Sam Verrils facing 2 weeks

[Waz13]

Cant happen if the Judiciary and the NRL wish to maintain any credibility.

The fear is you may be right, but if so the outcome will be wrong, I agree that Verrills had nowhere to go, thing is you don’t have to lead with the shoulder in that situation, which he did and which then struck the ball runner in the face and broke his nose, there should be no chance of a down grade, especially given the extent of the injury to the ball carrier, if there was no injury perhaps the Judiciary could get away with a downgrade.

The injury to player is where any moot point evaporates, its not to dissimilar to Aloia’s 3rd man in legs tackle that saw him charged purely on the back of Garner being injured, we see that tackle every week (call it a cannonball if you want) thing is no injury, no charge, but the player has been injured and Verrills has been charged.

The NRL have backed themselves into a corner on this one, with their stance about protecting the welfare of the players, particularly surrounding the head, head knocks, head injuries and illegal contact with the head, I’m not saying Verrill’s did it intentionally, although that could be successfully argued, I believe.

The fact remains it was dangerous contact to the head, that can’t be argued, it resulted in a nasty facial injury, that can’t be argued, there is no justification or acceptable reason to down grade the charge, Verrills must serve the extra week if they choose not to accept the early plea, up to the Judiciary and the NRL to maintain some credibility now.

Credibility and NRL don’t go hand in hand. He’ll get downgraded for sure. Tbh he’s hardly a superstar anyway and if we are worrying or holding hope that Verrils doesn’t play, we may as well not even bother.

 

[Waz13]

The other matter for the NRL to remember is how the Easts coach went ape**** about Latrell shouldering manu in the face.

He can’t have it both ways.

He can have it both ways and often does.

 

[Rafferty]

Credibility and NRL don’t go hand in hand. He’ll get downgraded for sure. Tbh he’s hardly a superstar anyway and if we are worrying or holding hope that Verrils doesn’t play, we may as well not even bother.

There’s been a few comment about Verrills playing and I’m not concerned from an inclusion point of view as to whether he plays or not, that’s not the issue. I just want to see some integrity in the whole process.

It’s openly looking more and more like the NRL has credibility issues, some of the on field decisions are bad enough, then we have the bunker with the benefit of time and multiple replays from multiple angles that come up with decisions like Guthos drop kick, it’s hard to think things aren’t somewhat on the nose.

It’s also a very poor look (have to be careful how it’s worded) to think that people with power and money appear to be able to influence the game and certain elements of its processes ie the Judiciary, referees, officials etc. I was only ever angling at wanting to see that their is some credibility in place and that Coaches who can say what they like with the backing of a cheque book and powerful people with deep connections, can’t influence the game and or it’s processes, (might be wishful thinking as you indicated)

I fear our game is loosing what’s left of its identity and rapidly becoming an embarrassing farce, I guess I’d just like to be able to believe otherwise and believe in the system and it processes, it’s not really anything to do with Verrills.

 

[Snake]

They’ve been banging on about it being the responsibility of the defender to lower their target...you’ve got Brian Kelly standing almost completely upright and Verrills shoulder makes direct contact with the head, breaks the guys nose and he goes off the field...and the Chooks think a small fine is sufficient?!

 

[Kevinward777]

Credibility and NRL don’t go hand in hand. He’ll get downgraded for sure. Tbh he’s hardly a superstar anyway and if we are worrying or holding hope that Verrils doesn’t play, we may as well not even bother.

He was hailed as exactly what we needed on here last season.

 

[Snake]

He was hailed as exactly what we needed on here last season.

He was playing off the back of a superstar squad that were completely dominating the competition and since then, has had some serious knee injuries. He is not going to be the difference between winning and losing IMO.

 

[The Who]

There’s been a few comment about Verrills playing and I’m not concerned from an inclusion point of view as to whether he plays or not, that’s not the issue. I just want to see some integrity in the whole process.

It’s openly looking more and more like the NRL has credibility issues, some of the on field decisions are bad enough, then we have the bunker with the benefit of time and multiple replays from multiple angles that come up with decisions like Guthos drop kick, it’s hard to think things aren’t somewhat on the nose.

It’s also a very poor look (have to be careful how it’s worded) to think that people with power and money appear to be able to influence the game and certain elements of its processes ie the Judiciary, referees, officials etc. I was only ever angling at wanting to see that their is some credibility in place and that Coaches who can say what they like with the backing of a cheque book and powerful people with deep connections, can’t influence the game and or it’s processes, (might be wishful thinking as you indicated)

I fear our game is loosing what’s left of its identity and rapidly becoming an embarrassing farce, I guess I’d just like to be able to believe otherwise and believe in the system and it processes, it’s not really anything to do with Verrills.

I guess when any business or sport is propped up by gambling revenue we should expect rorting. Ethics are laudable but money provides you with a much more comfortable lifestyle..

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

There’s been a few comment about Verrills playing and I’m not concerned from an inclusion point of view as to whether he plays or not, that’s not the issue. I just want to see some integrity in the whole process.

There's your problem right there: There is no integrity in the process. Never has been, never will be.

