NRL judiciary: Rabbitohs coach Wayne Bennett slams review panel over Latrell Mitchell suspension

South Sydney coach Wayne Bennett has launched a verbal assault on the NRL’s judiciary process, calling Latrell Mitchell’s four-week ban “ridiculous”.

South Sydney's Latrell Mitchell has been suspended for four weeks.

Wayne Bennett has let fly with a stunning takedown of the NRL’s entire judiciary process.

The South Sydney coach claims Latrell Mitchell did not get fair justice because of the influence of media commentary over his tackle on David Nofoaluma, which he believes had a significant impact on the result.

That’s why Bennett has also called for the NRL to open up future judiciary hearings to the public so every fan can judge panel members as they judge players.

“Make us all accountable,” Bennett said.

He also went into bat for his under siege star, saying Mitchell was not a dirty player and in this instance the game has let him down terribly, declaring it “borders on the ridiculous”.

He was also furious at the fact NRL judiciary member Bob Lindner was allowed to be part of the decision-making process on Tuesday night via a Zoom video hook-up, which he found completely “disrespectful”.

Wayne Bennett has launched an empassioned defence of his star player, Latrell Mitchell, after the NRL review committee banned him for four matches. Picture: Mark Evans/Getty Images

Latrell ‘done over’

Bennett reckons in his 35 years as a head coach he has never seen a player treated more unfairly.

“That is why I am sticking up for him,” Bennett said.

“I have stuck up for other players, too.

“But this borders on the ridiculous and the unfair.

“I have never seen a player done over like he got done over.

“I just feel there has been an injustice done and it has been created by inconsistency.

“Of all the things that go into making a game of rugby league, this is the one area that has the most opportunity to get it right.

“Because they have the benefit of hindsight and numerous opportunities for replays and (viewing) all types of angles.

“But they are making more poor judgments than the players and referees who are under more pressure than anybody.

“Have I seen it in other seasons? Yes I have.

Mitchell’s suspension has caused significant controversy and could damage South Sydney’s premiership hopes.

“But I am probably at a stage now where I am just more unforgiving than ever because it continually happens to the detriment of teams and clubs and players and fans.

“And nobody ever seems to be accountable for the fairness of charges.

“Everything that I say and do and my players say and do, we are all accountable for.

“And the referees are in the same boat.

“But there just seems to be a different set of rules when it comes to the review committee and the hearings themselves.

“And the panel members don’t have to give any reasons for their decisions.”

Which is why Bennett wants judiciary meetings open to the public, either televised or streamed over the internet, which the NRL has previously discussed as an option.

“Make us all accountable,” he continued.

“You can judge Latrell for what he has done. We should know why they determine what they determine.

“Yet they walk out and say ‘guilty’ or ‘downgraded’ and that is it, end of conversation.”

Where’s the transperancy?

Bennett said it makes absolutely no sense what he considered a grade one charge for Mitchell’s tackle on Nofoaluma ends in a four-week ban, especially when other more dangerous tackles this year have resulted in less or no punishment at all.

Bennett backed up his claims with a series of recent incidents that resulted in no charges.

These included a tackle by Manly’s Sean Keppie that concussed Adam Reynolds and didn’t so much as draw a penalty, Penrith’s Viliame Kikau’s crunching shot that left Canberra fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad with a budging disc in his neck, and a tackle from Newcastle’s Tyson Frizell that heavily concussed Gold Coast Phillip Sami.

“But a glancing blow to a player’s face that in my opinion wouldn’t be a strong grade one goes to a grade two that leads you down the path to a four-match suspension,” he said.

“What I know is that they (the match review) are reactive to the press and the media coverage.

Bennett labelled the entire judiciary process as “reactive” and “unfair”. Picture: Matt King/Getty Images

“And you don’t see a better example than on the weekend in the game against Wests Tigers.

“Every incident that the media decided Latrell did not play in the spirit of the game was put under the microscope and driven by the journalists and commentators.

“We have to remember here Latrell was only put on report for one incident.

“But there were other incidents over the weekend where you saw a similar type of behaviour, particular when tries were scored (for which Mitchell copped a grade one for knees into Tigers forward Luke Garner) which have been well documented and there has been no action because there was no commentary on them.

“So does the panel have the excuse that if no one sees it, do we let that go?”

Bennett also exposed another situation of double standards to specifically detail how ridiculous the process can be.

Souths’ Keaon Koloamatangi was charged for a crusher tackle in a game against Canterbury but the Bulldogs’ Jack Hetherington escaped sanction because his crusher on Cam Murray occurred in the act of Murray scoring a try.

“It is unbelievable that anyone can tell you that in the act of scoring a try you can do anything you like to your opponent,” Bennett said of the justification passed back to him directly from the NRL.

“You either did a crusher tackle or you didn’t.

“Now, I am talking about Souths here but I see it happening across other clubs as well, it is just not us.

“But here again Latrell has four weeks of suspensions, $3000 in fines, and there wasn’t a penalty, there wasn’t a stoppage in the game, there wasn’t an injury, there was no medical attention other than a splash of water, and the worst thing you can say about his contact on Nofoaluma was that it was a glancing blow brought about by the circumstances of the situation.

“I am not suggesting he should not have got charged for that. What I am saying is that it has to be in perspective of what actually happened.”

If Latrell Mitchell deserves 4 weeks on the sideline for that incident, I am an astronaut. This game just keeps finding ways to make a fool of itself. Really? 4 weeks? So Latrell was 4 weeks worse than Radley? I must be from another planet. Goodnight all. I’ve had enough.

— Phil Gould (@PhilGould15) April 20, 2021

Not a dirty player

Asked if Mitchell was a dirty player who needed to pull his head in, Bennett fired back: “No, I don’t think he brings it on himself but he plays the game in a manner that is different to how Tedesco plays it.

