Canberra Raiders forward Hudson Young takes early plea, will miss five matches

[gerg]

But I'm not sure at all that he did that gerg. I hate the idea of a "facial", I'd very much support the NRL cracking down on it. It was inappropriate what was done. But at the moment, there'd be one "facial" at least every set and the NRL has said nothing about that. They're hardly even penalised on field. If the NRL decide to crack down in a sensible, consistent fashion, that's good. But that's not what the NRL has done, they've proven themselves to be wildly inconsistent.

There is no doubt the NRL is inconsistent and anybody reading my posts for the past few years knows it's a massive gripe for me but there is no good reason for sticking your fingers anywhere near another players eyes. Back when I played it would result in an all in brawl, without a doubt. My post was in answer to piggy asking what the act was worth, on it's own merits.

Obviously they got the McGuire one wrong and he's should also have been a suspension and not a fine.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[raiderskater]

But I'm not sure at all that he did that gerg. I hate the idea of a "facial", I'd very much support the NRL cracking down on it. It was inappropriate what was done. But at the moment, there'd be one "facial" at least every set and the NRL has said nothing about that. They're hardly even penalised on field. If the NRL decide to crack down in a sensible, consistent fashion, that's good. But that's not what the NRL has done, they've proven themselves to be wildly inconsistent.

this this this this this


Eye gouging is a terribly grubby act and yeah, I wouldn't mind some seven-week sitdowns for it. But the NRL needs to be consistent about it. Not just give one guy a $3000 fine (and McGuire had not just one but THREE priors) and then another guy seven weeks.

[Dr Zaius]

The issue here is the Maguire ruling.

Gouging is low and potentially sight threatening. It's not acceptable and deserves a lengthy suspension. I'm OK with the him getting 5 weeks
I'm not OK with Maguire getting away with a fine. In saying that, if the NRL wants to be harsh on this, someone needs to be the initial example. The measure of consistency thereafter should be if anyone subsequently gets a lenient sentence.

[greeneyed]

The issue here is the Maguire ruling.

Gouging is low and potentially sight threatening. It's not acceptable and deserves a lengthy suspension. I'm OK with the him getting 5 weeks
I'm not OK with Maguire getting away with a fine. In saying that, if the NRL wants to be harsh on this, someone needs to be the initial example. The measure of consistency thereafter should be if anyone subsequently gets a lenient sentence.

I agree on so called facials. They should have been stamped out long ago.

But we know what is going to happen after this. As soon as it’s an Origin or Grand Final there’ll be another McGuire ruling. And then it’ll all happen again.

In any case, given what Hudson actually did... I'd be happy with a two or three week suspension.

[RTW]

If Mcquire had copped a 3 week (Young’s is only larger due to priors) suspension instead of a fine would we be having this conversation?




Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

If Mcquire had copped a 3 week (Young’s is only larger due to priors) suspension instead of a fine would we be having this conversation?




Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

No we wouldn't. The argument is about the (lack of) consistency. Classic case of high profile player getting preferential treatment while a realtivrly unknown fringe first grader is made an example of. They got the McGuire one completely wrong.

[Botman]

@Nick... Put it another way... do you think he should be suspended longer than 2-3 weeks? I think the "priors" loadings are ridiculous myself. If they have accumulated points, fine. But they should treat each offence on its merits. I was expecting maybe a couple of weeks... three at the outside. The system is fundamentally broken when we have two incidents side by side, which are approximately in the same ball park... one attracts no suspension and a $3000 odd fine, and the other attracts five to seven weeks on the sidelines.

2-3 weeks is what I think is about right too, maybe a bit light
Which is what Young got. So good news, 300 point charge is right in line with what you just said it deserved.

I’m annoyed by McGuire but I don’t think the NRL should be compounding mistake with mistake. The McGuire charge was was a gross mistake. This is fair

The priors/loading system is a farce and I agree with you there, but the base charge is inline with what you think it deserves. To me, that’s the end of it as far as Young goes.

[BJ]

Is it actually only a 300 point charge as Pigman says? What level of loading does Hudson Young have?

[raiderskater]

The thing is, McGuire had three prior offenses, and Hudson only one. That makes it worse, if anything.

[greeneyed]

@Nick... Put it another way... do you think he should be suspended longer than 2-3 weeks? I think the "priors" loadings are ridiculous myself. If they have accumulated points, fine. But they should treat each offence on its merits. I was expecting maybe a couple of weeks... three at the outside. The system is fundamentally broken when we have two incidents side by side, which are approximately in the same ball park... one attracts no suspension and a $3000 odd fine, and the other attracts five to seven weeks on the sidelines.

