LeagueNews.co | Jason Patrick
The NRL is considering significant changes to its judicial code at the end of the current season, prompted by leading players advocating for the elimination of extended suspensions for those who opt to contest penalties and end up losing their cases at the judiciary.
Currently, players are incentivized to accept early guilty pleas with the promise of a sentence reduction. Conversely, those who choose to challenge their charges face potentially severe consequences if found guilty by the panel. For instance, Nelson Asofa-Solomona from Melbourne chose to accept a three-match suspension for a high tackle last week, knowing that fighting the charge could have resulted in a four-match ban, jeopardizing his participation in the entire finals series.
Similarly, teammate Harry Grant opted not to contest his own two-match suspension, as a negative outcome at the judiciary could have sideline him for the crucial opening week of the finals.
Officials from the Storm have previously suggested introducing a penalty, such as a fine, for players who lose their challenges, rather than extending their bans by a week. This idea contrasts with other sports, like the AFL, which conducts more hearings without the imposition of lengthier suspensions for those who choose to contest their cases.
Grant remarked on this issue, stating, "I won't comment on all of it now because I might bring myself some heat, but I do like what Frank Ponissi and Justin Rodski said a little while ago about being able to challenge decisions without the fear of the extra week." He added, "I don't think you're going to challenge every week if there's a pot of money that you have to pay if you lose. But just because you disagree and challenge it, does that mean it's a worse offence?"