Hudson Young suspended for eight weeks

[Mariner]

edit

[Raiders_Pat]

I have no issues with the conviction; it was obvious he did it. I was surprised at the penalty; 8 weeks is lighter than I expected.

I am massively uncomfortable with the chair of the judiciary effectively calling Pompey a liar out of "player loyalty", particularly when earlier this year, Munster refusing to make a complaint was the reason McGuire got a fine. And Munster and McGuire have actual ties of loyalty (QLD Origin), as opposed to Pompey and Young, who as far as I know, have no ties beyond that they were opponents last weekend.

It really is a kangaroo court and something needs to be done about it.

I have plenty of problems wth the conviction. People seem to misunderstand how a judiciary/court should work.

He was charged with an eye gouge. To find him guilty there has be firm evidence of an eye gouge. You see video of hands in face. But he has a plausible alternate explanation for that (trying to hold him up).

Other evidence:

No injury/mark on opposition player's eye/face
No reaction from opposition player
Opposition player testifies and says it was not an eye gouge.

That is the end of the story. Not guilty. In no court/judiciary in the world should you possibly be found guilty after that set of evidence is presented.

You may not like it. It might look bad and It might upset Brett Finch. You may even think he got away with one because the other player wasn't telling the truth. Doesn't matter - not guilty!

This is my problem with the whole thing... the supposed "smoking gun" in Pompey's testimony is his answer to the question "do you believe what happens on the field stays on the field?" Completely stupid imo. The judiciary took his answer to that statement as a sign that he's not telling the truth. This is all while completely missing the fact that he also stated on social media that it wasn't an eye gouge and he chose to appear via video link when he could have just as easily chosen not to show up.

If this was a real judiciary or a court of law, you're right - there was zero evidence to convict Young. In a real court of law, judges decide cases by applying the text of laws and the precedents laid down in previous cases. The NRL judiciary does not take any precedents in to consideration in their ruling which shows you exactly how much of a sham it is.

[Raiders_Pat]

Can't believe he only got 8 weeks.

Whether or not you believe it was unintentional is largely irrelevant. The guy is an idiot for going anywhere near Pompey's eyes. It looked really, really ordinary on replay.

people are paying way too much attention to the way it looked (and their feelings/reaction), and not enough to the logical weight of all the other evidence. This is a typical cognitive bias as we have lots of brain space dedicated to vision, and it looked icky.

But all of the other evidence suggests no gouge. His explanation of trying to hold him up accounts for the visuals (but doesn't seem to match the initial icky feeling, so seems less believable). It was a terrible judiciary decision, from a legal/criminal justice standards viewpoint.

And if he didn't have the prior incident he would never have been found guilty. Which suggests he should never have been found guilty. Prior record helps determine penalty once found guilty. It should not influence verdict.

This is all spot on.

[The Nickman]

Prior convictions should ABSOLUTELY influence the outcome, what drugs are you guys on??

You can’t really argue “it’s not in the guy’s game” or “he’s never done anything like this before” when a bloke’s been suspended twice already for something 99.99% of other players will never even face suspicion of and an act widely regarded as one of the grubbiest in the game

You absolutely lose all benefit of the doubt when you become a repeat offender of acts such as this

[Raiders_Pat]

Prior convictions should ABSOLUTELY influence the outcome, what drugs are you guys on??

You can’t really argue “it’s not in the guy’s game” or “he’s never done anything like this before” when a bloke’s been suspended twice already for something 99.99% of other players will never even face suspicion of and an act widely regarded as one of the grubbiest in the game

You absolutely lose all benefit of the doubt when you become a repeat offender of acts such as this

Usually, in a court of law, prior convictions would have an effect on the sentence or punishment handed down rather than the verdict of guilty/not guilty. Loving the "what drugs are you guys on?" comment coming from somebody who seemingly has little knowledge on this subject but carry on...

