InGusWeTrust
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2021
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 11,435
Thought this article from of all people, Danny Weidler was worth putting up:
Stephen Crichton has been wrongly accused of not manning up to face the music at Kyle Flanagan’s judiciary biting case on Tuesday night.
Crichton was prepared to give evidence via video, but Bulldogs general manager of football Phil Gould stepped in to prevent his club captain from being heavily involved in a judiciary hearing dealing with an incident that was clearly captured on film.
Stephen Crichton made an official complaint of a bite after his tackle on Kyle Flanagan.
Flanagan was banned for four games on Tuesday and will not play again this season unless the Dragons make the finals.
The narrative around the incident was turned on its head by efforts to discredit Crichton. The Bulldogs knew it was not their circus; this was the Dragons’ problem.
Gould has explained why Crichton was not available. In a text message he shared with the Canterbury board and the NRL, his decision to take stress away from his captain is laid bare.
“The NRL bunker system uses video evidence to overrule referee decisions, award penalties, sin bin players, and to send players from the field of play,” he wrote. “They use video evidence to disallow tries, overturn decisions, and tip to match officials during the course of live play.
Stephen Crichton bleeds from the nose after being bitten by Kyle Flanagan.Credit:NRL Photos
“The match review committee [MRC] uses video evidence to decide whether to charge, fine and/or recommend the suspending of players for illegal acts. Video evidence is used extensively at the judiciary hearings for the judiciary panel to determine guilt or innocence. The judiciary does not call players to appear before them to give evidence who have been allegedly hit by high tackles, been subjected to so-called crusher or hip-drops tackles.
“Where video evidence is clearly available, there should be absolutely no reason for victims of illegal acts to have to appear before the judiciary to give evidence. If the MRC believes it has the evidence it needs to make a charge, then one assumes they believe they have the evidence necessary to prove their case.
“Any player charged with an offence always gets the chance to defend themselves if they so desire. The judiciary has always been reluctant to hear evidence from the alleged victims in these instances, citing their belief that players generally support each other under the unspoken ‘what happens on the field, stays on the field’ act.
“If a player makes a complaint that cannot be clearly supported by video evidence, then of course that player should be required to supply a statement of evidence to support his claim. However, where video evidence is clearly available, the victims of alleged illegal acts should not be required to appear before the judiciary to give evidence.”
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/i-...ague-s-greatest-comeback-20240816-p5k2z7.html
‘I hope I can save a life, or inspire just one person to keep fighting’: Inside league’s greatest comeback
Crichton did not make a formal complaint on the field and did not front the press conference on the night but, on the field, the bite was raised straight away. The message was sent through to the coaching staff in simple terms: “Flanno bit Critta”.
The coaching staff were focused on the game and told Crichton to deal with the matter after full-time. Crichton posted a photo on social media after the game that showed his nose in its gory state.
Bulldogs officials were told by the NRL before the game had ended that the club did not need to make a complaint because the NRL already had the incident on video and it would deal with the matter.
The Bulldogs have not commented publicly on the incident and have left it to the NRL to deal with the matter.
Family tradition
Those who know anything about the Flanagan family would not have been surprised at the defiant stance Kyle took during his biting hearing. It is not the popular thing to say because of the family’s ties to some influential media figures, but the point-blank denials of a bite were textbook Flanagan. There was video evidence of the bite, there was photographic evidence of the bite and there were cuts on the nose of Stephen Crichton.
But according to Flanagan and his supporters, there was nothing to see. The cuts? The blood? The stretching of Crichton’s nose as he was pulling his head away from Flanagan’s mouth? Some in the media portrayed the incident as an assault on Flanagan.
It was a staunch and passionate defence, but those making the case now won’t even discuss it. According to some, Crichton left Flanagan with no choice other than to take action by biting his nose.
Kyle Flanagan departs the judiciary hearing for the charge of biting Stephen Crichton.Credit:Wolter Peeters
Unfortunately, Flanagan’s comments about the matter now look embarrassing in the cold light of day after the judiciary loss. If it was a gentle closing of the mouth, as Flanagan claimed, why didn’t he apologise to Crichton for that? A “sorry mate” would have gone a long way. Take that as fact.
The honourable way of handling this would have been to plead guilty. Instead, as is the Flanagan way, it was defiance all the way.
Flanagan has been set an example by his father, Shane, who is now the Dragons coach. In many ways, it has been a great example: work ethic, determination, ruthlessness. When it comes to accountability, however, it leaves something to be desired.
Kyle had to live through the drama of Cronulla’s peptide scandal from 2011-2014. He was a young man trying to forge his way in the game; the rising superstar of the Cronulla district. However, very much in the foreground, was the dismantling of his father’s reputation as he was right in the middle of the Cronulla scandal.
Throughout that time, Shane Flanagan was defiant. He claimed not to have knowledge of what was happening at his club. The injecting of the peptides into his players was somebody else’s doing, not his.
There is a view in the game that Flanagan snr should have been banned for longer than the 12-month suspension the NRL gave him in 2013 if he knew all the goings-on at Cronulla. There is another view that if he didn’t know what was going on in his own backyard as a coach, he should have never been allowed back into the game. He deflected, denied and dodged, but still ended up with a ban from the game.
Flanagan snr was then banned for a second time when it was revealed he was sending emails to the club about football matters during the aforementioned suspension when he was supposed to have no involvement with the club.
All of that would have been hard for his son to watch. It doesn’t excuse anything, but it’s worth remembering when you look at the way he conducted himself during the week in the eye of a media storm
Wtf, I love Danny Weidler now? Haha he fkn roasted the Flans!
