Judiciary hands down surprise DCE verdict after controversial charge for dangerous throw

Lane was put in a dangerous position. And… apparently the modern game requires someone be suspended. And… I wonder what lesson Olakau’atu is supposed to have learned from this? I wonder what he is supposed to have done differently? The opaque lesson is that you cannot put the tackled player in a dangerous position… regardless of how it came about.

The hearing is reported on NRL.com in blow by blow detail for anyone who wants to read it. I don’t disagree SM, and I appreciate BE’s comment above “in a 2-player tackle, where neither can control the collective outcome”. In this tackle Olakau’atu’s only fault is not knowing that DCE is effecting a judo type hip toss, and he cannot know it is happening until it has already happened. But, they threw Ola under the bus because they could make an argument based on judiciary precedent in DCE’s favour. DCE’s defence argued at the hearing that Olakau’atu was the tackler who lifted Lane, DCE didn’t lift Lane, and this was very similar to a previous ruling where the DCE role received a lower grading. Bottom line, looks like they could see a way to get DCE downgraded based on judiciary precedent, and that strategy required them to blame Ola at the judiciary.

Jake Arthur I think mate.

Rugby League is developing its own language, and none of it is for the betterment of the game. The 'chicken wing', the 'crusher' the 'cannonball', the 'disruptor', 'escorts', the 'downtown'. The growing list never ends. Now, thanks to Manly, we have the 'suplex' and the 'fulcrum' to add to the growing vocabulary of the referees who stopped speaking plain English a decade ago. Soon, the game will need interpreters and subtitles and an expert in linguistics to explain the etymology of these word salad terms.

I’m with you BE. Manly had to engage a barrister and do all the prep and take it to the judiciary to overturn a lazy initial decision by the MRC. Reading the judiciary report the point was made at the judiciary that both tacklers can share relatively equal responsibility and fault. In this specific instance the argument was successfully made that it was overwhelmingly Ola’s role that put Lane into a dangerous position. Clever legal tactics, they worked out who they could get off and who they had to throw under the bus at the judiciary, and accepted the early plea for the latter prior to the hearing.

Fair downgrade from DCE, but I actually think Jake is a better player than a few halves running around in the NRL. I've noticed he often wins trainer of the week awards at the club, so he is clearly putting in. Just happens to sit behind one of the best.

What excuse? Showing video evidence of two other similar tackles that only received a Grade 1 Dangerous Throw? The judiciary also clearly stated that DCEs clean record would not be considered when making their decision.

I would assume professional 18th man Jake Arthur would come in.

I think 2-week suspension for one player is reasonable. The case for the defense seems to have used Olakau’atu as the sacrificial lamb. :silly: As a manly fan, I'm not even sure who they have to fill in for DCE when he's out.

In my opinion it was a dangerous tackle like it or not & because DCE hasn't been before the panel before shouldn't have anything to do with it..It could of ended a lot worse with a serious injury..Will similar offences use this excuse that got him off?

Agree. The hip throw tackle is rubbish and should be banned.

With Sipley back, this is the best set of middle forwards Manly have put on the field for well over a decade. Paseka, Aloiai, Lodge, Sipley and Brown will certainly provide some go forward. For years we've had some pretty exciting, flashy backs but the forwards haven't really set a platform. That appears to be changing in 2024.

I know I’m in a minority here but I really disagree. Haumole’s tackle was legit with good technique. The only reason Lane ended upside down was because of DCE’s hip throw. The first thing you learn when you’re taught that move in martial arts is to hang onto your training partner’s arm – because the chance of them landing on the back of their head is extremely high. Take DCE out of that tackle and it’s a Jurbo style ripper that drives Lane straight backwards and on the flat of his back. I think Manly threw Olakau’atu under the bus because the half is more important to keeping their season on the rails.

Happy for DCE to get off, though it seemed all back to front to me. The argument that his technique is fine and he uses it all the time seems a little flawed when his technique clearly contributed to what happened. if you are using your leg to flip people over, by definition, sooner or later someone is going to go over the horizontal. That said, i think if you go 300 games without landing at the judiciary, then as long as it isn't an intentional charge, you should be able to walk - but weirdly, that wasn't considered.

In the end Lane is very lucky to escape without too much wrong with him and that makes the Big O lucky as well. The penalty isn't too bad as he could do with a rest and Manly have a fairly healthy group of forwards at the moment.

justice

So logically ,if Lane is seriously injured – just double or triple the fine!! The concept of duty of care goes out the window for someone who has been part of thousands of tackles.I guess someone who tips a 300 game veteran on his head will get the wet lettuce treatment as well.Also future infringers can offer up the DCE defence – I was their but the other guy did it

They were just stating facts, it was primarily Haumole’s fault, they realized they had no defence with him and took the charge. I’m staggered anyone would think otherwise. Shouldn’t be much whining about Cherry getting off, they got the right man.

Say what you like about the modern game, but making dangerous play legal as long as the perpetrator can afford to pay a minuscule fraction of their salary in fines is just a fantastic innovation that you can’t help but applaud.

I find it interesting that a 2-player tackle, where neither can control the collective outcome, which if potentially negative, is treated as a 1 player penalty x 2. That concept in itself is legally vulnerable and imo poor. I think a fine for both would have been appropriate. The fact that to appease a flawed judiciary system, 1 player was sacrificed for the sake of better result is absolute rubbish. And Sivo gets a minuscule fine. I just don't get it .... Not happy!!