Official Bulldogs player given 5 weeks suspension (Corey Waddell)

[Como Dog]

Why would he make a complaint about accidental contact? Only pansies and Tinos do that.

Pansies and Tino are one and the same.

 

[Flanagun]

Yep. It suits the people here that don't appreciate Waddell. But it might be King, Vaughan, JAC, Burton etc that cops a very harsh suspension next time. Might be that a key player for an opponent plays against us for a similar incident that only cops a couple of weeks.just want fairness.

Totally, man.... not to mention our back row stocks are looking really thin for the knights game. Will be good to see what Topine can do with the opportunity, but having both RFM and Waddell out is far from a good thing.

 

[craigo]

He’s actually been pretty good lately

 

[hayes]

Did the tiger bloke make a complaint to the ref?

He stayed down but make official complaint like Tino did.

 

[Philistine]

I am not aware of another judicial system in the free world where the same body is the complainant, prosecutor, jury and judge.

For DinkumDog does this mean that the NRL are corrupt? It could be argued that the NRL process is stacked, rigged and deliberately set up so that they get the result that they want.

Always a Bulldog

Does this mean the NRL are corrupt? You have just provided a black letter law description of "corrupt".

 

[Dawain87]

There is a God!

 

[haz123]

NRL MAY 2022- "Bulldogs for spoon fuck yeah"
Bulldogs early July 2022 "Hold my beer"
NRL late 26th July 2022 " there that should do it"

 

[craigo]

How is it any different to this tackle made by Mitchell

 

[w00t]

The NRL Judiciary is an "interesting" legal process in a number of ways;

1. The NRL are the complainant, not the other player involved.
2. That's why the other player doesn't have to appear. The defence should always have the right to call the player involved but the NRL is afraid that the payers will "stick together". Which is a nice way of saying that the NRL believes that they will lie under oath and not tell the truth.
3. The NRL are also the prosecutor.
4. When a player is put on report they are usually told what for, "high tackle", "crusher" etc. What was Waddle put on report for, surely it had to be eye gouging? Because that was what Tino accused him of and what he complained to the ref about.
5. The NRL is sneaky, they knew he would get off any eye gouging charge so they charged him with Ungraded Dangerous Contact. Nice and vague so they can manoeuvre around any defence of what should be an explicit charge.
6. The NRL is also the jury, their "employees" get to decide the verdict. Last night they were judiciary chair Geoff Bellew and panel members ex players Dallas Johnson and Bob Lindner.
7. The NRL is also the judge, they get to decide the punishment.

I am not aware of another judicial system in the free world where the same body is the complainant, prosecutor, jury and judge.

For DinkumDog does this mean that the NRL are corrupt? It could be argued that the NRL process is stacked, rigged and deliberately set up so that they get the result that they want. Is that corrupt, well in my view it doesn't follow any fair legal process outside of a dictatorship or communist country, so it certainly gets close.

Always a Bulldog

Sounds an awful lot like Russia atm

 

[Psycho Doggie]

How is it any different to this tackle made by Mitchell View attachment 57545

Because JAC is a good bloke who didn't go to the ref and claim eye gouge.

 

[Bob dog]

Crock of shit, skull pull.

 

[JackDog]

This is where our club should speak up and not just take it.

Was this a case of the club deciding the player was not worth spending extra coin on the best representation available?
Will this be another example of the dogs willingness to accept getting screwed by the NRLol?

 

[The__GM]

Is the NRL going to go back and give Latrell 5 weeks for his rake across JAC's face 2 weeks ago? It was late, high, intentional and JAC didn't have the ball.

Who am I kidding, the National Rabbitohs League would never do that.

 

[belmore_utd]

He was just protecting Tino's eyes from getting damaged

 

[D- voice]

8:40pm: The second hearing involving Bulldogs forward Corey Waddell has begun.

Waddell was referred directly to the judiciary on an ungraded dangerous contact charge following a gouging allegation by Titans captain Tino Fa'asuamaleaui during Canterbury's 36-26 win on Sunday.

8:45pm: Waddell has entered a plea of not guilty.

8:50pm: Waddell described his aim in the tackle with team-mate Max King and said at no stage did he put his fingers into Fa'asuamaleaui's eyes.

"I got into the tackle anyway I could, and I found myself in what we call the “seatbelt” tackling position," Waddell said. "I try and straighten the ball carrier so he gives up his base and loses control.

"I put my hand over Max's head and I found my hand on Tino's forehead. I didn’t apply any pressure to his face at all and then I tried to push my hips into his hips to push him back.

"With my right hand I tried to grab his jersey and shoulder. My purpose was to get him onto his back with my teammates falling on top of him.

"As I went over Max's head, I grabbed Tino’s forehead. At no stage do I apply any unnecessary or careless pressure to his face.

"As you can see as he starts to fall to the ground I release my hand. And then he grabbed my hand as he fell to the ground. At no stage were my fingers in or around his eyes."

8:58pm: Under questioning from his legal counsel, Nick Ghabor, Waddell said he didn't know why Fa'asuamaleaui had grabbed his hand.

Ghabor: At any stage did you put your fingers in his eye socket or eyelid?
Waddell: I never felt my hand in or around his eyes at all.
Ghabor: At any stage did you take your fingers across his eyes?
Waddell: No, I didn’t.
Ghabor: At any stage did you move your fingers around his eyes?
Waddell: No, I didn’t.

9:05pm: NRL prosecutor Patrick Knowles showed Waddell a still photo of the incidentView attachment 57527

Looking at that photograph the evidence isn’t correct because your fingers are in the eye socket, aren’t they," Knowles said to Waddell.

