Is it possible...

[mosto]

...that Christopher Branson withdrawing his services on the day of the hearing was a planned move? I read an article that stated he had (unsuccessfully) asked for an adjournment himself as he did not have enough time to prepare an appropriate defence. He then withdraws his services, virtually forcing the NRL's hand into allowing an additional 24 hours. This way, they get to sit back and see how the judiciary will handle a guilty plea. 4 weeks plus, fight the charge, 3 weeks or less, plead guilty. I'm expecting a change of plea tonight. It may not have been a planned move, but if it was, it's been very cleverly played out.

 

[Matabele]

As I have said in another thread, I believe Stewart's case is now irreperably prejudiced.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

As I have said in another thread, I believe Stewart's case is now irreperably prejudiced.

From my vantage point in the US I have to agree, especially as it's the same panel who heard the Blair case.
They'll give him three weeks too, just to maintain the appearance of fairness.

 

[Stevo]

I don't believe a legal professional would purposely seek to make himself look as unprofessional as he has.

 

[mosto]

They'll give him three weeks too, just to maintain the appearance of fairness.

Exactly my point. While not a given, it is generally believed they'll get the same suspension for the contrary conduct charge (with Blair getting an extra 2 weeks for striking). I believe Manly wanted to see what Blair's guilty plea would bring, if it was 4 weeks or more, rubbing them out for the season, I think they would stick with the not guilty plea and fight the charge. Given Blair got 3 weeks they expect a guilty plea from Gift will bring the same, allowing him to play the GF. I think Gift will now plead guilty.

 

[WAMF]

Just a theory but in another of the 500 threads on the subject, it mentions that both on field referees from Fridays game have been called in for the hearing?
I wonder if there was some form of initial unwillingness by the NRL to allow the referee's to appear at the hearing and if that was the 'technical' issue, that prompted Branson to throw in the towel?

With Alan Sullivin QC having now been appointed to defend Glenn, it's hard to fathom the NRL wanting to mess around with one of the country's leading law experts. Perhaps that's why the refs will now apparently be appearing via phone or video link?

 

[DSM5]

Unfair to have anyone appear via hookup, unless they are out of the country or incapacitated . It predjudices proceedings. Unless these refs and linesman are under 18, then there's no reason why they can't come along and be subject to cross examination in person. Glenn is not going to get a fair hearing and everybody should realize this.

 

[WAMF]

mate, I was speculating about the telephone or video hook up. They may well appear in person.

 

[DSM5]

I should hope they do. Glenn should only get two weeks max. He was unfairly sent to the bin, dawdled off, and was pursued by Blair. A push and shove should never be more than a week or the game will have no players. Interesting that the push and shove in the Newcastle game did not have any problems. Perhaps that's because Saint Gidley ran in as the third man. Hushed up.

 

[Stevo]

Will Gavin Badger have to admit he was wrong or will the referees back up the NRL claim that there was enough time between sendoffs?

 

[Masked Eagle]

To be honest I can't see how making the refs look bad is going to help our cause in the finals.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

To be honest I can't see how making the refs look bad is going to help our cause in the finals.

Only to the extent of the incorrect sin binning and then only if the 2 incidents are assessed as relevant to Gifts defence.

 

[mosto]

Given the plea change to guilty, I'm standing by my theory.