NRL judiciary debate

[esoj]

he misses 1 test some games for the aussie provincal comp which he wasn't going to play in and a midweek game against the ospreys. effectively it is only really 1 game.

the nrl system doesn't work because of loading system it has and how players reputations influence decisions. just like in union similar tackles get different weeks and therefore it is not much better.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by esoj+Aug 23 2006, 01:05 PM-->

he misses 1 test some games for the aussie provincal comp which he wasn't going to play in and a midweek game against the ospreys. effectively it is only really 1 game.

the nrl system doesn't work because of loading system it has and how players reputations influence decisions. just like in union similar tackles get different weeks and therefore it is not much better. [/b]

But the loading system does work. If a player is a constant infringer they get worse penalties because their record warrents it... they obviously haven't learnt from their previous suspesions, so the only option left is to hit them harder. If you're a player who has rarely ever gotten into trouble, then it's only fair that you not be treated as harshly as a repeat offender.

Originally posted by esoj@
the nrl has a system but it is horribly flawed and is not a whole lot better at all. the only good thing the nrl has is grading the rest is a shambles.

You don't seem to go into much detail as to why it's horribly flawed. If it's so utterly terrible (and I still think it's light years ahead of Union even if it isn't always consistent) then how could it be made better?
Personally I think there's a lot to like about it. A player knows soon after the game whether he's been cited and then knows the potential penalty and has a couple days to decide how to approach the hearing. If the player feels they have a solid case they can challenge the charge, but in doing so risk a harsher penalty than were they to just plead guilty. I think that's brilliant personally, there's always going to be issues, just like in the judicial system of the real world, but it's set up reasonably logically.
I'm not the only one who thinks it aint half bad either:
<!--QuoteBegin-source AAP and TVNZ

The NRL Judiciary is the benchmark for sports disciplinary tribunals in Australia and maybe the world, according to legal academics.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/454218/621628

What does Union have? A bunch of old farts from the amature days who decide how a player will be punished depending on whether the hotel they were staying at made their late well...

 

[woosaah]

its two different competitions as well, NRL has a set week by week thing, if a player infringers they know how many weeks/matches they are out for

in rugby it all depends on the country the player is playing for. so he got 11 weeks, but its one international match and the domestic season that he wasnt going to paly anyway.

if it was a new zealander, it would be for the air new zealand cup but he may have not got as many weeks depending on how many matches he was going to play in that series.

its hard to say

i might be totally wrong, but thats my view on it, and i hope i put that accross, if anyone can explain it better go ahead. but meh

 

[esoj]

Originally posted by sanzar+Aug 23 2006, 04:02 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-esoj

@Aug 23 2006, 01:05 PM
he misses 1 test some games for the aussie provincal comp which he wasn't going to play in and a midweek game against the ospreys. effectively it is only really 1 game.

the nrl system doesn't work because of loading system it has and how players reputations influence decisions. just like in union similar tackles get different weeks and therefore it is not much better.

But the loading system does work. If a player is a constant infringer they get worse penalties because their record warrents it... they obviously haven't learnt from their previous suspesions, so the only option left is to hit them harder. If you're a player who has rarely ever gotten into trouble, then it's only fair that you not be treated as harshly as a repeat offender. [/b]

it should be the same regardless of prior offences etc. that is the problem. some players have bad reps at the judicary so rightly or wrongly they get punished more even though the tackle they made was no worse than what another player did. sure repeat offenders should get more but that should be naturally done rather than having an artifical system that automatically makes them get more than other people for tackles that are the same. and having points carry over for unrelated offences is a complete joke.

the nrl system is by no means any better off than union where you get inconsistience between similar tackles etc. at least in union players get done regardless of how many offences they have and each case gets judged on merit rather than an artifical system that determines the punishment

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by esoj+Aug 23 2006, 02:29 PM-->

Originally posted by sanzar@Aug 23 2006, 04:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-esoj

@Aug 23 2006, 01:05 PM
he misses 1 test some games for the aussie provincal comp which he wasn't going to play in and a midweek game against the ospreys. effectively it is only really 1 game.

the nrl system doesn't work because of loading system it has and how players reputations influence decisions. just like in union similar tackles get different weeks and therefore it is not much better.

But the loading system does work. If a player is a constant infringer they get worse penalties because their record warrents it... they obviously haven't learnt from their previous suspesions, so the only option left is to hit them harder. If you're a player who has rarely ever gotten into trouble, then it's only fair that you not be treated as harshly as a repeat offender.

it should be the same regardless of prior offences etc. that is the problem. some players have bad reps at the judicary so rightly or wrongly they get punished more even though the tackle they made was no worse than what another player did. sure repeat offenders should get more but that should be naturally done rather than having an artifical system that automatically makes them get more than other people for tackles that are the same. and having points carry over for unrelated offences is a complete joke.
[/b]

I'm really having trouble seeing why you don't see the logic of carry over points and loading... It's based on the legal system and it's a mechanism designed to encourage players to keep as clean a slate as possible, thus equalling a safer game (or at least encouraging it). For example, Morely, great player though he was in the NRL, certainly deserves more for a high tackle than a player who's never been pinned for one even if his tackle is slightly worse. Why? Because Morley hits em high every week, whereas player B almost never tackles in a dangerous way.

the nrl system is by no means any better off than union where you get inconsistience between similar tackles etc. at least in union players get done regardless of how many offences they have and each case gets judged on merit rather than an artifical system that determines the punishment[/b]

Yeah, totally, just like Gregan getting 1 week for a spear tackle thanks to his alleged 'clean record'... That's a load of **** esoj and you know it.
Is it just that the NRL is australian that makes you reluctant to give it any credit?

