charge a player in the head. How does he get away with it not penalised at the time in fact rewarded as Nelson knocked on and now no suspension Mo gets sent off and is now facing 2 weeks so basically 3 cause he’s already missed one. I guess better off playing for Penrith than the titans ?
Adam
Roar Guru
How can that Luai hit not get a suspension?
Mexican Panther
Roar Rookie
Jarome does himself no favours with the media and in terms of public perception, the way he goes on. But overall, it's all pretty harmless and I reckon being public enemy number one is actually motivating for him. The hit on Nelson was a glance. The big fella didn't even complain despite spilling the ball. Jarome was actually moving backwards!
London Panther
Roar Rookie
I do think that Burgess deserves a suspension for that hit. It was intentful and it was high.
London Panther
Roar Rookie
Luai should be having a couple of week holiday. For me it became a bad tackle when he jumped, same as Homes last week.
WA Sharks Fan
Roar Rookie
100%. The MRC and judicial panel have been a joke the past few years. How Luai doesn’t get time I have NFI. I also feel bad for Burgess, cos based on those 2 incidences alone, Luai was more deliberate and callous than Burgess’ yet Burgess is facing time on the side line anf Luai can walk away and play next week. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think given we’re in a crackdown, Luai got off a bit light… but his hit had nowhere near the force as the others we’ve seen this weekend
Noel
Roar Rookie
I dunno. The cynic in me thinks it will be more like "The Panthers are heading into finals and playing outstanding footy. It would be unfair to rob the fans of the spectacle of Jerome at this time of year".
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
Id be happy with both NAS and Luai copping four weeks for that tackle.