“But he hasn’t got a history of bad behavior.

“He has three charges sitting on him here and two of them at least should have been concerning acts and the other in my opinion was a grade one, which is a fine, not a grade two and certainly not a four-match suspension.

“Does that make him bad?

“You look across the game and there were a number of those acts on the weekend but does anyone else have their character questioned like Latrell?

“We are not talking about an out of control player here.

“I am telling you that is not the case.”

Mitchell unsuccessfully defended his charges. Picture: Toby Zerna

‘Disrespectful’ zoom

Bennett only found out on Wednesday that judiciary panel member Lindner was not at the hearing.

To say he was flabbergasted was an understatement.

“I find it totally unacceptable,” Bennett said.

“There is no way I would want someone deciding my career or anything that was a serious event in my life with somebody in charge of making that decision on Zoom.

“There was a time in the game when Zoom meetings were required.

“That is not the case anymore.

“You need to be in that room.

“You need to have that conversation with your other members and you need to be able to look each other in the eye and feel what is going on in that room when you are deciding someone’s future.

“Imagine if that happened in a court of law and he was part of the jury?

“I can’t believe the NRL allowed it to happen.”

CRAWLEY: DISLIKE FOR LATRELL TAINTS FLAWED JUDICIARY CALL

– Paul Crawley (Comment)

It was interesting reading some of the online comments that immediately followed Latrell Mitchell copping four weeks at the judiciary on Tuesday night.

What it told me was that a lot of people were mistaking their obvious and often immense dislike for Latrell with the fact the NRL judiciary process got this horribly wrong.

There is just no way in the world anyone with an ounce of football intelligence can swallow the fact that the tackle that gave Wests Tigers winger David Nofoaluma a bit of a bloodied mouth (yet did not cause any serious injury) was deserving of a four-match suspension.

Now, in no way am I excusing the fact that I think Latrell needs to grow up and play with more discipline — because at the moment his occasional brain snaps are really letting him and his team down.

And I wrote a column about that last Sunday in the wake of Saturday night’s clash when the charges first came out, saying that if Latrell and also Cody Walker don’t get the rubbish out of their game then they could well end up costing the Rabbitohs a premiership this year.

I stand by that.

But just because Latrell has a propensity to get himself in a bit of trouble here and there doesn’t give the NRL the right to take after him with a baseball bat to try and teach him a lesson.

And that is exactly what they have done here because as Phil Gould tweeted on Tuesday night: “If Latrell Mitchell deserves 4 weeks on the sideline for that incident, I am an astronaut”.

No Gus, you’re not an astronaut.

Yet still so many fans on social media and comments posted below our online stories wanted to convince themselves that Latrell was deserving of an extended stint on the sideline.

As Carol said: “Mitchell is nothing but a big head. And he will never be regarded as a great. Good to see him pulled back into line”.

And Ken posted: “Back to Taree and play with your toys. Should have got 10 weeks.”

Les wrote: “That will teach him for leaving the Roosters.”

And on and on it went.

Sure, there were also plenty supporting Latrell and the fact the punishment far outweighed the crime.

Latrell Mitchell at the NRL judiciary Picture: Toby Zerna

But it is also the reality that Latrell is without question the most polarising player in the game right now and I can’t help but wonder if that played any part in his ultimate punishment.

While I am in no way suggesting that the judiciary or match review panel are corrupt or acted with any bias and that is what has clouded the judgment here, what I just cannot fathom is the diabolic inconsistencies this has exposed.

Especially when you take the time to compare this to other far more damaging incidents this season that have not received the same severity and in several cases no punishment whatsoever.

Now some will throw back at me the fact Latrell had three charges that occurred during the match against the Tigers and that played into the ultimate severity of the penalty.

But I will say it again, if that is the system then the system needs to be blown up and started with some commonsense factored into it.

Because there is just no way Latrell’s lazy (and, yes, careless/reckless) arm raise at Nofoaluma was worthy of a four match ban any way you want to look at it.

Latrell Mitchell's shot on David Nofoaluma.

As for the two separate charges of Latrell kicking out at Tigers forward Luke Garner, and also dropping his leg into Garner after a try, it is absolutely ridiculous he was charged for these incidents in the first place.

Yes, they were deserving of a concerning act letter from the game telling him to pull his head in or else.

But as Souths pointed out there were two almost identical incidents on the weekend involving Newcastle’s Mitch Barnett and Gold Coast’s Jonas Pearson that did not result in charges.

So again, where is the consistency in this?

And on the Nofoaluma incident, there have been other far more damaging tackles this year that have escaped punishment.

Like when Penrith giant Viliame Kikau clobbered Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad and left the Canberra fullback nursing a bulging disc in his neck that will require surgery and is expected to sideline him for three months.

No charge.

Or Tyson Frizell’s high shot that concussed Gold Coast’s Phillip Sami a couple of weeks back, forcing Sami to miss last weekend round.

Mitchell has been banned for four matches. Picture: Toby Zerna

And then you have the grade two benchmark as I call it, that sickening Felise Kaufusi elbow that knocked out Ryan Matterson back in round two and Matterson still hasn’t returned to the field a month later.

Yet Kaufusi took the early guilty plea and spent two weeks on the sideline.

And Latrell’s tackle was not nearly as nasty and he will miss four weeks.

How does the NRL explain that if they are not saying Latrell was punished for who he is, not what he did?

Is Carol right, is this the NRL’s way of pulling a “big head” back into line?

Or is it just the system that stinks?

Because no one at Souths is asking for preferential treatment, but it would be wonderful if it could at least appear fair.