2-3 weeks is what I think is about right too, maybe a bit light
Which is what Young got. So good news, 300 point charge is right in line with what you just said it deserved.

I’m annoyed by McGuire but I don’t think the NRL should be compounding mistake with mistake. The McGuire charge was was a gross mistake. This is fair

The priors/loading system is a farce and I agree with you there, but the base charge is inline with what you think it deserves. To me, that’s the end of it as far as Young goes.

But you know it isn't what he gets. And given you accept the priors system is silly... then maybe we could just agree for once!?

By the way, the reaction of Fittler and Gallen on The Sunday Footy Show was interesting... https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239 They were very surprised by the length. So was Andrew Voss. I watched Controversy Corner tonight, expecting they'd be on the attack... but they ended up highlighting the inconsistency of treatment between McGuire and Young.

[Smurfette]

Is it actually only a 300 point charge as Pigman says? What level of loading does Hudson Young have?

I’m wondering this too. I think a Grade 3 dangerous contact *is* normally 300, but the charge sheet shows the base penalty as 500? He gets 50% loading for a similar prior offence, which takes it up to the 750 if found guilty? Happy to be corrected, but that’s how I’m reading it.

[greeneyed]

Is it actually only a 300 point charge as Pigman says? What level of loading does Hudson Young have?

I’m wondering this too. I think a Grade 3 dangerous contact *is* normally 300, but the charge sheet shows the base penalty as 500? He gets 50% loading for a similar prior offence, which takes it up to the 750 if found guilty? Happy to be corrected, but that’s how I’m reading it.

Clearly, there's something they don't publish... because the numbers don't add up.

https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/

[Smurfette]

Is it actually only a 300 point charge as Pigman says? What level of loading does Hudson Young have?

I’m wondering this too. I think a Grade 3 dangerous contact *is* normally 300, but the charge sheet shows the base penalty as 500? He gets 50% loading for a similar prior offence, which takes it up to the 750 if found guilty? Happy to be corrected, but that’s how I’m reading it.

Clearly, there's something they don't publish... because the numbers don't add up.

https://www.nrl.com/operations/the-game/judiciary-code/

I was starting to think it was just me. Maybe it’s the contact with the eyes that bumps it up to 500, but I haven’t seen that published anywhere.

[The Nickman]

I get everyone is upset because of the McGuire fiasco
But what does everyone honestly think it is an appropriate punishment for that action?

2-3 weeks actually seems fine if not light! And that’s his charge. He got a charge that would have sat him down for 2-3 weeks with an early plea
It’s his loading that has beefed up the sentence

I want to know what that act is worth in the eyes of the GH?

I think he should’ve been let off. Like Granville was. Which was ALSO outrageous!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[edwahu]

I found the full judiciary rules here. They are NSWRL but it's the NRL rules with an list of differences.

https://www.nswrl.com.au/siteassets/doc ... e-2018.pdf

There is only a 300 pt grading for the charge and no mention of eye contact as an additional loading.

By the way, I'd suggest saving the document if you can as the NRL doesn't like these things being publically available.

[The Nickman]

It deserves 5 weeks at least. There is no place in the game for eye gouging. It is one of the worst acts of foul play in the game. McGuire deserved the same. There is no way to justify sticking your fingers into someone's eye, with the very real possibility of blinding another person.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Well it didn't happen with McGuire, so the precedent had been set, and youngs didn't look overly deliberate, it was a good old fashioned head rub but looks like tolman was looking for a penalty

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

You see, this argument is stupid. They can’t not suspend people now for eye gouging because they made a mistake. They just have to cop this on the chin.

I seriously think now with all this outrage from guys like Vossy if the club chooses to fight this, it’ll be downgraded. The NRL is so ridiculously reactive it’s not funny

[Botman]

@Nick... Put it another way... do you think he should be suspended longer than 2-3 weeks? I think the "priors" loadings are ridiculous myself. If they have accumulated points, fine. But they should treat each offence on its merits. I was expecting maybe a couple of weeks... three at the outside. The system is fundamentally broken when we have two incidents side by side, which are approximately in the same ball park... one attracts no suspension and a $3000 odd fine, and the other attracts five to seven weeks on the sidelines.

2-3 weeks is what I think is about right too, maybe a bit light
Which is what Young got. So good news, 300 point charge is right in line with what you just said it deserved.

