Hugh McGahan: Judiciary still lacking consistency

I am sure I was not the only person surprised at the exoneration of Ruben Wiki by the NRL on his tackle last week in the narrow loss to the Brisbane Broncos. I could not believe the news that this very serious charge was dismissed on a technicality. Ruben was charged with a grade five dropping knees (deliberately using his knees on a tackled player).

My surprise stems from the NRL's response to the charge - not Wiki's involvement. Ruben Wiki would never, ever have the intent to injure anyone in the course of playing this game. Ruben is a gentleman and one of the most respected people in sport today. Despite his judiciary record, he is a player who plays aggressively but ensures there is fairness in all aspects of play.

In all the years I've been involved in sport, I have met people who have aggression in their nature, both on and off the field, and would not think twice about injuring a player if the opportunity arose - Ruben Wiki is not one of those people.

I must admit when I first viewed this incident it did not look good. The knees of Ruben did make contact with the rib area of Corey Parker; the conjecture is whether Parker was deemed to be legally tackled. He already had a few players holding him and was all but on the ground but it was clear he was not going to break the tackle or offload the ball. It is at this point that Ruben joined the tackle and placed himself in the sights of the NRL judiciary.

The defence of Wiki and the Warriors was that the tackle was not completed and hence justified his attempt to complete the tackle. This is where I ask, is there a guilty party here? Is it Ruben and his borderline tackle and placing himself at risk of a penalty, or is it the NRL and their application of the charge against him?

I'll let you decide who is wrong in this instance, because what surprises me now is to hear of the NRL seeking to review how it charges players, as well as changing the wording on its charge sheet to make sure no one gets off in the future.

How bizarre is that? In context it appears the NRL wishes to ensure that no one has the ability to escape the charge - that is surely unfair. During the hearing, the judiciary could not even find that Ruben had been reckless in his tackle. If that was the case, then what was at stake here? Does the NRL want to protect players from injury? Is it willing to seek retribution for what a few people (match review committee members) believe to be intent by players to injure others? Does the NRL want to make examples of players by hitting those players harder who have a history of appearances at the judiciary or those players who do not have a profile in the sport?

I certainly hope the NRL improves the way it hands out penalties. We have seen inconsistencies with penalties handed out and inconsistencies with those who are charged and not charged.

Maybe the NRL need to look at themselves and the way they impose their law and how it affects everyone both directly and indirectly.