NRL NRL 2023 - Round 18

[balmainforever]

Thursday 29th June
Cronulla-Sutherland vs St.George-Illawarra (PointsBet Stadium - 19:50)

Friday 30th June
New Zealand vs South Sydney (Go Media Stadium - 18:00)
Melbourne vs Penrith (Marvel Stadium - 20:00)

Saturday 1st July
Canberra vs Gold Coast (GIO Stadium - 15:00)
North Queensland vs Wests Tigers (Queensland Country Bank Stadium - 17:30)
Brisbane vs Dolphins (The Gabba - 19:35)

Sunday 2nd July
Canterbury-Bankstown vs Newcastle (Accor Stadium - 14:00)
Manly-Warringah vs Sydney Roosters (4 Pines Park - 16:05)

Bye: Parramatta

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/pickem/picks/2023-nrl-board-tipping.126/?week_id=322

 

[balmainforever]

 

[balmainforever]

NRL Team Lists: Round 18

Official team lists, updates and injury news for Round 18 of the 2023 Telstra Premiership season.

www.nrl.com

 

[Aucklander]

Mt Smart is sold out. This is how good a winning Warriors is for the game.

 

[moto748]

Mt Smart is sold out. This is how good a winning Warriors is for the game.

Should be a belter. Looking forward to it.

 

[Aucklander]

Should be a belter. Looking forward to it.

It's nice to be excited by my team.

 

[Falconista]

Perplexing fixturing with the Sharks, Tigers and Titans all having played 14 games while some others have played 16.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Broncos fullback Reece Walsh will miss Origin III after being found guilty by the NRL judiciary on Tuesday of contrary conduct towards a match official and suspended for three matches.

In a highly-emotional, marathon hearing spanning over four hours, Walsh was found guilty by a panel – involving members judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew, Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead – of contrary conduct involving referee Chris Butler during Brisbane’s Round 17 match against the Titans.

As a result of the three-match suspension, he will miss Brisbane’s upcoming clash against the Dolphins and is also ineligible for selection for the Maroons in Game Three of the 2023 Ampol State of Origin series to be played on July 12.

Walsh read a brief statement to the media after the hearing but did not answer questions.

"I am disappointed with the outcome but I accept the decision of the panel," he said.

"Obviously I know that I'm a role model to young kids in the community and I'm going to continue to work hard and be better in those areas that I need to get better at."

Judiciary panel members Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead were not able to reach a unanimous verdict and the issue of guilt was resolved by the casting vote of chair Justice Geoffrey Bellew, under Rule 89 of the NRL judiciary code.

In his summary of reasons for reaching its determination, Bellew said the majority were mindful of the fact that here was no issue that the player had said the words “What the f... do you mean c...?”, and that accordingly, the only issue was whether those words were either:

• directed to the referee in a personal way; or
• directed to the referee in the context of challenging the decision that he made to award a penalty.

The majority were satisfied that the second of those two cases was made out. The reasons which led the majority to reach that conclusion can be summarised as follows.

First, the majority were satisfied that the evidence established that the player had a tendency to challenge the decisions of match officials on several occasions earlier in the game, one of which he had openly remonstrated with a touch judge who had seemingly called a forward pass which prevented his team from being awarded a try.


The majority were satisfied that the evidence of those earlier incidents established the tendency which was relied upon.

However, in accordance with the directions given, the majority did not reason from that factor alone that the player was guilty, but took that tendency into account in its consideration of the whole of the evidence.

Secondly, the majority placed little weight on the evidence given by players [Pat] Carrigan and [David] Fifita.

It was clear from their evidence that each of them had a close relationship with player Walsh, and that in advance of giving evidence, each of them had engaged in separate discussions with him about the incident, and about the evidence that they would give.

In the view of the majority, this had a generally adverse effect upon the reliability of the evidence that they gave.

Thirdly, there were aspects of the evidence of the player that the majority did not accept.

In particular, the majority rejected the player’s evidence that he was not complaining to the referee when he said to him “I stopped running, I stopped running”.

Further, the majority did not accept the player’s evidence that the words he admitted saying were in response to player Carrigan telling him to “slow his f...ing brain”.

Even accepting that those words were said by player Carrigan, and giving full weight to the fact that tensions were obviously high, the majority took the view that
as a matter of common sense, the words said by player Walsh were essentially non-responsive to what had been said to him, and were not explicable on the basis of them sharing a “close relationship”.