I’m annoyed by McGuire but I don’t think the NRL should be compounding mistake with mistake. The McGuire charge was was a gross mistake. This is fair

The priors/loading system is a farce and I agree with you there, but the base charge is inline with what you think it deserves. To me, that’s the end of it as far as Young goes.

But you know it isn't what he gets. And given you accept the priors system is silly... then maybe we could just agree for once!?

By the way, the reaction of Fittler and Gallen on The Sunday Footy Show was interesting... https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239 They were very surprised by the length. So was Andrew Voss. I watched Controversy Corner tonight, expecting they'd be on the attack... but they ended up highlighting the inconsistency of treatment between McGuire and Young.

The priors system and the grading system are different issues in my mind.
And are actually really, different systems

So no. On this we can’t agree
With an early plea, his base charge was 3 games
That’s fair and right for the act imo
As I said, the McGuire thing is annoying but two wrongs don’t make it right

3 weeks is fair. The loading is **** bit that’s to me a different discussion that exists outside the realms of this incident

[greeneyed]

I get everyone is upset because of the McGuire fiasco
But what does everyone honestly think it is an appropriate punishment for that action?

2-3 weeks actually seems fine if not light! And that’s his charge. He got a charge that would have sat him down for 2-3 weeks with an early plea
It’s his loading that has beefed up the sentence

I want to know what that act is worth in the eyes of the GH?

I think he should’ve been let off. Like Granville was. Which was ALSO outrageous!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're being a ****.

[Neeeegz]

I get everyone is upset because of the McGuire fiasco
But what does everyone honestly think it is an appropriate punishment for that action?

2-3 weeks actually seems fine if not light! And that’s his charge. He got a charge that would have sat him down for 2-3 weeks with an early plea
It’s his loading that has beefed up the sentence

I want to know what that act is worth in the eyes of the GH?

I think he should’ve been let off. Like Granville was. Which was ALSO outrageous!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're being a ****.

Agree. GE, you are on fire lol.

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[edwahu]

So reading the rules (pg 114), it appears its a special charge outside of the normal grading system, hence why it doesn't appear on the normal grading table.

Also this is the relevant part regarding his defence

To be satisfied of (the players guilt), you would first have to conclude that there was a deliberate action of contact by the hand, with one or more fingers, to the face of the player being tackled, such that the fingers either enter or make contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket.

In this regard, a raking action with fingers will suffice to prove the offence, provided that there has been actual contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket, with the intention on the part of the player charged either to injure or to intimidate the player affected.

[Lui_Bon]

"such that the fingers either enter or make contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket.

In this regard, a raking action with fingers will suffice to prove the offence... with the intention on the part of the player charged either to injure or to intimidate the player affected."

Interesting. There's a few points here: firstly, it looks as though fingers could easily have made contact with the eye et al. So there's that. Second, however, there didn't look like any "raking". More a kind of "knuckling" (though the footage doesn't show what any fingertips were doing). Thirdly, I'd love to see the NRL Judiciary try to prove "intent", that is, what was actually in a player's mind... I'm sure this has stuffed them up before, too.

Personally, I'm completely biased and would dismiss the charge. I dunno what Tolman thinks. But if it's a charge attracting 300 points, and there's a loading on top of it, then maybe five weeks is about right if guilty. What I don't like is that you get extras for attesting to your own innocence. That crap was brought in to stop wasting judiciary time and money for players who were clearly guilty - it's not really fair for a serious charge... "But I'm not guilty of neg driving" - "Guilty - now with additional points you get executed". (no offence intended - exaggeration for poor comedic effect)

As for the additional loadings, I can see it both ways. Seems harsh for a loading on one offence to effect other offences? Well myabe not, as the intent was to stop serial offenders who were into a bit of everything. So if you are a head high merchant, you can't suddenly switch to being a cleanskin cannonball artist.

[cat]

I have seen the footage, and cant believe thats a grade 3. Firstly there is no raking action , it is more of a knuckle closed fist, secondly Hudson isn't looking down, so not sure how you can prove he was deliberately going for the eyes

Tolman was waiting to be tackled by Hudson in my opinion after Mason came out having a go at our young guys when we played Souths and Burgess having a few comments to make after Mason said his

I will be very disappointed if we dont contest this but knowing the raiders we will just go with it

[greeneyed]

"such that the fingers either enter or make contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket.

