Early Guilty Pleas : Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:44 pm  

Having just read the thread on consistency in handing out bans for dangerous tackles and such like, I wondered what people thought about the latest change to the disciplinary rules: the early guilty plea.

I can't claim to remember every tackle I have seen this season and so I may have forgotten some obviously intentional ones. Of those I remember, two stand out as looking callous but over the Easter period only one appeared to be unequivocally intended to hurt and that was Carvell's kick to Moore's head on Maundy Thursday.

Given that studs in the head could cause lifelong problems (assuming the recipient had a long life following studs in the head of course), and given that there is never a time when kicking back into a player's head from a kneeling position could ever be accidental, was it just to offer Carvell an early guilty plea, regardless of his record over the last 12 months? Surely he should have served the full three match ban rather than 'get away with' only two?

And does such a scenario as the Carvell incident highlight an injustice and/or constraint within the policy of offering an early guilty plea on the basis of previous record? Presumably Carvell hasn't been before the beak during the last 12 months and therefore qualifies for an early guilty plea. However, his action was clearly intentional and callous, as opposed to reckless or foolish, but because the judiciary/RFL/whoever has set down the criteria for qualification, he has to be offered the same opportunity as a player whose tackle was reckless or foolish.

Re: Early Guilty Pleas : Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:27 am  

Grade E-F Kicks head

E 4-8
F 8+ or period suspension

Carvell was not charged with a kick. He was charged with

Law 15.1(a) Detail: Strikes - Kicking out in tackle Grade C MRP - Referred to Tribunal

But as you can see law 15.1(a) does not have strikes kicking out in the tackle as a specific law. So they must have listed it under Other Striking offences A-F and graded it C.

Strikes B-C Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – reckless
C-D Strikes with hand, arm or shoulder – intentional
C Strikes with elbow – dropping on player
C Strikes with elbow – ball carrier – reckless
E-F Strikes with elbow – ball carrier – intentional
D-E Strikes with elbow – tackling – reckless
E-F Strikes with elbow – tackling – intentional
D-E Strikes with elbow off ball reckless
E-F Strikes with elbow off ball intentional

Strikes - knee C Raising knee in tackle
C Strikes with knee – reckless
D-E Strikes with knee – intentional
D-F Strikes with knee violent & aggressive

Strikes - head butting
B Head Butting – makes light contact
C Head butting – makes full contact
E-F Head butting – makes full contact in aggressive violent manner
Strikes – punching A-B Reaction to opponent – lashing out
A-B Punching – self defence
A-B Punching – one on one – minor
C-D Punching – sustained, repeated or violent
E Punching – sustained, repeated, violent & aggressive
C-D Running in & punching
E-F Running in & punching – opponent off guard

Re: Early Guilty Pleas : Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:43 am  

"The option to take an Early Guilty Plea is available to any player who has been charged with an offence of Grade A to C and who has not been found guilty of any other charge of on field misconduct or who has not submitted a previous Early Guilty Plea in the 12 months preceding the date of the match in which the alleged offence took place."

Sorry for the length of the reply but I had to be certain on a few things. So in answer to your question, no it does not highlight any injustice in the system regarding early guilty plea's per se.

What it highlights is a difference in interpretation. If it had been a kick he could not have had an early guilty plea, as it would have been graded E-F with a minimum 4 match ban. Instead it has been judged striking out in the tackle, but with no specific regulation stated in the rules for striking out in the tackle with a kick, someone somewhere has listed it under a grade C.

You can argue the grading is wrong, you can argue it should not qualify as striking out in the tackle, but should be regarded the same as, a kick from say a standing position. Having not seen it I could not comment whether your correct on your view of the kick, but once marked C grade, you cannot argue that the early guilty plea is unjust.


The problem (IMHO) is the pre-justice system, whether to cite or not to cite and at what grade? Once that has been decided, the rest of the system works pretty well as they then have defined rules. It's the bit outside of the defined rules that frustrates me.

Re: Early Guilty Pleas : Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:20 pm  

I suppose it saves time and money by not going to a tribunal to admit guilt, but that's about it.

Re: Early Guilty Pleas : Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:18 pm  

It's also fairly standard in the current climate, how many real world crims get a sentence reduction for an early guilty plea. Even on parking fines you can get a reduction by half.

Re: Early Guilty Pleas : Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:46 am  

It may save time and money, but it really is a 'cop out' and does not provide a deterrence to players and fails to implement the importance of player safety.