The fact that the two Parramatta players who got placed on report for similar shots weren't even charged tends to reinforce my belief that Verills will be free to play.

But really, the whole thing is just a distraction and not worth thinking about. Our boys need to concentrate on their performances. Do that, we'll be good to go.

 

[davohan123]

Everyone knows he will get off.

You can see this as soon as they said they would challenge, they are one of the NRL 's protected clubs.

And everyone knows that Robinson's spray about the refs has worked ..roosters have been given pretty much all the 50/50 calls go there way since that press blow up.

 

[George Rose's Butcher]

They’ve been banging on about it being the responsibility of the defender to lower their target...you’ve got Brian Kelly standing almost completely upright and Verrills shoulder makes direct contact with the head, breaks the guys nose and he goes off the field...and the Chooks think a small fine is sufficient?!

We all know he will get off

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

He can have it both ways and often does.

Yes, those stories abound about this character.

 

[Shoe1]

As it happened: Verrills suspended; Niukore fined

Follow Tuesday night's judiciary hearing for Roosters hooker Sam Verrills live as he makes his bid to escape a suspension for this week's clash against the Manly Sea Eagles.

www.nrl.com

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

He’ll get off , absolutely guaranteed !!

 

[Spartan Eagle]

He’ll get off , absolutely guaranteed !!

It certainly feels that way

 

[Not Paul Kent]

6.32pm: McGrath says there was "moderate force" in the tackle, and while that was chiefly generated by Kelly's running speed, he argues Verrills should have taken it into account as per his duty of care.

"In setting himself for this tackle, player Verrills was always aiming to make the tackle above the ball, in the shoulder area of player Kelly," McGrath says, adding that such a tackle is "perfectly legitimate".

But a miscalculation ended up with the Roosters rake's shoulder/upper arm making "direct contact with the head of player Kelly".

Sitili Tupouniua was also involved in the tackle, but McGrath claims the back-rower did not cause a drop in Kelly's head height or alter his running line.

"There is very little in the way of mitigating features that would reduce the seriousness of the tackle [for Verrills]," McGrath adds.

"It's above the grade-one level, it sits comfortably in the grade-two.

"I concede, if it needs to be conceded – that the speed of the tackle and the degree of force is very much influenced by player Kelly."

McGrath suggests the Klemmer grade-two example is a "useful comparison" with many similarities to Verrills's case.

However, in analysing Paulo's grade-one offence, McGrath argues that Eels forward Shaun Lane knocked Kurt Mann off his running line and "changed the intended target area" for Paulo.

He reiterates his opinion of there being no such mitigating factors in Verrills' situation before wrapping up his submission.

 

[Not Paul Kent]

6.49pm: Making the case for Verrills, James McLeod's argument centres on a few key arguments: there was low force, Verrills did not drive his shoulder or step into contact and Tupouniua forced Kelly slightly sidewards into the Roosters hooker's shoulder.

"There was never any launch of the right shoulder of player Verrills," McLeod says.

"All he does is hold his position and stand upright and execute a catching and wrapping motion … That's part of the reason that his culpability is right at the low end of the spectrum."

He continues: "There is impact from Tupouniua to Kelly, which shifts Kelly laterally – probably about 20-30 centimetres … into the path of player Verrills's shoulder.

"[Verrills] is entitled to set himself before the contact with Tupouniua and Kelly a split-second before … He doesn't have time to adjust after the contact between Tupouniua and Kelly.

"There is just not, in reality, time for him to make that modification."

McLeod says the incident "comfortably" falls into grade-one range with Kelly's running speed and Tupouniua's contact having a bigger bearing than Verrills on the force in the tackle.

"It's minimal carelessness," McLeod puts to the panel.

"And if you tap into your experience with defence and making tackles and setting yourself for tackles, I suggest you'll come to the view that he did very little wrong here."

 

[40 years an eagle]

Verrils should be allow3ed to play, he IS a NB boy.
It is only fitting that he gets spanked out of the finals by us for wearing a Rorters jersey.

 

[Not Paul Kent]

Verrills' representative James McLeod says that "if you're going to apply critical scrutiny", Verrills may have had a "better chance" of avoiding contact with Kelly's face if he didn't get up on his toes before impact.

However, he says that was not an "inherently problematic" or "uncommon action".

Looking at Junior Paulo's comparable grade-one careless high tackle, McLeod says the Eels prop was "less in control", "generated more force", "made flush contact" and launched his shoulder at Kurt Mann.

He adds that Shaun Lane's contact before Paulo joined the tackle provided "an analogy between that scenario and the scenario of Sam Verrills".

And given Paulo's offence occurred on the same weekend as his client's charge, McLeod says it is an example that "strongly suggests the Verrills incident should be a grade one".

On Klemmer's grade-two comparable, which occurred two weeks after Magic Round this year, McLeod declares the Knights forward was more careless and less in control than Verrills.

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew is now instructing the panel and recapping arguments.

 

[Not Paul Kent]

Have to admit they have a pretty strong argument

 

[cava2323]

Meh. Let him play. Shouldn’t miss a final for that.