In this regard, a raking action with fingers will suffice to prove the offence... with the intention on the part of the player charged either to injure or to intimidate the player affected."

Interesting. There's a few points here: firstly, it looks as though fingers could easily have made contact with the eye et al. So there's that. Second, however, there didn't look like any "raking". More a kind of "knuckling" (though the footage doesn't show what any fingertips were doing). Thirdly, I'd love to see the NRL Judiciary try to prove "intent", that is, what was actually in a player's mind... I'm sure this has stuffed them up before, too.

Personally, I'm completely biased and would dismiss the charge. I dunno what Tolman thinks. But if it's a charge attracting 300 points, and there's a loading on top of it, then maybe five weeks is about right if guilty. What I don't like is that you get extras for attesting to your own innocence. That crap was brought in to stop wasting judiciary time and money for players who were clearly guilty - it's not really fair for a serious charge... "But I'm not guilty of neg driving" - "Guilty - now with additional points you get executed". (no offence intended - exaggeration for poor comedic effect)

As for the additional loadings, I can see it both ways. Seems harsh for a loading on one offence to effect other offences? Well myabe not, as the intent was to stop serial offenders who were into a bit of everything. So if you are a head high merchant, you can't suddenly switch to being a cleanskin cannonball artist.

There is only justification for loading for prior offences if the punishments for previous offences are somehow considered inadequate. Are they inadequate? Why would the NRL devise a system so that the suspensions for individual offences are deliberately inadequate? It’s a recipe for inequitable punishment for the same offence. Get rid of “loadings” or increase the penalties for individual offences.

[Lui_Bon]

"such that the fingers either enter or make contact with the eye, eyelid or eye socket.

In this regard, a raking action with fingers will suffice to prove the offence... with the intention on the part of the player charged either to injure or to intimidate the player affected."

Interesting. There's a few points here: firstly, it looks as though fingers could easily have made contact with the eye et al. So there's that. Second, however, there didn't look like any "raking". More a kind of "knuckling" (though the footage doesn't show what any fingertips were doing). Thirdly, I'd love to see the NRL Judiciary try to prove "intent", that is, what was actually in a player's mind... I'm sure this has stuffed them up before, too.

Personally, I'm completely biased and would dismiss the charge. I dunno what Tolman thinks. But if it's a charge attracting 300 points, and there's a loading on top of it, then maybe five weeks is about right if guilty. What I don't like is that you get extras for attesting to your own innocence. That crap was brought in to stop wasting judiciary time and money for players who were clearly guilty - it's not really fair for a serious charge... "But I'm not guilty of neg driving" - "Guilty - now with additional points you get executed". (no offence intended - exaggeration for poor comedic effect)

As for the additional loadings, I can see it both ways. Seems harsh for a loading on one offence to effect other offences? Well myabe not, as the intent was to stop serial offenders who were into a bit of everything. So if you are a head high merchant, you can't suddenly switch to being a cleanskin cannonball artist.

There is only justification for loading for prior offences if the punishments for previous offences are somehow considered inadequate. Are they inadequate? Why would the NRL devise a system so that the suspensions for individual offences are deliberately inadequate? It’s a recipe for inequitable punishment for the same offence. Get rid of “loadings” or increase the penalties for individual offences.

I don't actually agree, that the only reason for loading for prior offences is if the punishments for previous offences were inadequate. I'm pretty sure that at that particularly febrile time, their was a widespread "feeling", no doubt from the media as well as social media, that "grubs' needed to be dealt with, no matter whether that was for specific or just general grubbiness. Hopoate is the example. So the loadings system was designed to "eliminate thugs". Obviously it's never either really worked, or been a thing, but that was as far as I remember the purpose of the set-up of charges and loadings.

So when you consider that context, loadings for any previous offence makes a weird sort of sense. As I sort of tried to say, if you have a history of wetting the bed and harming animals, when you are caught lighting fires you probably deserve a lengthier sentence...

[BadnMean]

Here's another precedent from 2014. Grade 1 and no suspension.



To me that is a "gouge action", I didn't see that as obviously with Young.

You can't call precedents from 5 years ago under a different judiciary and CEO in League. This is a Kangaroo court, not the real deal. You can try your luck with the same season or at a stretch, last season but given they give different edicts each year, it's a crap shoot.

[BadnMean]

Here's another precedent from 2014. Grade 1 and no suspension.



To me that is a "gouge action", I didn't see that as obviously with Young.

