Nathan Cleary is free to play in Penrith’s mouthwatering season-opener against premiers Brisbane after Panthers coach Ivan Cleary successfully represented his son in a hearing at the NRL judiciary.
Not since the late Bob Fulton represented his son Scott during the late 1990s has a father-son duo fronted the judiciary, but the Clearys successfully argued for a downgrade and $1800 fine of Nathan’s high shot on Wests Tigers prodigy Heamasi Makasini last Friday night.
In matching black jackets, dress shirts and chinos (with football CEO Matt Cameron, football manager Shane Elford and media manager Michael Blok also attending in matching outfits), Ivan won over the judiciary panel after 38 minutes of evidence, arguing that Nathan’s hit was initially to Makasini’s shoulder and warranted a reduction from the initial Grade 2 charge.
“I’m disappointed I had to put him through that little extra work that he had to do outside his normal job, but I’m grateful for his effort,” the halfback grinned after his father’s successful defence.
“I had no say in the matter [him representing me], but he was pretty confident. There were mixed thoughts because the last few times he’s been to the judiciary, it hasn’t worked out too well. But I trust him, and we thought that we had a pretty good case. I’m glad the panel could see that.”
The Clearys illustrated their point to judiciary panellists Ryan James and Greg McCallum with three still shots of Nathan making initial contact of “right shoulder to right shoulder”, as the champion playmaker explained his rush out of the line to ensure he didn’t become a defensive “speed bump”.
Panthers trio Nathan Cleary, media manager Michael Blok and coach-turned lawyer Ivan Cleary.Credit: NRL Imagery
“I’m looking at [Makasini] and he is looking at me, which I believe is why he juggled the ball,” Nathan said as footage of the contact was replayed.
“I deliberately lowered my arm because if I didn’t, I believe I would have hit him in the head. I believe the contact was shoulder to shoulder. I also hit the ball and that’s why it was dislodged.”
After just 12 minutes of deliberation, the judiciary panel agreed unanimously, with Cleary’s initial contact ruled to have been with Makasini’s shoulder.
NRL counsel Lachlan Gyles declined to cross-examine Cleary. He instead addressed the judiciary panel and argued Cleary “continued his acceleration” out of the defensive line “through the target” for a level of force consistent with a grade 2 charge.
Gyles also contended that Cleary showed carelessness in defence by approaching Makasini without enough time to adjust, and argued that had Makasini not rotated his head at the point of impact, “there could have been facial injuries”.
Ivan Cleary countered by pointing out that Makasini did not require a HIA and that “we feel [Makasini] did have an opportunity to protect himself and also he dropped his body height.”
Penrith had risked a three-game suspension for their star halfback had the coach’s judiciary challenge failed. Ivan explained that he chose to represent his son “to provide rugby league context” to the defence, but noted the club planned to use the services of regular legal eagle Nick Ghabar in the future.
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
Most Viewed in Sport
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: www.smh.com.au
