Effettua una nuova ricerca
More results...
The Storm have suffered a monumental blow with man mountain Nelson Asofa-Solomona to miss Sunday’s grand final showdown with Penrith after he failed in his bid to have a grade three careless high tackle reduced at the judiciary.
The guilty verdict means the towering prop will miss five matches, with seven-game rookie Lazarus Vaalepu the man most likely to come in for the biggest night of his career against the Panthers.
Finanziamenti personali e aziendali
Prestiti immediati
It’s a massive loss for the Storm given Asofa-Solomona generates quick play the balls and can offload at will, with Melbourne all too familiar with the judiciary this time of year after Billy Slater got off in 2018, while Cameron Smith missed the 2008 decider.
UFC 307: PEREIRA VS ROUNTREE JR | SUN 6 OCT 1PM AEST | Order Now with Main Event on Kayo Sports. Main Event on Kayo Sports and Foxtel is the exclusive home of UFC Pay-Per-View.
Grand Final
Finanziamo strutture per affitti brevi
Gestiamo strutture per affitto breve
IMAGINE WHAT YOU COULD BE BUYING INSTEAD. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
The case has dominated the build-up to Sunday’s decider, with NRL counsel Lachlan Gyles urging the judiciary panel of Paul Simpkins and Bob Lindner to treat it like any other match and to not be influenced by the occasion.
A 90-minute hearing required just a 10-minute deliberation as the panel found him guilty, with Asofa-Solomona – who was joined by Storm general manager of football Frank Ponissi – to miss the grand final and the upcoming Pacific Championships.
The veteran prop had been seeking a rare double downgrade to a grade one which would have seen him escape with a fine.
“Obviously I’m very disappointed with the result,” he said afterwards.
“I had a fair hearing. All my energy will go towards my team to get the result.”
Dr Matthew Morgan was called upon by NRL counsel Lachlan Gyles and stated what wasn’t included in his report was the “definite fact when he plays the ball backwards, disorientation is what I’m trying to get at”.
Gyles pointed out that Collins played the ball the wrong way and also needed assistance to remain on his feet as clear signs of a concussion.
Finanziamenti personali e aziendali
Prestiti immediati
Dr Morgan also explained what was meant in his report surrounding the results of Collins’ test. However, the results of those tests are confidential.
Dr Morgan was unable to go into the symptoms he showed without Collins’ consent, however he made it clear that the Roosters prop showed signs of concussion.
The Storm’s counsel Nick Ghabar asked if a player can pass the SCAT-5 test and still be diagnosed with a category one concussion, to which Dr Morgan agreed.
However, the results of that test remain confidential and the NRL counsel objected to the line of questioning that compared Collins’ concussion to past head knocks, which was upheld by the chair.
‘Risk for unstable shoulders is high’ | 01:59
The Storm’s counsel questioned Dr Morgan, asking where the symptoms are that prove Collins’ diagnosis, with the NRL objecting.
Ghabar suggested that the diagnosis was based on Dr Morgan’s “observation he showed category one signs”.
Once again, Dr Morgan made it clear he cannot disclose the symptoms shown by Collins due to confidentiality concerns.
The comparison was made with Val Holmes’ tackle on Payne Haas in Origin II this year which was classed as a category one charge.
Finanziamenti personali e aziendali
Prestiti immediati
The NRL argued Asofa-Solomona’s plea of guilty, only contesting the charge, is an agreement he committed foul play.
They also claimed all indicators are in line with a grade three charge, claiming Asofa-Solomona made no attempt to lower his body.
They described the level of force as a “high level” which was significantly higher than that of Holmes’ Origin tackle.
Gyles then established direct contact was made to the head of Collins, with teammate Eliesa Katoa dropping his body, while he argued Asofa-Solomona did the opposite.
But the Storm argued that Holmes’ tackle involved a much higher risk of injury than Asofa-Solomona’s.
MORE NRL NEWS
MADGE GONE: Blues, Maguire part ways as door to Broncos job swings wide open
TALKING POINTS: Luai lesson Nicho should follow; Storm trait Panthers should fear
CRAWLS: Don’t fall for NAS sympathy con; ridiculous claims over Cleary blast
Ghabar had explained “there’s no question the tackle was high”.