That was particularly so, in circumstances where the evidence of player Walsh was that had understood player Carrigan’s words to mean that he should “think and be smart”.

If that was his understanding, there was simply no need to ask player Carrigan what he had meant.

That factor tended against a conclusion that the words were said to player Carrigan as opposed to the referee.

Fourthly, the majority were mindful of the fact that even though essential parts of the player’s evidence were rejected, it remained incumbent for judiciary counsel to prove the charge on the balance of probabilities and that it was necessary to consider all of the evidence.


In that regard, the majority placed significant weight on Angle 3 of the footage.

They were satisfied, on balance, that at the time the words were said, player Walsh was looking beyond player Carrigan and in the direction of the referee.

Finally, the majority placed little significance on the report of the referee. The referee did not give evidence, and accordingly his report was to be assessed according to its terms.

In the view of the majority, there was no significance in the fact that the referee did not react by sending the player from the field, or taking any further action.

It was clear from his report that he was not able to ascertain what the player was saying.

Given that the player admitted to saying the words in question, the referee’s report was of little moment.

In terms of penalty, and in reflection of the fact that the question of penalty is one to be determined separately under the Judiciary Code, the two panel members considered the question of penalty and were able to reach a unanimous position which did not require the intervention of the chairperson pursuant to Rule 89.

The panel took the view that, bearing in mind the basis on which the player had been found guilty, the objective seriousness of his actions was less than those in which the integrity of match officials is directly challenged.

That said, the Panel considered that the offence was nevertheless serious,
involving as it did foul language.

The Panel also took the view that it was necessary for any penalty imposed to act as a deterrent, not only to the player personally, but to other players across all levels of the game who might be minded to act in a similar way.

 

[Falconista]

Broncos fullback Reece Walsh will miss Origin III after being found guilty by the NRL judiciary on Tuesday of contrary conduct towards a match official and suspended for three matches.

In a highly-emotional, marathon hearing spanning over four hours, Walsh was found guilty by a panel – involving members judiciary chairman Justice Geoffrey Bellew, Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead – of contrary conduct involving referee Chris Butler during Brisbane’s Round 17 match against the Titans.

As a result of the three-match suspension, he will miss Brisbane’s upcoming clash against the Dolphins and is also ineligible for selection for the Maroons in Game Three of the 2023 Ampol State of Origin series to be played on July 12.

Walsh read a brief statement to the media after the hearing but did not answer questions.

"I am disappointed with the outcome but I accept the decision of the panel," he said.

"Obviously I know that I'm a role model to young kids in the community and I'm going to continue to work hard and be better in those areas that I need to get better at."

Judiciary panel members Tony Puletua and Sean Hampstead were not able to reach a unanimous verdict and the issue of guilt was resolved by the casting vote of chair Justice Geoffrey Bellew, under Rule 89 of the NRL judiciary code.

In his summary of reasons for reaching its determination, Bellew said the majority were mindful of the fact that here was no issue that the player had said the words “What the f... do you mean c...?”, and that accordingly, the only issue was whether those words were either:

• directed to the referee in a personal way; or
• directed to the referee in the context of challenging the decision that he made to award a penalty.

The majority were satisfied that the second of those two cases was made out. The reasons which led the majority to reach that conclusion can be summarised as follows.

First, the majority were satisfied that the evidence established that the player had a tendency to challenge the decisions of match officials on several occasions earlier in the game, one of which he had openly remonstrated with a touch judge who had seemingly called a forward pass which prevented his team from being awarded a try.


The majority were satisfied that the evidence of those earlier incidents established the tendency which was relied upon.

However, in accordance with the directions given, the majority did not reason from that factor alone that the player was guilty, but took that tendency into account in its consideration of the whole of the evidence.

Secondly, the majority placed little weight on the evidence given by players [Pat] Carrigan and [David] Fifita.

It was clear from their evidence that each of them had a close relationship with player Walsh, and that in advance of giving evidence, each of them had engaged in separate discussions with him about the incident, and about the evidence that they would give.

In the view of the majority, this had a generally adverse effect upon the reliability of the evidence that they gave.

Thirdly, there were aspects of the evidence of the player that the majority did not accept.

In particular, the majority rejected the player’s evidence that he was not complaining to the referee when he said to him “I stopped running, I stopped running”.

Further, the majority did not accept the player’s evidence that the words he admitted saying were in response to player Carrigan telling him to “slow his f...ing brain”.