[Raiders_Pat]

The NRL judiciary is a kangaroo court in every literal sense of the term and they can get away with it because the general rugby league fan is either poorly educated or went to school in QLD, and therefore has little understanding of what a judicial system actually is

[Botman]

Pat, i dont know why you want to die on this hill
The kid attempted to gouge another player, this is his 3rd time committing this act on a footy field, and has suffered the consequences for it.

Young's version of events does not account of the visuals and the testimony of a player who basically said "snitches get stitches" was rightfully not given it's full weight due to the doubts about it's truthfulness cast by the man himself.
You cant sit there and say "yes, i believe what is on the field the field, should stay on the field" and then expect the panel to take your off the field account for what happened on the field seriously.

[Botman]

And by the way, even if you were to believe the warriors player testimony and say he was 100% right, that only clears Young of a successful gouge. Not of the the attempt. And when it comes to eye gouges, you're going to get banged for the attempt, the fact you were **** lucky enough to miss the guy's eye isnt going to save you from a long suspension, and nor should it.

[Raiders_Pat]

Pat, i dont know why you want to die on this hill
The kid attempted to gouge another player, this is his 3rd time committing this act on a footy field, and has suffered the consequences for it.

Young's version of events does not account of the visuals and the testimony of a player who basically said "snitches get stitches" was rightfully not given it's full weight due to the doubts about it's truthfulness cast by the man himself.
You cant sit there and say "yes, i believe what is on the field the field, should stay on the field" and then expect the panel to take your off the field account for what happened on the field seriously.

If he believed he was eye gouged and simply didn't want to snitch then he wouldn't have appeared via video link in my opinion. He wasn't obliged to appear, he wouldn't have suffered any penalties by not appearing and testifying.

[Raiders_Pat]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

[gangrenous]

The NRL judiciary is a kangaroo court in every literal sense of the term

Figurative.

Yep you’ve got a point that in legal systems priors don’t influence verdict. In this case though the NRL is entertainment and doesn’t need to dot i’s and cross t’s to do it. As long as it’s fair and a reasonable outcome is achieved that’s the point. The judiciary has struggled a lot with that, but here we have an appropriate penalty (if anything unders) for a guy on his third attempt at an eye gouge coming off a suspension for his previous. This is not worth quibbling over.

[Botman]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

[Raiders_Pat]

The NRL judiciary is a kangaroo court in every literal sense of the term

Figurative.

Yep you’ve got a point that in legal systems priors don’t influence verdict. In this case though the NRL is entertainment and doesn’t need to dot i’s and cross t’s to do it. As long as it’s fair and a reasonable outcome is achieved that’s the point. The judiciary has struggled a lot with that, but here we have an appropriate penalty (if anything unders) for a guy on his third attempt at an eye gouge coming off a suspension for his previous. This is not worth quibbling over.

Lol that's the whole point though... the sentencing of 8 weeks is fine based on prior convictions. It's the verdict itself where there is an issue. Based on the precedent cases this season such as Maguire's, both the verdict and sentence come in to question. The NRL has offered no explanation on this.

[Raiders_Pat]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

The video evidence shows his hand attacking the face, there is no clear eye gouge. The video evidence also shows no reaction from the player. Fair enough if the NRL are saying no hand contact to the face is permitted... but that's not the current rule. I see this as a careless incident and he should have copped a fine like Maguire did.

[Billy Walker]

Can't believe he only got 8 weeks.

Whether or not you believe it was unintentional is largely irrelevant. The guy is an idiot for going anywhere near Pompey's eyes. It looked really, really ordinary on replay.

people are paying way too much attention to the way it looked (and their feelings/reaction), and not enough to the logical weight of all the other evidence. This is a typical cognitive bias as we have lots of brain space dedicated to vision, and it looked icky.

But all of the other evidence suggests no gouge. His explanation of trying to hold him up accounts for the visuals (but doesn't seem to match the initial icky feeling, so seems less believable). It was a terrible judiciary decision, from a legal/criminal justice standards viewpoint.

