This is an absolute must to contest. I completely agree with the penalty, strongly disagree with the sin bin and call for an investigation into the charge!
But at the judiciary, I would argue the following by way of mitigation:
1. Pearce was not in an especially vulnerable position. He had not left his feet to catch the ball, passed the ball and not braced for contact or done anything that requires special protection under the rules of the game. In other words, he was ‘fair game’ for a big but obviously legal hit.
2. Pearce was falling and falling rapidly at the time of impact. AFB was committed to making the tackle and, more importantly, entitled to make the tackle (because none the factors under point 1 were present).
3. While AFB did swing his arm, his arm was at best at a 60degree angle from the ground, demonstrating clearly that there was no intent.
4. While an incorrect decision to send him to the sin bin for 10 minutes (of course that standard will never even be consistently applied across a round of NRL (*shut up Ranga, consistency is overrated as all the people want is fairness and fairness dictates that Manly are penalised*)), AFB has already served ‘time’ for his act and the Manly team suffered an in match detriment.
5. The act was on Mitchell Pearce and the majority of fans have been calling for him to be hit in the head for a while. Kind of like how the external ‘howls’ to stand down JDB and DW justified the ‘no fault’ (but we reckon ya guilty as sin) stand down policy.
Ok, I am not serious about point 5 but the others point to the penalty and sin bin being sufficient penalties. I’d love to work on AFB’s defence as I think he has a strong case. Then again, I also thought Billy Slater shoulder charged in the preliminary final last year so what would I know when it comes to the judiciary!
