Some of you legal minds may correct me on this, but it seems as though the judiciary have accepted Blair's defence that Stewart instigated the fight in giving him a sentence less than the NRL pushed for? Surely this means that Stewart's case is prejudiced, because the presumption of innocence does not exist, established in the precedent last night? The judiciary are compormised: It is manifestly harder for them to consider Stewart's case that Blair was the fight instigator because they have already publicly decided otherwise. Personally I think it defies belief that Blair cannot be seen as the instigator: 1. In the first brawl he is the one throwing the uppercut, which is what bought Stewart in to pull him off Lussick. (Blair instigator) 2. As Stewart is leaving the field, facing forward, Blair alters his line and comes into contact with Stewart, pushing him across to the sideline. (Blair instigator) 3. Blair suggests Stewart spoke first, but the vision shows Blair talking at Stewart while he is still behind him, Stewarts lips move second, if at all (unless Stewart has the gift of telepathy). (Blair instigator of verbal communication). 4. After Blair makes contact, Stewart looks to see where the refs are (the NRL will argue this shows intent, Stewart will surely argue he was looking to see if the referees were going to do something about Blair, making it a subjective point). 5. As Stewart is looking, Blair brings his hands up to Stewart's neck. (In the street this could be construed as assualt). Yes Stewart is very quick to start swinging, but the first point of aggression (in both brawls) is clearly Blair. Surely Stewart's defence here is one of self defence. (Blair instigator of first contact again). 6. In the brawl I don't see Stewart makes contact with Blair, except maybe a brushing blow to his mouthpiece stored perilously behind his ear. Blair makes contact with Stewart at least once. On the basis of this, which I believe is comprehensively backed up by the video, on what basis can Stewart be found guilty? He will though, because the charge is a subjective one of "contrary conduct" and presumably it is contrary to be set upon by an opposing player twice and to defend oneself.