And if he didn't have the prior incident he would never have been found guilty. Which suggests he should never have been found guilty. Prior record helps determine penalty once found guilty. It should not influence verdict.

This is all spot on.

It’s absolutely spot on. My initial reaction to it immediately after the game was the we should ban Young forever and a day. I agree that was based on feelings and reaction because it looked icky. Looking at it again the following day without emotion I genuinely couldn’t see how he could be charged with an eye gouge. You’ve explained it very well Pat - cheers

[BJ]

Reni is a complete waste of airtime. Surely there’s someone out there with more football nous than him. My dirty left sock for example.

What happened to the other sock?

To be honest my right sock doesn’t follow rugby league and is inexplicably into Dungeons and Dragons. I therefore wouldn’t rate its football judgement above Reni Matuia.

[reptar]

Reni is a complete waste of airtime. Surely there’s someone out there with more football nous than him. My dirty left sock for example.

What happened to the other sock?

To be honest my right sock doesn’t follow rugby league and is inexplicably into Dungeons and Dragons. I therefore wouldn’t rate its football judgement above Reni Matuia.

Fair enough. Sounds like an odd pair

[Botman]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

The video evidence shows his hand attacking the face, there is no clear eye gouge. The video evidence also shows no reaction from the player. Fair enough if the NRL are saying no hand contact to the face is permitted... but that's not the current rule. I see this as a careless incident and he should have copped a fine like Maguire did.

And that's fine, Pat. I see a very clear attempt at gouge. VERY clear.
But you're absolutely entitled to that opinion, just as you're entitled to the opinion that this was a charged and decision based on media hysteria. Just as i am entitled to say i think you're wrong and if this act was committed by say, a storm forward, you wouldn't be arguing this week for their exoneration.

[T_R]

What's the penalty for 'attempted gouge'?
Surely the breach in that case is 'raking the face'?

The point is a good one. In any reasonable setting, you can't be found guilty of a crime you have not committed.

[Raiders_Pat]

Lol Pigman we're not talking about who is entitled to think what... we're looking at the facts presented and the way in which they were ruled on. You can't deny that the NRL judiciary has been horribly inconsistent in this sense. This is why they need to start taking precedent in to account (like every other judicial system in existence) so there can be some consistency in the outcomes. This is THE major flaw of the NRL judiciary.

[Billy Walker]

I agree with the notion that Young's actions were unnecessary but I think the outcome was a result of media hysteria and a poor judicial system. There is no denying that. This is just another example of why the system needs an overhaul.

There is actually plenty of denying that actually
The outcome was not impacted by any media hysteria. The outcome was impacted by the clear and obvious video evidence presented.

I think this is just another example of some Raiders fans bitching, because... that's kind of what some Raiders always do.

The video evidence shows his hand attacking the face, there is no clear eye gouge. The video evidence also shows no reaction from the player. Fair enough if the NRL are saying no hand contact to the face is permitted... but that's not the current rule. I see this as a careless incident and he should have copped a fine like Maguire did.

And that's fine, Pat. I see a very clear attempt at gouge. VERY clear.
But you're absolutely entitled to that opinion, just as you're entitled to the opinion that this was a charged and decision based on media hysteria. Just as i am entitled to say i think you're wrong and if this act was committed by say, a storm forward, you wouldn't be arguing this week for their exoneration.

This isn’t a poor raiders angle. There are plenty of people on here saying it’s a bad look and any attack to the head (including Blake Ferguson) should be stamped out of the game. The point Pat has made very well is that the rules and precedents this season (McGuire vs NRL ) allow face contact and in the absence of any evidence it was a gouge the lad has no case to answer and should have received a fine.

[Botman]

Except again, you're missing a vital point of the case put forward
The video evidence clearly showed an attempt at a gouge. So whatever the NRL precedents for incidents where there is no clear attempt at gouge are, they aren't relevant to this incident, since there is crystal clear evidence of an attempt to gouge.