Even accepting that those words were said by player Carrigan, and giving full weight to the fact that tensions were obviously high, the majority took the view that
as a matter of common sense, the words said by player Walsh were essentially non-responsive to what had been said to him, and were not explicable on the basis of them sharing a “close relationship”.

That was particularly so, in circumstances where the evidence of player Walsh was that had understood player Carrigan’s words to mean that he should “think and be smart”.

If that was his understanding, there was simply no need to ask player Carrigan what he had meant.

That factor tended against a conclusion that the words were said to player Carrigan as opposed to the referee.

Fourthly, the majority were mindful of the fact that even though essential parts of the player’s evidence were rejected, it remained incumbent for judiciary counsel to prove the charge on the balance of probabilities and that it was necessary to consider all of the evidence.


In that regard, the majority placed significant weight on Angle 3 of the footage.

They were satisfied, on balance, that at the time the words were said, player Walsh was looking beyond player Carrigan and in the direction of the referee.

Finally, the majority placed little significance on the report of the referee. The referee did not give evidence, and accordingly his report was to be assessed according to its terms.

In the view of the majority, there was no significance in the fact that the referee did not react by sending the player from the field, or taking any further action.

It was clear from his report that he was not able to ascertain what the player was saying.

Given that the player admitted to saying the words in question, the referee’s report was of little moment.

In terms of penalty, and in reflection of the fact that the question of penalty is one to be determined separately under the Judiciary Code, the two panel members considered the question of penalty and were able to reach a unanimous position which did not require the intervention of the chairperson pursuant to Rule 89.

The panel took the view that, bearing in mind the basis on which the player had been found guilty, the objective seriousness of his actions was less than those in which the integrity of match officials is directly challenged.

That said, the Panel considered that the offence was nevertheless serious,
involving as it did foul language.

The Panel also took the view that it was necessary for any penalty imposed to act as a deterrent, not only to the player personally, but to other players across all levels of the game who might be minded to act in a similar way.

I reckon he was saying it to Carrigan but the fact is, you can't be yelling that in the vicinity of a referee so it's a suspension for stupidity. A necessary suspension though as to act as the deterrent for anyone who might wish to act similarly in a lower level, or any level.

 

[Jatz]

Huge clash between the Bulldogs and Knights...

O'Brien's papers will be stamped if we lose this one.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Interesting defending by the Dragons, just let the outside back go up uncontested a metre out.

 

[balmainforever]

Sloan has no idea under the high ball
It was the reason he got dropped most of last year

 

[nobbyiscool]

Hunt’s given up…

 

[Aucklander]

Boring night of footy. Watched some cricket instead and Master Chef.

 

[Aucklander]

Extra seats being added at Mt Smart too.

 

[eddiesmith]

Great game of rugby league, highly entertaining!

Apparently that was closer than people expected according to Gus, so I’m guessing it should have been 80-0?

 

[nobbyiscool]

Great game of rugby league, highly entertaining!

Apparently that was closer than people expected according to Gus, so I’m guessing it should have been 80-0?

I stuck with 9 for about 5 minutes - made it easier to surf between all the sport on tonight.

Following a little Hynes kick to his winger in the first half, Fittler gives us a frame by frame description of what just happened. No analysis, nothing about what went wrong with the play or if Hynes made a good decision... just telling us exactly what we'd just seen. WTF is that?

 

[eddiesmith]

I stuck with 9 for about 5 minutes - made it easier to surf between all the sport on tonight.

Following a little Hynes kick to his winger in the first half, Fittler gives us a frame by frame description of what just happened. No analysis, nothing about what went wrong with the play or if Hynes made a good decision... just telling us exactly what we'd just seen. WTF is that?

The same insightful analysis he offers the NSW team during SOO?

 

[Jatz]

The Dragons are nailed on for the spoon I think. Just don't see where their next win is coming from.

 

[Aucklander]

Pity about the weather in Auckland.

 

[Ed_Gein]

Lol penalty try to Panthers.... His left arm wasn't even attempting to ground the ball, nor was it impeded...

 

[Paul Kersey]

Someone belt Luai.

 

[Aucklander]

Well, really poor tonight. Souths were very good. Kept pumping the ball in the air and Souths just lapped it all up.

 

[DEVO]

The biggest winning margin since 1935.
Equal third highest score in NRL history and the highest since 2008

 

[Ed_Gein]

Yeah I was just looking that up. Those two winning margins that were bigger in 1935 were within a week of each other and Bulldogs were the losing side on both occasions. What happened there?