You can't call precedents from 5 years ago under a different judiciary and CEO in League. This is a Kangaroo court, not the real deal. You can try your luck with the same season or at a stretch, last season but given they give different edicts each year, it's a crap shoot.

[BadnMean]

Can anyone show me footage of the McGuire incident that is not obscured at the vital moment/out of frame when the "eye gouge"occurs?

Please do.

Otherwise Young is stuffed because HIS was caught clear as day on they angle and footage. He feels around, locates the eye and gives a good scrunch/gouge. It was grubby and he deserves what he gets.

Once again- please show footage from within the last year of a similar, clear as day incident. Or just cop it.

Yes similar may have happened but I haven't seen such clear footage before. Bad luck kiddo. Try hitting hard in a tackle and not after the guy is held. That is honestly the message the kid needs, not covering up for this cowardly crap.

And yes, quote me on this, make a thread, make it a cause celebre because it is dangerous, unescessary, ill disciplined and cowardly. Boohoo if Surgess mentioned it, he deserves a month, give or take. He went searching for the blokes eyeball, found it and gave it a grab. A "facial" is an open hand or elbow job.

[edwahu]

So does he give a scrunch or a gouge? Because there's a huge difference.

As for Macguire here's the footage.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1116650194131488768

Its a blatant gouging motion into where the eye is on any normal person, and Munster instantly reacts as such. The NRL charged him and found him guilty so the fact he did it isn't in dispute.

I don't think there is footage which shows a blatant gouging motion from Young at all and not footage which shows the worst possible level of it but happy to be proven wrong if you show us those screen caps.

[-PJ-]

How about Hudsons facial expression at the time.

Was he gritting his teeth ?
Was he smiling ?

All very important when requesting a downgrade..

[edwahu]

How about Hudsons facial expression at the time.

Was he gritting his teeth ?
Was he smiling ?

All very important when requesting a downgrade..

Which is worse?

[-PJ-]

How about Hudsons facial expression at the time.

Was he gritting his teeth ?
Was he smiling ?

All very important when requesting a downgrade..

Which is worse?

Smiling !!

If he was smiling he's showing no respect to the whole Tolman family..

[simo]

I initially said he deserved 2 weeks so if the charge is only for 2 weeks but its his loading that gets him the extras then thats on him. Like speeding with one demerit point left. Needs to clean this area up. Hes been good for us otherwise

[Billy Walker]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What are they seeing i can't?

[/quote]

That’s what Tolman said...

[Billy Walker]

I don’t think it was that bad to be honest. As others have suggested perhaps a week or two to ensure he cuts facials out of him game but it was more clumsy that deliberate from what I saw. Tolman complaining and Burgess giving him up doesn’t help.

[BJ]

@Nick... Put it another way... do you think he should be suspended longer than 2-3 weeks? I think the "priors" loadings are ridiculous myself. If they have accumulated points, fine. But they should treat each offence on its merits. I was expecting maybe a couple of weeks... three at the outside. The system is fundamentally broken when we have two incidents side by side, which are approximately in the same ball park... one attracts no suspension and a $3000 odd fine, and the other attracts five to seven weeks on the sidelines.

2-3 weeks is what I think is about right too, maybe a bit light
Which is what Young got. So good news, 300 point charge is right in line with what you just said it deserved.

I’m annoyed by McGuire but I don’t think the NRL should be compounding mistake with mistake. The McGuire charge was was a gross mistake. This is fair

The priors/loading system is a farce and I agree with you there, but the base charge is inline with what you think it deserves. To me, that’s the end of it as far as Young goes.

But you know it isn't what he gets. And given you accept the priors system is silly... then maybe we could just agree for once!?

By the way, the reaction of Fittler and Gallen on The Sunday Footy Show was interesting... https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239 They were very surprised by the length. So was Andrew Voss. I watched Controversy Corner tonight, expecting they'd be on the attack... but they ended up highlighting the inconsistency of treatment between McGuire and Young.

The priors system and the grading system are different issues in my mind.
And are actually really, different systems

So no. On this we can’t agree
With an early plea, his base charge was 3 games
That’s fair and right for the act imo
As I said, the McGuire thing is annoying but two wrongs don’t make it right

3 weeks is fair. The loading is **** bit that’s to me a different discussion that exists outside the realms of this incident

I’m still confused, because newspapers are reporting it’s a 500 point charge not a 300 point charge as you are saying?

But the NRL charging process is usually as clear as mud and as consistent as the Bangladeshi cricket team.