And certain as far as the charge goes, "Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye)"... i think the video fully supports that charge. I can clearly see dangerous contact with the eyes.

[Botman]

What's the penalty for 'attempted gouge'?
Surely the breach in that case is 'raking the face'?

The point is a good one. In any reasonable setting, you can't be found guilty of a crime you have not committed.

His charge was:
30th minute, Grade 3 Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye) on Adam Pompey

[Raiders_Pat]

What's the penalty for 'attempted gouge'?
Surely the breach in that case is 'raking the face'?

The point is a good one. In any reasonable setting, you can't be found guilty of a crime you have not committed.

His charge was:
30th minute, Grade 3 Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye) on Adam Pompey

Doesn't that reaffirm the point that he was found guilty of a crime he did not commit?

[T_R]

And that's a fair point.
Except that there was no evidence of contact with the eye, he denied doing it and the alleged victim denied it happened. There is not a court in the world that would convict on that basis. Absolutely zero chance.
I think Young is a straight out dirty player. I believe that he attempted to 'contact the eye'. But the fact is, there is no proof whatsoever that contact occurred and you cannot convict on that basis.

[Botman]

What's the penalty for 'attempted gouge'?
Surely the breach in that case is 'raking the face'?

The point is a good one. In any reasonable setting, you can't be found guilty of a crime you have not committed.

His charge was:
30th minute, Grade 3 Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye) on Adam Pompey

Doesn't that reaffirm the point that he was found guilty of a crime he did not commit?

Not from the footage i saw.

[Billy Walker]

Except again, you're missing a vital point of the case put forward
The video evidence clearly showed an attempt at a gouge. So whatever the NRL precedents for incidents where there is no clear attempt at gouge are, they aren't relevant to this incident, since there is crystal clear evidence of an attempt to gouge.

Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, but I wouldn’t have thought in the NRL there are any charges based on “attempt”. I’m my mind Papa can throw the worlds biggest right hook at Cameron Smith this weekend and provided he doesn’t make contact he’s a lucky man with no case to answer. I’m sure someone will tell me if my understanding is wrong.

[Raiders_Pat]

Except again, you're missing a vital point of the case put forward
The video evidence clearly showed an attempt at a gouge. So whatever the NRL precedents for incidents where there is no clear attempt at gouge are, they aren't relevant to this incident, since there is crystal clear evidence of an attempt to gouge.

And certain as far as the charge goes, "Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye)"... i think the video fully supports that charge. I can clearly see dangerous contact with the eyes.

I'm not sure how the Young video shows clear contact with Pompey's eyes any more than Maguire's, if that's what you were getting at...

[Botman]

And that's a fair point.
Except that there was no evidence of contact with the eye, he denied doing it and the alleged victim denied it happened. There is not a court in the world that would convict on that basis. Absolutely zero chance.
I think Young is a straight out dirty player. I believe that he attempted to 'contact the eye'. But the fact is, there is no proof whatsoever that contact occurred and you cannot convict on that basis.

I completely disagree. The video evidence to me shows clear contact with the eye.
And the alleged victim denied it happening whilst also basically saying he's not the type to snitch. I completely agree with the panel largely dismissing his account, especially when the video is explicitly clear.

[Botman]

Except again, you're missing a vital point of the case put forward
The video evidence clearly showed an attempt at a gouge. So whatever the NRL precedents for incidents where there is no clear attempt at gouge are, they aren't relevant to this incident, since there is crystal clear evidence of an attempt to gouge.

And certain as far as the charge goes, "Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye)"... i think the video fully supports that charge. I can clearly see dangerous contact with the eyes.

I'm not sure how the Young video shows clear contact with Pompey's eyes any more than Maguire's, if that's what you were getting at...