 

[..::ERIC::..]

You mean the NRL system that lets Johns get away with abusing a ref just because he is Andrew Johns?

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by ..::ERIC::..@Aug 23 2006, 02:59 PM
You mean the NRL system that lets Johns get away with abusing a ref just because he is Andrew Johns?

Get away with? What did he get away with? He got 2 weeks for swearing at a ref who made a call that cost the knights a pivotal game... it was the ref who should have been reprimanded!
In any case the charge was 3 weeks, challenging it meant he risked 4 weeks, but with his public apology and written apology to the ref in question the judiciary showed him leniency. But by no means did he "get away with it"... if it had happened in Union they'd have just had the judiciary swing a roulette wheel and give him however many number of weeks the ball landed in.

 

[esoj]

whatever sanzar the nrl system isn't that great either and you know it. neither system is perfect. I never said there wasn't inconsistiency with the union system either. the nrl system no matter how you try to defend it isn't any better and has similar problems to union with the consistiency.

players like morely and wiki have no chance most times at the judicary as their rep is bad and no matter what they do any tackle they make gets looked at differently and combined with the artifcal system the nrl uses they will almost certainly get suspended for things other players don't.

yes gregan only did one week but like I said before I am not defending the union system either. both are bad.

the only good thing about the nrl is they actually do have a grading system for tackles etc

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by esoj@Aug 23 2006, 03:08 PM
whatever sanzar the nrl system isn't that great either and you know it. neither system is perfect. I never said there wasn't inconsistiency with the union system either. the nrl system no matter how you try to defend it isn't any better and has similar problems to union with the consistiency.

players like morely and wiki have no chance most times at the judicary as their rep is bad and no matter what they do any tackle they make gets looked at differently and combined with the artifcal system the nrl uses they will almost certainly get suspended for things other players don't.

yes gregan only did one week but like I said before I am not defending the union system either. both are bad.

the only good thing about the nrl is they actually do have a grading system for tackles etc

I still don't see how the loading and carry over points make the system 'bad'... to me it's prefectly logical and actually quite a good idea, but I guess you think there's a better way to do it that would some how be fair.

Anyway, we'll never agree on this, so we may as well quit now.

 

[esoj]

indeed we will never agree. it is not fair at all and it could be done better.

for one why do unrelated events count towards other events. that is just stupid. secondly reputation plays too much of a part at determing how many weeks players get. and thirdly just like in union there are inconsistiences between similar tackles etc.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by esoj@Aug 23 2006, 03:25 PM
indeed we will never agree. it is not fair at all and it could be done better.

for one why do unrelated events count towards other events. that is just stupid. secondly reputation plays too much of a part at determing how many weeks players get. and thirdly just like in union there are inconsistiences between similar tackles etc.

Righto, I'm guessing you really didn't read my posts...

Anyway, all in all Lote's got a solid holiday out of this and nothing else, and I think that's fair.

 

[esoj]

I did but I guess you didn't read mine either

and yes at the end of this lote is only really mising 1 test match.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by esoj@Aug 23 2006, 03:30 PM
I did but I guess you didn't read mine either

and yes at the end of this lote is only really mising 1 test match.

What I was implying was that I've spent all this time EXPLAINING THE REASONING behind loading and carry over points and WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO DO, while you've just kept saying 'but it's not fair', without offering any alternative.

 

[sanzar]

In reply to esoj saying that penalties should be at a flat rate across the board, well it was like that for a time, but they found it wasn't enough of a deterent, which is why a players record now comes into the equation. It may not seem fair all the time, but it's no different from recieving a harsher sentance for committing a crime when you're out on parole for a totally different crime. There has to be heavier punishments when players keep infringing, it doesn't matter if they are related or not.

 

[ak47]

There should be loading for repeat offenders of the same offense

not if we have a serial headhunter, but then he gets done for a spear for his 1st time

Either or the NRL administration is turning into a joke nonetheless

Removing the june 30 deadline, and not doing anything else will open mayhem

Raiders could go and sign SBW now, for whenever he is due to expire @ dogs

This kind of whole in the system needs to be blocked ASAP

 

[esoj]

Originally posted by sanzar@Aug 23 2006, 05:56 PM
In reply to esoj saying that penalties should be at a flat rate across the board, well it was like that for a time, but they found it wasn't enough of a deterent, which is why a players record now comes into the equation. It may not seem fair all the time, but it's no different from recieving a harsher sentance for committing a crime when you're out on parole for a totally different crime. There has to be heavier punishments when players keep infringing, it doesn't matter if they are related or not.

I disagree but whatever. and I said a flat rate for simlar tackles etc. unrelated offences should not mean a player gets weeks added for the sake of it. repeat offences defintely consider adding a few more weeks but not like 4 -5 which happens now.

the current system is not working and is a joke. consistient grading for similar tackles and not adding weeks for the sake of it is a much better way than the current system.

 

[melon]

I rkn let the players decide the punishment

 

[esoj]

they already do well at least Andrew Johns does.