Finanziamenti personali e aziendali
Prestiti immediati
However, he said Asofa-Solomona’s collarbone was the point of his body that made contact, describing it as “front or chest contact, not arm or shoulder contact”.
He outlined four reasons why the charge should be downgraded.
The first being both arms were spread to be wrapped, the second that the contact was frontal, the third was that the player didn’t rush out of the line, instead holding his position, and the fourth being Asofa-Solomona never left the ground.
“Those four elements suggest the conduct itself was at the lower end of the range of carelessness,” Ghabar said.
He also accepted Asofa-Solomona could have lowered his body, hence why they have entered a guilty plea. But again, he implored the level of force in this case was generated by Collins’ running speed not the tackler, and also also the risk of injury then goes hand in hand with the force of the contact.
Ghabar claimed that Collins also had a chance to protect himself, not putting his “bumpers” up when coming into contact.
Ghabar also pointed to the 11 occasions in 113 games that Collins has exited the field due to a head injury assessment, explaining the relevance of this fact to be that the panel should be “careful” in using the risk of injury to come to their verdict.
The Storm defence is arguing that Melbourne’s defensive line was flat.
He also outlined that Asofa-Solomona’s arms are spread wide ready to wrap around Collins.
He then pointed to the “frontal” contact that he claims to have occurred.
Ghabar also claimed that Katoa’s contact made his teammate’s target area considerably smaller, leaving Asofa-Solomona minimal area to make contact.
The Storm defence explained that the speed in which the contact occurred minimised his chance of lowering his body and Collins fails to protect his upper body using his “bumpers”, leaving his face exposed. Ghabar argued that leaves Collins at risk of injury, which could have been minimised should he have raised his arms.
***** l’articolo pubblicato è ritenuto affidabile e di qualità*****
Visita il sito e gli articoli pubblicati cliccando sul seguente link
Finanziamenti personali e aziendali
Prestiti immediati
Informativa sui diritti di autore
La legge sul diritto d’autore art. 70 consente l’utilizzazione libera del materiale laddove ricorrano determinate condizioni: la citazione o riproduzione di brani o parti di opera e la loro comunicazione al pubblico sono liberi qualora siano effettuati per uso di critica, discussione, insegnamento o ricerca scientifica entro i limiti giustificati da tali fini e purché non costituiscano concorrenza all’utilizzazione economica dell’opera citata o riprodotta.
Vuoi richiedere la rimozione dell’articolo?
Clicca qui
***** l’articolo pubblicato è ritenuto affidabile e di qualità*****
Visita il sito e gli articoli pubblicati cliccando sul seguente link
Informativa sui diritti di autore
La legge sul diritto d’autore art. 70 consente l’utilizzazione libera del materiale laddove ricorrano determinate condizioni: la citazione o riproduzione di brani o parti di opera e la loro comunicazione al pubblico sono liberi qualora siano effettuati per uso di critica, discussione, insegnamento o ricerca scientifica entro i limiti giustificati da tali fini e purché non costituiscano concorrenza all’utilizzazione economica dell’opera citata o riprodotta.
Vuoi richiedere la rimozione dell’articolo?
Clicca qui
Informativa sui diritti di autore
Questa è una parte dell’articolo originale
Vuoi approfondire l’argomento, criticarlo, discutere
come previsto dalla legge sul diritto d’autore art. 70
Sei l’autore dell’articolo e vuoi richiedere la rimozione?
Per richiedere la rimozione dell’articolo clicca qui
La legge sul diritto d’autore art. 70 consente l’utilizzazione libera del materiale laddove ricorrano determinate condizioni: “Il riassunto, la citazione (source link) o la riproduzione di brani o di parti di opera e la loro comunicazione al pubblico sono liberi se effettuati per uso di critica o di discussione, nei limiti giustificati da tali fini e purché non costituiscano concorrenza all’utilizzazione economica dell’opera; se effettuati a fini di insegnamento o di ricerca scientifica l’utilizzo deve inoltre avvenire per finalità illustrative e per fini non commerciali
Finanziamo strutture per affitti brevi