The Canterbury forward replied: "I believe in all honesty my fingers are across the bridge of his nose and the bottom of his forehead. You’re talking about the split of a second. My fingers were never in his eyes.

You’re talking about the photo, you can’t tell pressure based on a photo. You’re talking about a split second within this whole second. I understand my hands aren’t in the best spot and in a perfect world they would have been but at no pressure did I put pressure in his eyes.

9:11pm: Knowles: Is this seriously your evidence? You were using your hips and your right hand to put pressure on the player but you were exerting no pressure with your left hand?
Waddell: 100%.
Knowles: What you really did was leave your hand there to complete the tackle, regardless of the risk of serious injury?
Waddell: No, I don’t think I did, because my hand was there for literally one second. As I reached over Max that’s the only place I could put my hand."

9:15pm: Waddell objects to the questioning from Knowles.
"I’m sorry but the whole time - the whole tackle - I never ever had pressure in his eyes," he said.

"I never applied any careless or dangerous pressure".

Judiciary chairman Justice Geoff Bellew interjects: "You weren’t asked about pressure or injury. Do you accept or not that at one point your fingers came in contact with or across his eyes?".

Waddell replied: "No, I don’t accept that my fingers were in his eyes.

9:24pm: Knowles then asks judiciary panel members Bob Lindner and Dallas Johnson to watch a replay of the incident.

"Members of the judiciary, player Waddell is claiming that there is no pressure exerted from his right arm across the area of the face he was touching. It’s just implausible," he said.
"It barely needs to be said that the potential for damage is very serious indeed. There's a high degree of carelessness.

"He's giving evidence to protect his own position, rather than evidence of the truth off his recollection.

9:40pm: Ghabar questioned why Fa'asuamaleaui hadn't been called to testify against Waddell after making an on-field allegation that he had been gouged.

"You know that the Titans player complained immediately about this contact. However, the complainant is not here," Ghabar said.

"You would expect that the judiciary counsel would call the complainant as a witness to determine what the nature of the incident was.
You could also ask whether the reason for the
allegation on the field was to play for the penalty. The best evidence would have come from a person that is not here to give evidence. The absence of the complainant is compelling.

Knowles replied: "No player wants to give evidence against another player. It’s an unwritten code. It's simply not necessary when you've got a number of videos and images where you can determine the seriousness of the incident.


10:02pm: The judiciary panel has adjourned to consider their verdict.
Justice Bellew told the judiciary that the main points to consider were "was there contact? was it dangerous? was it reckless or was it careless?"

10:22pm: Waddell has been found guilty of dangerous contact

The panel was satisfied that there was contact between two of the players fingers and the opposing players eye socket," Justice Bellew said

10:30pm: Knowles has recommended that Waddell be suspended for five matches, while Ghabar argued for no more than two matches.

"Contact between player's fingers and the eye socket of another player is very dangerous and something the NRL must be vigilant to protect players from," Knowles said.

"You should place a penalty on player Waddell of at least five matches. I understand it is a lengthy penalty but player Waddell is not only guilty to reckless contact but you obviously take into account his lack of contrition."
Ghabar said: "There was relatively low or moderate contact, relatively low or moderate degree of force and therefore a relatively low risk of injury to the eye.

"In my submission, you take into account player Fa'asuamaleaui did not appear to be in any discomfort, the risk of injury needs to be looked at in what actually eventuated in this case.

"Of course the player honestly believed he did not apply a degree of dangerous force or contact to the eye. The player honestly believed he did not commit an offence.

"You should not give additional penalty for what judiciary counsel considered a lack of contrition. In my submission this offence is only deserving of a penalty of two matches.

10:42pm: Waddell has been banned for five matches

He was clearly giving Tino a bit of the old headlock treatment that he was dishing out in Origin, so give him the same punishment you gave Tino.

Waddell should have known better, There is no place for any contacts to the head even in a body contact game, we have seen how severely Tina was dealt with for the headlock on Burto in the SOO
Frankly speaking it seems there was an attempt to roughen up Tina, BUT I doubt it was eye gouging !
My question is how did they come to the conclusion it was ?
From the replays it looked like it was just a hand across the face, maybe he ruined his make up
There are great doubts about the Kangaroo court as a whole !!!
Back to football...In today's game the best way we could've hurt Tina is by continually and legally gang tackled him, and needless to say...winning.
There will be other chances for the former !!!

 

[Interestingg]

In hindsight he should’ve properly eye gouged that snitch since he was gunna get suspended anyway

 

[Total Fool]

Looks like it was a bad call on Waddell’s behalf to hire T Barrett QC as his defence attorney last night

 

[wendog33]

Waddell should have known better, There is no place for any contacts to the head even in a body contact game, we have seen how severely Tina was dealt with for the headlock on Burto in the SOO
Frankly speaking it seems there was an attempt to roughen up Tina, BUT I doubt it was eye gouging !
My question is how did they come to the conclusion it was ?
From the replays it looked like it was just a hand across the face, maybe he ruined his make up
There are great doubts about the Kangaroo court as a whole !!!
Back to football...In today's game the best way we could've hurt Tina is by continually and legally gang tackled him, and needless to say...winning.
There will be other chances for the former !!!

And hopefully its gang tackles and rib ticklers all day on Gagai and that's all. No dumb stuff that ex-player judiciary can punish.

 

[GrogDog]

Wow, that's embarrassing. The NRL are on fukin fire!

 

[wendog33]

Wow, that's embarrassing. The NRL are on fukin fire!

Brings yet another aspect of the running of the game under the microscope....the procedural fairness of player suspensions as TT points out and also the affect it has on their clubs ..who really are after all, the main party to be affected.