I said at the time of Young's first charge, that i was appalled by the Maguire charge and that it was clearly wrong and incorrect. I dont believe in two wrongs making a right. I dont care that the NRL **** up with Maguire's charge. That should be compounded by continuing to **** up moving forward. And thankfully they didnt

[zim]

Pat, i dont know why you want to die on this hill
The kid attempted to gouge another player, this is his 3rd time committing this act on a footy field, and has suffered the consequences for it.

Young's version of events does not account of the visuals and the testimony of a player who basically said "snitches get stitches" was rightfully not given it's full weight due to the doubts about it's truthfulness cast by the man himself.
You cant sit there and say "yes, i believe what is on the field the field, should stay on the field" and then expect the panel to take your off the field account for what happened on the field seriously.

See my interpretation of that is you don't hold a grudge for what happens on the field. "Sure the guy hit me with a high tackle but I'm not looking for a square up in the carpark later."
Not "The event never happened and I'll deny it ever happened."

Throughout this it seems I'm the only one that interprets it that way haha. I fully understand why the NRL guys jumped all over the sentence.

[Raiders_Pat]

Except again, you're missing a vital point of the case put forward
The video evidence clearly showed an attempt at a gouge. So whatever the NRL precedents for incidents where there is no clear attempt at gouge are, they aren't relevant to this incident, since there is crystal clear evidence of an attempt to gouge.

And certain as far as the charge goes, "Dangerous Contact (head/neck - contact with eye)"... i think the video fully supports that charge. I can clearly see dangerous contact with the eyes.

I'm not sure how the Young video shows clear contact with Pompey's eyes any more than Maguire's, if that's what you were getting at...

I said at the time of Young's first charge, that i was appalled by the Maguire charge and that it was clearly wrong and incorrect. I dont believe in two wrongs making a right. I dont care that the NRL **** up with Maguire's charge. That should be compounded by continuing to **** up moving forward. And thankfully they didnt

I'm confused as to what your precedent comment is in relation to...

[TongueFTW]

My point of view remains the same - it was a grubby act that deserved more than it got, but in terms of what he was actually charged for and the evidence presented, he should have got off. Having the head of the judiciary (the “judge”) telling the panel to essentially disregard evidence is a farce, and you cannot deny that. This is not a case of “Raiders fans will be Raiders fans” - I think most would agree it was a horrible look, but the point is that the NRL cocked up the prosecution of the case and should have been called on it.

[Raiders_Pat]

And that's a fair point.
Except that there was no evidence of contact with the eye, he denied doing it and the alleged victim denied it happened. There is not a court in the world that would convict on that basis. Absolutely zero chance.
I think Young is a straight out dirty player. I believe that he attempted to 'contact the eye'. But the fact is, there is no proof whatsoever that contact occurred and you cannot convict on that basis.

I completely disagree. The video evidence to me shows clear contact with the eye.
And the alleged victim denied it happening whilst also basically saying he's not the type to snitch. I completely agree with the panel largely dismissing his account, especially when the video is explicitly clear.

You still haven't answered my question as to why Pompey chose to appear via video link... he wasn't obliged to in any sense... if he didn't want to snitch but he thought there was foul play he could have chosen not to testify.

[kiwi raider]

And that's a fair point.
Except that there was no evidence of contact with the eye, he denied doing it and the alleged victim denied it happened. There is not a court in the world that would convict on that basis. Absolutely zero chance.
I think Young is a straight out dirty player. I believe that he attempted to 'contact the eye'. But the fact is, there is no proof whatsoever that contact occurred and you cannot convict on that basis.

I completely disagree. The video evidence to me shows clear contact with the eye.
And the alleged victim denied it happening whilst also basically saying he's not the type to snitch. I completely agree with the panel largely dismissing his account, especially when the video is explicitly clear.

i disagree with that, it showed contact with the eyebrow, no clear contact with the actual eye, which is also supported by Pompey not re-acting at all on the field, I think its pretty much humanly impossible not to re-act if you get eye gouged